I don't know your name, but I Recognizr your face...

Last Monday, the Sun had an article about a newly-demonstrated mobile phone app called "Recognizr" [link goes to the demo videos of the developers' website].

The idea is that people can use any compatible mobile to take a photo in an attempt to name them. It falls under the term "Augmented reality" and has been labelled "Augmented Identity".

As well as using boiler-plate Sun-speak like "perverts" and "horrified" it labels it a "stalker's dream"*.

It also quotes Privacy International who are against it. However, they are so concerned about it there are a total of 0 mentions on their website in relation to the app [unfortunately their website does not appear to let you link directly to search terms]. This leads to me to wonder what information their spokesperson had to hand when the Sun contacted them as well as the other people who are quoted.

What the Sun doesn't point out is that a not only is it only a prototype, and so will not be available for quite a while yet, but that a person's information can only be accessed if they are actually registered with Recognizr. There are also apparently different settings as to how much information a person can provide to others.

There's also the fact that it claims that the company behind it were unavailable for comment. However, one of the members left a comment on the article, stating the following:

Recognizr facial recognition cannot work for someone who isn't approved to receive the information, just like the privacy settings on FaceBook or LinkedIn. I agree with the posts here about privacy. [The developers] were very sensitive to offering certain safeguards with the tool to prevent privacy misuse. People have to opt-in to Recognizr, and have the choice of what information will be displayed, what social networks will be connected or not, and decide on their own profile groups.

Leaving aside the apparently completely-over-the-top tone of the article, how likely is it that the Swedish creators would go the the trouble of hunting down an article in a foreign newspaper to respond to its claims, instead of just giving a quote while the article was being written?
* Presumably, the antics of tabloid newspapers don't count...

Can the Sun get a simple thing right? (No.)

The Sun's leader today again "confuses" the European Court of Human Rights with the European Union (url subject to change):

Yet he’s still here, costing us hundreds of thousands, because defending our own nation must take second place to EU human rights laws.

I say confuses because I can't be completely certain that the Sun isn't deliberately confusing the ECHR, which is connected with the Council of Europe, with the European Union, mainly because of the Sun's visceral loathing for the latter. It is however, as Nosemonkey notes, a reasonably common mistake, despite the fact that the ECHR was a product of the 1950s, while we didn't join the European Economic Community, the forebear to the EU, until the 1970s. We also had a major role in the set-up and drafting of the ECHR, which is another reason why the persistent claims that we're surrendering to Brussels over human rights is such abject nonsense.

In any case, the Sun's conflation will doubtless further cause resentment towards the European Union when it has nothing to do with it. On that point alone it registers as a mistake bordering on a lie.

The Sun v the Criminal Justice System and Gays

Once again there's a nice neutral headline in our favourite tabloid newspaper:

"Barmy Euro law let pervs abuse"

The article is about how two registered sex offenders were allowed to share a flat which is clearly the fault of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Sun claims that the police felt they were unable to tell their neighbours that they were in the area, because of a

"fear of being in breach of European Human Rights legislation on cohabiting same-sex partners."

What a load of rubbish. The ECHR doesn't say anything like this. In fact, homosexuality is not mentioned at all, presumably because it was drafted in the 50s when homosexuality was illegal in a lot of countries, including the UK. The nearest there is article 8: Right to respect for private and family life, which itself stems from an English case from the early 1600s that established the principle of "An Englishman's home is his castle". Effectively the Sun is raging against one of the basic principles of English common law: Why does the Sun hate our freedoms?

What is more likely to be the reason for this lack of action - if indeed that is what actually happened - is because of how people reacted in summer 2000 to the News of the World's anti-paedophile campaign, including innocent people being attacked. In any event, they were on the sex offenders' register, so it was already a matter of public knowledge.

