IPB Is Now In Full Force; All Emails And Phone Calls Effectively Under Government Surveillance

"1984" Author George Orwell's technophobia and societal satire has finally come true -- in 2017.

The UK's Investigatory Powers Bill -- now the Investigatory Powers "Act" -- will place all UK citizens under a heavy surveillance routine. Every UK citizen is now effectively under government surveillance as new powers to gather and retain data on citizens and new ways to use technology companies' user database for government security causes are introduced.

The controversial bill -- also known as the "Snooper's Charter" -- will allow the government to collect Internet Connection Records. Intelligence agencies and police could then stop modern crime and prosecute said individuals using information evidences.

 According to Amnesty International's Policy Director Bella Sankey, the UK is entering a "sad day" as the bill was passed last month. She said she agreed with Prime Minister Theresa May's approach to security for the UK but the measures are invasive and "won't do the job."  Sankey said that the Act opens "every detail of every citizen's online life up to state eyes" and can "drown authorities in data."

Sankey urged a "campaign for a surveillance law fit for the digital age" and must "continue to the courts." Despite public resentment, the bill pushed through as MPs quietly passed the bill.

UK Government Guarantees That Fracking Rules Will Not Apply In Scotland

Exercising its new freedoms, Scotland had rejected the UK government’s plan to pass the Infrastructure Bill. The new bill allows fracking firms to facilitate drilling for shale gas underneath unsuspecting UK properties. 

The Scottish government, Labour and Green party had opposed the bill, which would also apply to residential areas.

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has drillers take apart rocks using a high-pressure mixture for oil. With the new UK fracking laws, UK grounds would allow drilling firms to access difficult areas for oil and gas.

Opponents of fracking claim that the process could release potentially carcinogenic chemicals into groundwater. It could also result to increased pollution due to bad practice.

According to Scottish Energy Minister Fergus Ewing, the move is just about right.

"This decision is a victory for common sense and shows how devolution of energy policy leads to different policy outcomes in Scotland. 

"It is a vindication of the Scottish government's continued objections to UK government plans to remove the right of Scottish householders to object to unconventional oil and gas drilling under their home. 

"We're glad the UK government has finally taken this on board - especially as 99 per cent of respondents to their own consultation also opposed the move."

Source

Why the UK-ECHR Issue is Just There to Spite UKIP

It is obvious that the Conservatives have a particular disliking for UKIP because of its very radical ideas. The government is clearly planning to dull the UKIP’s edges by doing many of the things it intends to do for the public once it gains seating.

One of them is the issue of scrapping the human rights provisions for criminals and terrorists in the United Kingdom.

The UK had longed to deport terrorists and war criminals from the country, but previous cases of the European Centre for Human Rights (ECHR) is limiting the autonomous decisions of the UK High Court. The UKIP had promised the UK that these human rights provisions will not be enforced by the ECHR by completely disconnecting the ECHR’s previous rulings with the UK’s legal decisions.

Conservative party member and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling had put forward a proposal, seen by ex-Attorney General Dominic Grieve as “basically erroneous,” will ensure the ECHR’s previous rulings and human rights provisions for criminals will be treated as advice rather than a staple for the rulings.

However, I think that if the Conservatives really wanted what the people wanted from the UKIP, they would just severe the ties completely and do away with being in Europe. It was as if Grayling just wanted to spite the UKIP for some reason.

Well, the Conservatives are lagging behind Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, if they want to smear images, they better do better than that.

Why Would Uganda Want an Anti-Gay Law?

The issues of LGBTs have always made the front pages of newspapers and the headlines of television news networks. It is not because they are sellable, but they are the “major” type of minority in the world, a symbol of its oppression. Most people will view them and compare the treatment to them as of blacks during the slavery years of the western world. But then again, they are also human, and they deserve all the right to live in harmony and protected by law.

It may leave some to question why Uganda and other countries, including those with insurgents and rebellion, want to have a law that would restrict gays and lesbians from becoming a part of society in an official manner. Today, Uganda’s LGBT’s community is rejoicing because a law proposed by the Ugandan government itself the Ugandan laws have overturned.

LGBTs in Uganda had hidden away from the view of authorities and even their own “straight” colleagues because of the possible punishment that they can be jailed for life. The law was implemented for six months until the Ugandan courts have rejected the law on August 1.

The law imprisoned one for being gay.

There are many possible explanations as to why Uganda, and extremist groups want to abolish the appearance of LGBTs.

