The DNA of the UK Constitution

The European Union really makes my blood boil. If they’re not telling us what shape our bananas should be, they’re ordering our grocers to sell potatoes by the metre. Now, in the latest piece of politically correct European legislation, convicted paedophiles will be allowed to keep a pale 8 year old boy in their cells, after the European Court of Justice ruled that this was a fundamental “Yuman Rite”.* You couldn’t make it up.† We’re literally going to hell in a handcart.Or so you’d believe if you had access to no other media than the Daily Mail. But even readers of what Alan Partridge described as “arguably the best newspaper in the world” surely can’t complain about a recent judgement from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which ruled that it is illegal to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints of people who have never been convicted of a crime.The case was brought by two men from Sheffield whose DNA was taken after they were arrested on two separate and unrelated charges; one case involving alleged harassment was dropped, while the other man was acquitted of attempted robbery. Yet in spite of their innocence, these two men’s DNA and prints are still on a national criminal database, along with 570,000 other profiles of innocent individuals (some sources, notably today’s Guardian, say 850,000).In reaction to the ruling the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said that while she was “disappointed” (shouldn’t that be “disappointing”? Ed.), the existing law would remain in place “while we carefully consider the judgement.”Well Jacqui, consider this. Presumption of innocence is an inseparable part of this country’s DNA, stretching back at least to Magna Carta. The principle of ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (that the burden of proof rests on whom asserts and not on whom denies, for those of you with a state education) is a fundamental foundation of our entire legal system which, in spite of frequent criticisms, remains one of the best in the world.Ms Smith argues that DNA and fingerprinting is vital in the fight against crime, and claims that it provides the police with more than 3,500 matches a month. But Jacqui, we’re going to let you into a little secret. You know that statue of Justice on top of the Old Bailey? What’s that she’s holding in her left hand? That’s right – scales! And do you know what that represents, Jacqui?Yes, it’s balance! And that’s what justice is all about – balance.Taking the Home Secretary’s comments at face value, we should take the prints and DNA of every British child at birth; then we’d have a nice big database of everyone’s details. But that wouldn’t play very well with the public, would it, so how about taking young people’s DNA the moment they turn 16 – what could be objectionable about that?Merely the fact that it criminalises the innocent and robs us of a fundamental principle of our centuries-old legal system.The EU can often be a ponderous, calciferous and obtuse organisation, but we should applaud it when it makes the right decisions. Well done.* Probably.† Well, actually you could.

Are you Fur Real?

The use of real fur in fashion has, in recent years, sparked huge protest from various extremist groups, People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in particular. But the presence of fur in the fashion world can be contested in numerous ways.Animal Rights extremists argue that there is no need for designers to use real fur in today’s world when there are such realistic and “ethically correct” imitation furs that can be used.This is the argument hurled at Blackglama’s new fur campaign headed by Liz Hurley. She has been on the receiving end of some harsh criticism from PETA claiming that “her wardrobe is now as dead as her career”.With groups such as PETA on the war path you may ask why designers still insist on using real fur when it is so blatantly going to attract such extreme protest with the splashing of red paint, wine, or any other “ethical” substances over any fur garments worn in public.Maybe these extreme animal rights activists are demonstrating a valid argument and the existence of such realistic fur imitations has made the need for real fur redundant, making the use of real fur in fashion ethically unacceptable.However, when considering the debate surrounding fur, we must go back to our caveman roots and remember that in those early days, real fur was used for survival to keep warm. There were no ethical issues in those simpler times. So if the cavemen of our primitive world thought it natural to use the animal’s fur, why do we have a problem with it now? And if Liz Hurley wishes to regress to those prehistoric times then who are we, or PETA, to judge?But perhaps it’s all merely a publicity stunt nowadays with phrases such as “there is no such thing as bad publicity” being coined in the minds of many of those who are hungry for exposure. With well known celebrities such as Natalie Imbruglia heading PETA’s own anti-fur campaign, we must consider the obvious publicity that these situations induce. So we must ask, is this all a PR stunt for the models and the fashion industry that animal rights activists are playing into? Or are groups such as PETA just as aware of the benefit of such publicity as everyone else?

Kangaroo's Hopping Onto our Screens in the New Year

It would seem that despite the current financial climate the whole IPTV/Video on Demand market is bubbling along nicely.Recent reports suggest that the joint TV on demand venture between ITV, Channel 4 and the Beeb will be hitting our screens early 2009.According to the Guardian"It is understood that Project Kangaroo will go into alpha mode in December with the uploading of programming content and aims to launch trials of the service early next year.The trials, or beta phase, will see a limited number of users allowed to access the service in a strictly closed test of the service's usability and functionality."Should we be asking Santa for an ADSL 2+ net connection or will the project be killed off by the Competition Commission before it even gets going?