The Sun also appears to be gay-bashing. It states that the men started a relationship in prison and then in the next sentence states they then targeted the kiddies. The Sun seems to be implying that homosexuality and paedophilia are one and the same or are in some way connected. The only people who take this line are those of a nutty, right-wing persuasion (see the Google search for homosexuality and paedophilia for examples). It implies this even though later on it states that one of the offenders had two kids.

The only positive to this article is that the Sun doesn't explicitly say that the ECHR was forced upon us by the Eurocrats, but the fact it uses the term "Euro" shows what it wants people to think.

War on Traditional English Liberties

There's an article in today's Sun making the usual claims about the Human Rights Act causing the destruction of the UK as it only helps criminals. The article then turns into a complaint about English common law, which from a paper which is prides itself in its "patriotism" is an odd position to take.

For some unknown reason they have an interview with the father of the murdered model Sally Ann Bowman who says that last month's unanimous ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the government's DNA database goes way too far, is a disaster for the UK and he supports a national DNA database.

It is the usual "victims rights" nonsense (which I have previously covered) - that people who have suffered from crime are the ones that should be listened to more than anyone, irrespective of what they say. I can only hope that her father makes the effort to read the judgement, especially paragraph 125

"[We] find that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard [and it] constitutes a disproportionate interference with the... right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society."

I also guess that her father is unaware of the government's numerous losses of personal data that have been exposed over the past 18 months.

The Sun further states that the murder was only caught because he was only on the register due to previously being in trouble with the police. If that is the case it simply shows how poor the police are in this country.

What's interesting is the it states that the Home Office "fears it may only be allowed to take DNA samples AFTER someone is convicted". Has the Sun had a tip-off about the government's response to the ruling? Is it simply fear-mongering? Or is it both?

It then goes on and quotes her father complaining about the fact that nine year olds can't be prosecuted. He blames it on the HRA, but it is actually to do with the fact that there is a minimum age at which anyone can be considered to be culpable of a crime. The age limit in England and Wales of 10 years old is the joint second lowest within Europe, only Scotland has a lower limit of eight years old. In any event, he should be grateful of the current limits because until 1998 there was a rebuttable presumption that anyone under 14 years was incapable of committing a crime by the doctrine of doli incapax. He must want anyone of any age to be liable of a criminal record...

In fact the only thing about this article that is correct is that it doesn't state that the ECtHR is part of the EU or that the HRA was one of its directives.

Shock: Prisoners eat proper meals

Once again the Sun has been blatantly stoking the anti-Muslim feelings within its readers.

MUSLIM prisoners at a top security jail were bought £3,500 worth of takeaway curries, it emerged last night.

The Sun seems to think that prisoners should have to subsist on bread and water... The prison
holds 458 people (which the Sun does confirm), and according to the Sun one-third of whom are Muslim, i.e. 152 people. This works out at £23 each which is not an unreasonable amount for a proper curry from a restaurant.

Prison officers drove 40 miles to a restaurant after inmates moaned jail meals were not tasty enough.

The Sun doesn't say whether or not this is a round-trip. However, I admit that does seem to be something to complain about, as surely there must have been a closer curry house. Unfortunately, I'm unable to locate the prison and its neighbouring restaurants.

A non-Muslim ex-inmate at Whitemoor jail said: “They tried to do the curries in-house but the prison chefs couldn’t meet the budget of £1.80 per prisoner — and the Muslim inmates complained that it tasted rubbish.

That's probably because you can't even do a cheap and nasty curry on that amount of money. I know that to make one dirt-cheap you're talking at least £5.00.

And the curries were not checked for smuggled weapons on the way into prison in case they got COLD, sources said.

After all, a garlic naan bread is the most likely place to stash a gun.

I wonder if the Sun would have a similar article about the amount spent on Passover meals or Divali, never mind Christmas lunch.

The Sun supports the rule of law?

There is a very strange article in the Sun today.