One is that it destroys tradition. Most extremists and fundamentalists are against western ideals and teachings because it destroys their respective identities.

The second part is that it is not part of a religious teaching. Islamist fighters and jihadists have stressed out this fact against the gays and lesbians in their community, whom they treat less than human in many instances.

Corporations, Capitalism and Probable Human Experiments

Ever heard of Thalidomide? It is a drug that allows pregnant women to cope with their morning sicknesses every morning. A drug distributor called Distillers had introduced the product to the public. It was manufactured by Grunenthal and they claimed no side effects to the user and their haul. 

However, in a few years, over 10,000 children were born with defects and deformities. Studies showed that it was the effects of Thalidomide on the children. Eight British individuals are currently pushing their cases against Grunenthal, and Distillers, which Diageo Scotland owns.

With a few manipulations here and there, this collective case may go nowhere except the provision of compensation. But as far as public shaming will go, companies will remain companies. Grunenthal still manufactures Thalidomide because it helps treat other diseases such as leprosy and myeloma, and the public will still need it.

Most probably, the eight British individuals will only receive monetary compensation.

But then again, when you look at it, this is how corporations and capitalism work. With money having a high qualitative value for people, a few deformed children from a discreet human experiment will be alright. Allow a legal challenge to shame the organisation, but then, the public, and the government, still need them. Money will always win, and the public can look past the company’s reputation, and the cycle begins again.

The FTT and Your Pensions

Why is the UK government, namely Chancellor George Osborne, greatly furious about the EU’s FinancialTransaction Tax proposal? It will impose taxes on shares and derivatives, which Osborne said was unspecified in the proposal. Osborne was furious that they had been given only five minutes to review the proposal. He said it had the potential to drive away investors from the United Kingdom.

All this is happening at a highly-inconvenient time; the UK’s economy is recovering as property values continue to boom and the economy, not just the services, but manufacturing and infrastructure, is slowly improving. This means the foundations of the UK economy rests on new investors. But the FTT, with its added ‘surprise’ expenses due to tax, may put off investors planning to start or do business with the United Kingdom.

You do know that when the FTT hits shares, companies will need to cost-cut. The first thing that gets hit is everyone’s pensions. Rather than pay you less, employers will instead cut off their contributions to your pensions because of the reduction of investors, or reduced share-buying by investors, which contributes greatly to operations of any business.

Your pensions are also “riding” on some stocks, funds and other financial instruments from the companies that grow them. Financial instruments the Financial Transaction Tax will directly affect, and this will definitely affect your pensions.

An Irony of Anti-Slavery Laws and Immigration Control Laws in the United Kingdom

Today, I read in BBC that UK MPs are wanting to back the Modern Slavery Bill published in November and have it more protection for children, enhance legal support and compensation for its victims. The BBC report said that MPs wanted Traffickers and Slavemasters to face possible life sentences under the new law, and to simplify criminal offences to help convict suspects faster.

Those convicted of serious offences can get a maximum of 14 years life sentence.

The irony of this is that it targets enforced prostitution, forced labour, domestic servitude at home and forced criminal activity, yet immigration laws couldn’t even provide justice for foreign domestic helpers, who are being physically and psychologically abused by their UK employers, according to a Human Rights Watch report.

They should make it clear that all the offences, such as the slavery of children and adults, child exploitation, exploitation, trafficking and facilitation of modern slavery only applies to victims UK nationals. In any case, domestic helpers have no access to justice, simply because their employers could confiscate their personal information and have them imprisoned inside their homes.

The committee should call for the rights of immigrants as well. But that won’t be politically pretty today, especially with the UK’s net migration targets.

The Difficulty of Implementing the Copyright Infringement Law

The internet is the biggest avenue for media today because its networks extend all over the world, and easy-to-upload file formats that compress audio, videos and photos make it easier to share original content online. However, it also makes it easy to share someone’s original content online. Copyrights protect the artist, or at least it should. But no one could blame its lack of implementation in the modern world.

Copyright infringement is when a person, establishment or company makes use of any form of media produced by an artist or a recording company to promote any venture they have, even something as menial as uploading a song to set a mood to my personal blog. You will have to pay royalty fees to their record labels, which ensure the artist gets paid their share for being involved in your promotion.

While all this is good business, it does not bode well with modern ideology. Many competitors in the independent department, including games, are giving away their media for free. They do not talk business, but they talk about support. They ask for donations and consider their media as something that the world should only know, but they do not focus on profit.

