How Not To Blog ?

On Saturday, this film will receive it's opening at the Cannes Film Festival. (You can also download it using the links below). The films explores the way fundamentalist Islam and the neo-con ideology are fused together to create an atmosphere of fear and control. An excerpt from an article in The Guardian:

...But the film is even more incendiary for its analysis of what Curtis controversially insists is the largely illusory fear of terrorism in the west since 9/11. Curtis argues that politicians such as Bush and Blair have stumbled on a new force that can restore their power and authority - the fear of a hidden and organised web of evil from which they can protect their people. In a still-traumatised US, those with the darkest nightmares have become the most powerful and Curtis's film castigates the media, security forces and the Bush administration for extending their power in this way. "It has really touched a nerve with people who realise something is not quite right with the way terrorism has been reported."

Something extraordinary has indeed happened to American TV since September 11th, 2001.

"What happens on US TV now is that you have a theatre of confrontation so that people avoid having to seriously analyse what the modern world is like - perhaps because of the emotional shock of September 11," says Curtis. "People take so-called left or right positions and shout at each other. It's almost like the court of Louis XIV - people taking elaborate positions and not thinking very much."

As someone who rarely watches television, much less network or cable news, the change is astounding. More astounding is how no one else I personally know seems to recognize the difference in reporting styles and how certain topics are presented. A psychological stronghold over the media by the Bush administration is not a conspiracy, it's a tragedy.

You can download parts 1, 2, and 3 for free from this location via a BitTorrent app like Azureus. (Install app, then click on links, then click on Download box.)

Also see the article, "Star Wars film against American grain
'Revenge of Sith' mirrors themes of post 9/11 world", from SFGate.com

Robert Shull, Director of Regulatory Policy at OMB Watch, has the following to say in his recent statement, "Senate Gives Dept. Homeland Security Power to Waive All Laws", about a provision in the REAL ID Act of 2005, passed on May 10, 2005.

There is too much at stake to grant any government officials the power to waive all law. Immediately at stake, of course, are current environmental protections in the vicinity of the borders, but even more is at stake. These fences and roads will not build themselves -- they must be put in place by workers, who could lose all their workplace safety protections as well as their rights to collective bargaining or even overtime pay. This new power comes completely without limit; every law, from child labor to ethical contracting, can now be waived.

Read more

Because we no longer get outraged (truly outraged) at laws like the PATRIOT act, and the fact that they're not given much mainstream media time, you can bet that we'll be seeing more of the same.

Personally, I'm more outraged that most people just sit back and ignore it. And most of those who actually want to talk about it, don't actually want to do something about it.

It happens because we allow it to happen.

Ho hum...

Article, "Report Finds No Link Between National IDs and Terrorism Prevention". Excerpt:

Spain, which suffered a terrorist attack killing more than 200 people in March of 2004, has a national ID card program that includes a biometric element. Since 1986, Pakistan, which also has a national ID card program with a biometric element has suffered 68 terrorist attacks, killing 420 people. During the same time frame, India, which has no national ID card program at all, suffered 46 attacks, killing 520 people.

Is it really about "terrorists" or protecting our borders? There are much better ways to do this if this were the case. National ID cards for the US have been on the table for at least 9 years, but there has always been outcry from the public (and for good reason).

National ID cards are about increasing control over a population.

Too bad, the bill (which includes the REAL ID act) has passed without debate, even though legislators in both parties urged debate and more than 600 organizations opposed the legislation.

Personally, I think the major issue at hand (besides going against many of the principles this country was built upon) is not the fact that it would function as a national ID, but the data such an ID would contain and the ease of which it could be accessed by any entity. A single identifier can bring all your personal information together in one large database. It is the major component of a myraid of interactive technology and databases that could combine the most intimate personal details with the machinations of government.

It is the method by which the authority of government will be streamlined and amplified. The introduction of such a system of identification can only substantially increase police and government power. Authorities will be able to demand the ID in a variety of circumstances, and people will have no choice but to comply. They will, in effect, be required to carry the ID around at all times.

The Department of Homeland Security, through the REAL ID act, has the right to add new requirements to the ID cards like fingerprints, iris scans, and DNA information. It also has the right to add requirements that no one has thought of yet.