Two cheers for the NHS

Of all the categories of sensitive data, it is information about our health and our medical histories that is perhaps the most personal and private.For example, you wouldn’t want a stranger – or worse, a colleague – knowing that you’re being prescribed Anusol Ultra for your chalfonts, would you? Nor would you want your boss to know about the methadone prescription, or your mother to know about your latest suicide attempt. Unless, of course, it was a cry for help.But even if it contains nothing as dramatic as an overdose, we tend to guard our medical history very jealously.So it may come as a shock to learn that not only has the NHS amassed a central database of around one billion confidential records of patient visits to hospital, it is routinely sending some of these records to an academic organisation outside the NHS. These records contain personally identifiable information, such as postcodes and NHS numbers, as well as medical information, including diagnoses and any treatment given.Now, a certain breed of querulous privacy advocate will start whining the moment they hear the words “giant database” in conjunction with “confidential data”. Not so data grub: we understand that there are often the very best reasons for aggregating personal data, as long as stringent measures are in place to ensure absolute confidentiality.In this case, the aim is to use this vast resource of information to improve the NHS’s service and treatment outcomes, which I think we can agree is a Good Thing.The other good news is that both the NHS and the academic organisation that uses this data, the inanely-titled Dr Foster Unit, seem to have taken decent precautions to protect patients. All data is held on encrypted discs and is sent by secure courier, which is a pretty good start. Then, at the Dr Foster Unit, the data is kept in secure offices, on disc-less workstations which have no link to the Internet.While this compares pretty favourably with the cavalier approach towards data security shown by other public sector bodies, among them the Ministry of Justice, the MoD and the Department for Work and Pensions, it’s certainly far from perfect.Our main gripe is that personally identifiable information (PII) is contained within the data that’s being sent out of the NHS. While PII such as postcodes may be vital for making distinctions between different areas of a town or the country, surely the NHS should secure people’s informed consent if they are to use their data in this way?So, two cheers for the NHS and the Dr Foster Unit for at least trying to apply best practice to the use of sensitive data. But, as we asked at the beginning, why should anyone other than one’s doctor be able to look at your confidential medical history, even if it’s just some academic at Imperial College?Now, if they anonymised this PII irreversibly, ensuring that records cannot be traced to an individual, while at the same time remaining useful to the bean counters (all perfectly possible with today’s technology), well – that would be just what the doctor ordered.

Pirates Français de P2P Feel the Noose Tightening

French file-sharers take note. This week the French senate voted 297 to only 15 in favour of introducing the controversial “three-strike” rule, giving ISPs the right to disconnect suspected illegal file-sharers if two warnings are ignored.This position runs contrary to the European Parliament’s view which rejected the “three-strike rule” in a vote back in April.After the vote one MEP said, “The vote shows that MEPs want to strike a balance between the interests of rights holders and those of consumers, and that big measures like cutting off internet access shouldn't be used."In Britain, ISPs favour a self regulatory approach and have formed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreement between copyright holders and six of the UK's largest ISPs, accounting for around 9 in 10 consumer connections. However, the MOU doesn’t go as far as suggesting how persistent file-sharers should be dealt with and we are still waiting to find out exactly what happens to these alleged infringers.

Orange Turn Phorm Blue

Orange might not be the first ISP to denounce the behavioural advertising service of Phorm (take a look at the 'Proud to be Phorm free! ISP) but they're certainly the largest.Paul-François Fournier, senior vice-president of Orange’s online advertising division, told the FT that there was “huge potential” for telecommunication companies to use customer data to target advertising but managing customers’ privacy was “critical”.“Privacy is in our DNA, so we need to be honest and clear about what we are doing,” Mr Fournier said. “We have decided not to be in Phorm because of that ... The way it was proposed, the privacy issue was too strong.”However, he didn't go quite so far as to say they'd never use it or a company in the same space such as NebuAd or FrontPorch.Currently Orange appear to be the consumer champions and perhaps this is something that BT should have thought about before unleashing the service on 10,000 unsuspecting customers back in 2006 and 2007. Although it would seem that it's not a case of once bitten twice shy as BT has gone for round two with Phorm.

A Dog is for Life, Not Just for the Battery Lifespan

On one hand, the Nintendogs virtual pets are great for those fad loving kids who are easily bored and will lose interest in a real life pet once the novelty wears off. So in that sense they are effective in fulfilling that initial short-lived desire for a pet.On the other hand, they mislead the owners of these gadgets into believing that owning a pet is less involved and a lot simpler than it really is. Although you have to clean up the pooch’s poops on the console, it fails to include pet care, vet visits, medication costs, and general taming; therefore failing to provide an accurate experience of owning a pet dog. What about the true cost and chores of owning a pet?If having a pet dog was as simple as the Nintendog suggests then we would all have a cute little odourless puppy in our home that rolls over when we tickle its collar and wags its tails permanently with joy. But this joyful experience of owning a pet dog is vastly different from the reality which involves a muddy, smelly pooch running around on a mission of destruction.It therefore projects an unrealistic or rose-tinted view of owning a dog that can lead to people upgrading to real life pets without being fully prepared or informed about what this will entail.In a society where 26 page documents are released informing pet owners on how to entertain and mentally stimulate your pets so ensure their mental stability, it seems ludicrous to simultaneously be “dumbing down” the reality of owning a pet. Surely we are being sent contradictory messages.If the Nintendogs are meant to be an accurate depiction of a live pet dog then surely the same animal welfare rules should apply and owners should make every effort to ensure and monitor a mentally stable pet, but the software just does not accommodate for the mental support for pets. So, for a hassle free, clean and tidy alternative for a real life pet, Nintendogs offers a simple virtual imitation. But do not be fooled into thinking that owning a real life pet will be quite as simple.