This is a direct challenge to the recording industry, which focuses on ensuring they get all their profits by approaching listeners on a business-scale model. This challenges copyright laws as well because listeners will only respect these laws if they find the media compelling.

Only a new model of retailing media will be the best way to implement the copyright infringement law. I think maybe if record companies started adopting the models used by independent musicians, meaning they go against them on their own level, they can have a fighting chance.

UK Royal Marine Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Murdering Insurgent

The death of a wounded Taliban insurgent at the hands of a UK Royal Marine sergeant during his overseas deployment had left the Marine with life imprisonment for his crime. Evidence against Seargeant Alexander Blackman was a video that showed him and four other marines debating whether to give the Taliban fighter medical care. Blackman was seen shooting the Taliban fighter.

Blackman’s identity was protected by privacy until the Court Martial Appeal Court lifted the anonymity order. According to Judge Advocate General Blackett said that war and the battlefield may not be the places for peace and humanitarian activities, but if the British Armed Forces do not comply with humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict, they are on the same level as their enemies.

Alexander Blackman is the first individual to be convicted of a murder during overseas deployment since World War II. Blackman is eligible for parole after serving a minimum of 10 years imprisonment.

In the battlefield, government soldiers are expected to act under the jurisdiction of the rules of engagement.

This means to disarm or disable at all costs their enemy, but mercy and tolerance be shown during engagement. Mercy killings, executions and looting breaks the rules of engagement in the battlefield. 

Source

British Marine Charged with Murder During Military Skirmish

Legal experts are discussing the legal and moral issues behind the infamous verdict against an unnamed British marine who was convicted for murdering a Taliban fighter in Helmand in September 2011. This is the first UK case involving a serviceman convicted of murder in action.

Experts said that the convict was wrongly placed given that it did not happen in a civil situation, such as a homicide or anywhere a violent conflict cannot rise at any moment. They also said government-sanctioned killing covered the person killed by the marine because the Taliban is identified as the enemy.

Legal experts against the decision said that it was unfair to give such a verdict to the British marine given that everyone can react in the same manner as he did. Exhilaration and other psychological factors will affect the decision of any man in the battlefield, even if battle-hardened or not.

The British marine had an injured Jihadi along with two other soldiers. With cameras fixed on observation balloons, the three men pretend to give medical care to the Jihadi, then executed the man with a shot to the chest. The marine was aware of what he has done breaking the Geneva Convention to spare soldiers unable to fight, but it is highly possible that the shot to the chest was an act of mercy

Because of the “right to life” law, which also covers military action, the marine is given the sentence of murder. The right to life law discusses the importance of treating combatants with equal respect.

Experts said that with all the legalities coming into the British military, it is highly possible that legal paranoia and paralysis will make it less sufficient.

Beyond Being Offensive: The Social Media Rights Guide

In the UK, the government have arrested several individuals who had posted statements that “go beyond the threshold of expression” against individuals or beliefs. While many cried foul against the arrests, prosecutors and the government explain that everyone has a right to express themselves online and be obscene with their expressions, but there is a boundary line as indicated by the following parameters.

1.    Distinction

Given the obscene and uncensored communications found online in forums, discussion boards and social media, the UK’s guidelines of distinction must show that the statement targets the harassment of an individual, is a credible threat of violence,  breaches court orders regarding confidential statements in all formats of Internet media.

2.    Stalking and Harassment

Any evidence or statements that imply stalking on part of a potential suspect, including hacking and manipulation of personal social media accounts is a social media and Internet criminal offense. Harassment in the form of rallying communities against certain individuals, groups, organisations or companies are also considered an offense.

3.    Freedom of Expression and Criminal Law

Offensive posts, whether they are shocking, rude, satirical, iconoclastic, an unpopular discussion of delicate topics, are subject to public scrutiny and if the public deems it to be an offensive case, the government could arrest the individual, group, organisation or company who posted such media. However, if such entities showed remorse upon posting the statement, criminal charges from the authorities are less likely.

Copyright Myths in the United Kingdom

As innovators, inventors and musicians wish to copyright their work to prevent others from stealing it, they cannot protect its every aspect completely. Here are some myths existing in the United Kingdom’s copyright service.

