The right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures,

Keeping on the subject of the European Court of Human Rights decision on the powers to stop and search under the UKs Terrorism Act 2000 the Heresiarch has a superb piece on why the Act isn't in any way fit for purpose.  The statistics he gives are scary...  100 000 searches a year or more...  and not a single terrorist related charge.  ..just a well oiled machine for intruding on people minding their own business.  Search without probable cause...  means you're probably not going to find anything doesn't it?

Curiously enough powers of random search were just one of the things that sparked discontent in the colonies across the pond way back when, prompting the American Fourth Amendment. Is it so hard to remember the lessons of history?

We've not learnt much in two hundred years have we?

EU Big Brother plans

More in English on the Stockholm Programme - "a five-year plan they claim is designed to make it easier to catch criminals and keep Europe’s citizens safe".

Cribbed from the ever resourceful HAX...

Infiltrating the Vegan Underground

By a kind of circuitous route I ended up at an interesting blog post on Greenisthenewred with the interesting title "10 easy ways to be labelled a "Terrorist" by the government". ..meaning of course the American government.

I liked number 8 - attend Vegan Potlucks.......

..but ... the article gives a scary reminder that legislation aimed at stopping suicide bombers and plane hijacks gets pointed at a completely different scale of activity - including things that are explicitly legal (not least in constitutional America). Running a website reporting on activist activities for instance.

In a separate piece the same author - Will Potter - highlights the hypocracy in labelling activists as 'Eco-terrorists' when it is in fact big corporations that are actively polluting the environment - and at times breaking the law to do so.

All is not well in the state of...

Pakistan.

Two separate news items caught my attention today on Pakistan.  The first was simply sad -  an attack on the players from the Sri Lankan test team...  which, as the saying goes, is simply not cricket.  While (almost) unheard of here, cricket has a huge following in the Indian sub-continent which means this attack will get lots of press coverage and affect peoples attitudes much more perhaps than attacks on tourists at the beach.  However, given the popular support for the sport it doesn't seem like the sort of attack that will go far in winning hearts and minds.  We can hope so in any case....

The other report was much less high profile - but potentially more deadly.  Rival taliban groups in Pakistans Waziristan region are to settle their differences and unite against US forces.  What's most disturbing for me in this is hearing just how much control these extremist groups have within Pakistan - they seem to have fought the Pakistani government to a truce. And the government have now accepted the introduction of Sharia law in the area which sounds pretty much like abdicating control....  

Feeling threatened?

The FRA want (and at the moment will get) new powers to carry out surveillance on all cable traffic crossing Swedens borders - so we may wonder what is the threat that needs these new powers?

Changes in the law will mean that the scope of FRA activity changes from "external military threats" to just "external threats".. a not insignificant change. So what is Sweden afraid of? (bearing in mind that 'national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country' are the only possible justifications to support a massive violation of the right to privacy given by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)

Terrorism!?
Sweden is clearly a high profile target for terrorists.
err. NOT!

Sweden is placed 97 out of 160 on a global terrorism index. Since the infamous 9/11 attack there has been precisely noll fatalities in Sweden from terrorism (casualties in the Bali bombing excluded).
And.. which you might have missed.. terrorism globally is on the decline.
Don't take my word for it - read this well researched report by the Human Security Brief - an organisation part funded by the Swedish government.
So the Swedish government are legislating for increased powers at a time when the real threat is declining... Does that make sense?

Military threat?
What real military threat exists then that threaten the security of the Swedish state?
Sweden has troops deployed on peace keeping duties in Afghanistan for instance - but troops in foreign places aren't the Swedish state and it's hard to see that any attack on troops in Afghanistan could constitute a threat to Sweden - sad as it would be for soldiers relatives if somone died.
What might you consider a proportional threat to justify surveillance of the communications of everyone in the country? If it's not a threat of war or invasion for me it doesn't make the grade... But come on guys - there hasn't been an invading foreign army in Sweden for two hundred years! (...unless you count that unfortunate incident in 1940). Are you really worried about that?

Yes, we know (because Ingvar told us, the scalliwag) that the FRA has helped keep the peace when you've had a tiff while playing chicken with the russians... but that was radio signal monitoring.. and your cable surveillance really isn't going to help there is it?

So, if terrorism is declining, and the real threat to national security isn't at a level to justify mass surveillance. What is left? Can it be a coincidence that you want to broaden your outlook a bit? Political and economic threats... think of all the analysts you can employ stirring that pot....