Imagine the day, not so far in the future, when the technology will be cheap enough that a growing number of buildings, streets, bus terminals, schools, banks, and other gathering places will have scanning technology, connected to the Homeland Security database. We already have security checkpoints in most public schools and buildings, many of which were not there but a few years ago. No doubt, we are on the road to security system prevalence. But this is the complete opposite of a free soceity, especially because it takes away personal rights and freedoms.

And what would happen if my driver's license is confiscated by the police for a moving violation? What kind of security process would I have to go through to enter the building that holds the court in which I am to make my scheduled appearance? And what is one to do in the meantime, or if one gets their ID stolen? Sit in jail for a few hours or days while the government verifies your identity if you are "caught" without your ID? (Greeks and Argentinans caught without their ID are promptly taken to the local precinct and held while the person's identity is determined.) Under the REAL ID scheme, everyone will have a record in the national crime database.

Such a systematic disposing of individual rights could theoretically stop some criminal activity. The problem is that each such disposition also makes it more difficult for everyone, including law-abiding citizens, to live and go about their daily routine.

The aggregation of personal information for governmental use is the biggest tool of totalitarian governments. The more a government knows about everybody, and the easier it is to gain access to that information, the easier it is for them to control anyone and everyone. A high-security biometric card tied to a national database challenges every tenet of the concept of freedom that many of us in the US still hold onto. It is now withering down to just a concept, soon to be forgotten in the name of security.

And don't forget about all the fun that commercial entities will have with easy access to your personal information. (If you're annoyed by the clerk at Best Buy asking for your phone number or address, don't worry. Swiping your new ID card will automate the marketing process. Thank goodness we still have cold, hard cash.)

A simple act like purchasing a bottle of alcohol has gone through a gradual transition over the years for many consumers. Not too many years ago, you would present your ID so that the clerk could verify your age. Now, your ID is either scanned or the ID number is entered into a local or statewide database. Imagine the possibilities with a massive "security" system that could easily track all of your transactions from purchasing perishable and non-perishable goods and services to banking and investments. Tracking a future suspect's movements is so much more easy if you just track everyone's movements in the present. Then there's the matter of mining databases to draw profiles of an individual to determine the likelihood of them committing a crime in the future. DHS has already expressed interest in these kinds of technologies. (Has everyone forgotten about Total Information Awareness?)

A further crucial component was the development of biometric technology to enable the identification and tracking of individuals. DARPA had already funded its "Human ID at a Distance" program, which aimed to positively identify people from a distance through technologies such as face recognition or gait recognition. A nationwide identification system would have been of great assistance to such a project by providing an easy means to track individuals across multiple information sources.

People get excited over a thing like web 'cookies' being able to track movements over the internet. But, alas, there was no debate on REAL ID. (I would even venture to guess that the majority of the US population still doesn't know about it.) Is privacy and freedom only important on the web? Shouldn't it be much more important to our offline lives?

The cards could also be used, in theory, to repress certain populations. In apartheid South Africa, for example, national ID cards have been used to exclude blacks from voting and other activities. Don't think that such a thing could not happen in the US, because it has already. Do you really want your voting record stored on such an ID? (It's not that far-fetched, as it would also be of great benefit, in theory.) Imagine the repression possibilities with such a powerful system as the REAL ID network. A national ID only creates new forms of discrimination and harassment, and makes it easier to do it.

Perhaps the most frightening part of the bill is the precedence that it sets. This bill, passed a few days ago, allows the Department of Homeland Security to bypass any kind of judicial review, including that of the US Supreme Court. Our system of checks and balances is a cornerstone of the US Constitution. If this sacred part of our Constitution can be compromised, what is next?

Ars Technica notes:

So if judicial review is the basic mechanism that enables the Federal court system?from the Supreme Court on down?to rule on the constitutionality of laws and government actions, then how could it be possible for Congress to pass a law that includes language prohibiting judicial review for the law in question? In other words, if Congress could somehow exempt a law from judicial review, then the principle of judicial review would be completely gutted because they could just exempt from judicial review any law they wanted to, even if that law is blatantly unconstitutional or it violates basic human rights. Surely this isn't possible?

See also, "Senate Vote Gives Homeland Security Power to Waive All Law", by Robert Shull, Director of Regulatory Policy, OMB Watch.