1.     Ideas

A copyright only applies to a recorded work, but not to an idea. Inventions usually have patents. The actual recorded work, which includes documents, music, music sheets, artwork and other data, if copied by a competitor, the copyright services consider as a copyright infringement. There is no way you could prevent others from developing on the similar idea you have.

2.     Names and Titles

Copyrights do not apply to names and titles that are very common or easily duplicated. Two works might have the same title as long as none of them copied or adapted from each other. There is still protection on the name if it is a trademark or if it could mislead or confuse the public. The protection is solely reliant on the connotation of the name in society.

3.     Poor Man’s Copyright

The poor man’s copyright, which is posting a copy of your work to yourself, actually will not protect your work because it will be very easy to fake the documentations by changing the date of your materials. Even if you send your work to yourself for a record in the postal service, the materials can be swapped inside the packages, or unless proven otherwise.

Defending Yourself From False Property and Asset Claims

The United Kingdom is well-known for its litigation culture and sometimes, claims made by certain legal professionals and individuals may only be to get a chunk of your actually legal assets that you’ve worked so hard to gain. Defending yourself from false property claims means knowing the following.

1.     Potential Suing

Your assets are obvious if you are a proprietor of a wealthy company. Your assets are easily reachable by anybody. To defend yourself from potential suing of other companies or certain individuals such as past employees, having a legal professional to ensure your insurance and to limit your liability is important.

2.     Services Rendered

Most legal professionals in this field provide services for the following.

a.     Insurance

An indemnity insurance offered by professionals can cover you from making negligent movements or faulty goods and services. However, this is a poor level of protection because it is unlikely the policy would cover a full range of potential claims. More comprehensive methods are needed.

b.    Liability

Legal professionals mostly advise their clients to separate their assets from the company’s assets. The incorporation of personal assets and company’s assets could be used against the proprietor only if the company is a façade for a fraudulent company. A limited liability partnership between a company ensures not all your assets could be touched.

c.     Wealth Segregation

Legal professionals may also advise you to separate the association between your assets. Having another person own the asset is an important part of protecting your assets. Transferring ownership of your personal wealth to your company is also a good way to segregate your wealth.

What to Do When a Child is at Risk of Partner Abuse

A child is vulnerable to abuse to anything, including physical, verbal or sexual abuse from the parent’s partner him or herself. You could get legal aid to help with such issues that can remove a father’s parental responsibility through the help of a legal solicitor. Child abuse could be proven in one of the following types of convictions.

1.     Criminal Conviction

If your partner has an already existing criminal conviction offence, it will count as effective evidence for legal aid.  Check to see if your ex-partner was given a police caution for child abuse, the court where the partner was sentenced and completing a criminal conviction template letter from both the Magistrate or the Crown court.

2.     Police Caution

A police caution for child abuse against your ex-partner in the last two years also counts as substantial evidence for legal aid. You will only need a written record of your caution. Complete a police caution template letter and have it sent to the Police Force’s Data Protection Officer for processing.

3.     Social Services

 If your child has a child protection plan from social services in the last two years that protects him or her from your ex-partner, you could use this as evidence. The social service’s assessment could serve as a good evidence for your legal aid application. Have a copy of the assessment plan, make sure that the person evaluated is your child  and the abuser as your ex-partner. Find a copy of a social services template letter and write to your local social services department.

Creative Commons: How the Poor Man’s Copyright Can Protect Your Work

Laura Myers here. I’m an artist from Europe and I’m here to discuss certain laws that could protect any art or musical piece or composition you have. But before we get to the more specific topics, let’s have a look at the first copyright any person can own when posting his or her work in the Internet, the Creative Commons copyright.

Many bloggers today choose to have a Creative Commons License to encourage the sharing of their work to allow the entire world to have access to their content. CCs could provide apt protection. In the Internet any published work could only be used by agreement between the blogger and the webmaster who wishes to use the content. The law had never yet identified the responsibilities of a Webmaster and a blogger.

Creative commons is an actual license that would trump any implied license because it has a clear set of rules when someone uses your content. CCs allow you to have an express license attached to your content.

Creative commons are original lawyer-drafted licenses and could be used in various countries where they can survive the copyright industry. Creative common media licenses is also machine readable and could be identified by software for proper usage. The bottomline of CC licenses is that you give up some rights of your work to share it to the world or allow people to develop your work.

The only trouble most people have with Creative Commons, even me from the start, was that I never really understood it. I hope this article helped reduce the misconception of Creative Commons laws.