Once again the Sun is outraged, which in itself is nothing new. This outrage has been sparked by the fact that a police officer - who was suspended for saying (on Facebook for bonus marks) that suspects should be beaten up - is to be allowed to go back to work after being fined an at tribunal and will be going back on full pay after having a year off. Again, the fact that it should be outraged by someone being allowed to do their job again after 'getting off lightly' (not a quote, more of a paraphrase) is also nothing new.

What is odd is that it calls the guy "vile" for what he did. I have no views on the case, as I don't actually know what happened, but this must be the first time that the Sun has ever condemned about anyone being part of the string-'em-up/hang-'em-an'-flog-'em brigade, see for example, its own coverage of the L. B. Harringay "Baby P" case.

Has the Sun seen the light when it comes the concept of innocent until proven guilty and also how to deal with people who are merely suspects? Only time will tell.

"Victim's Rights"

The Sun today has an article about Jack Straw's plans to, as the Sun puts it, "put the victims first".

It mentions the usual suspects - the Human Rights Act, political correctness and Labour being "soft on crime". The only scrapegoat it misses out is the Data Protection Act, presumably because it doesn't naturally fall within this particular group.

It quotes a victim of crime, who, while I am sympathetic to them, doesn't seem to be basing her views on any rational or half-way intelligent position. She seem to completely ignore or be oblivious to the fact that the Human Rights Act applies to everyone - that why it's called the "Human Rights Act" not the "Human Privileges Act" - not just people with an unblemished record. She must be completely unaware of the good that the HRA has done to the UK (a pdf from 2006 is available).

What the Sun doesn't seem to realise is that - as bad as it sounds - victims are probably the last people you should think of when designing laws. What counts is that there is a fair trial in which the Defendant is able to give his case - not what makes you seem hard in front of the tabloids or to try and out-do your opponents.

42 days detention

The Sun today mentions the current difficulties with Brown's plans to lock up innocent people for 42 days before the police decide to charge them with something or letting them go.

The Sun says it is likely that Brown will have to shelve this plan - for which we have to celebrate - and the Sun blames the current economic problems as being more pressing - which is correct - as the reason for doing so. You could say that every cloud has a silver lining...

Judging from the Sun's tone, it is obviously disappointed with this turn of events (this should be apparent from how it covered the debate in the Commons, which I mentioned in my initial post).

The only down side to this article is that the Sun suggests that Brown could use the Parliament Act to force it through. This would have to be passed by the Commons again and would almost certainly require a General Election as there is no manifesto commitment for the government to lock people up for this amount of time. Not to mention there's the minor fact that Brown would have to actually win an election...

Bunch of Twits...

There's a story in today's Sun about how the book publisher Random House has caved in to complaints over wording in a novel aimed at teenagers. The complaints have been brought by ASDA/WalMart over a book which has been written by Dame Jacqueline Wilson.

The book question - My Sister Jodie - uses the word "twat" which has now been replaced with the word "twit".

In theory, this isn't that an unreasonable act - after all if a book is aimed at a younger age group then there should be certain levels that should be adhered to. However, from reading the BBC's report, it seems that the use of "twat" is appropriate from the context of the book and her previously published novels: she writes about social issues including "teenage pregnancy, domestic violence and failed suicides".

However, from the Sun's reporting, you would never know this.

It should also be pointed out that this act will create a collector's market for the earlier - pre-censorship - editions. Anyone want to sell me a copy?

David Thatch-eron

I'm not sure if this quite falls within my remit, but I thought I'd mention it in any event.

Davey-boy Cameron has said in the current issue of GQ that he plans to do for society what Maggie Thatcher did for the UK's economy. Leaving aside any jibes on whether this means he'll turn millions of people against him, there's also the fact that Thatcher did do some work on reforming society, see for example section 28. I'm not sure if this is quite what Cameron means, but it's worth reminding people of what to expect and the Sun seems to have a favourable view of him.

I'm mainly linking to this post for the horrific Photoshop job the Sun has done:


It'll be in my nightmares!

EDITOR: D-Notice (Beat: Politics and Civil Liberties)

Who am I?

I'm D-Notice and I live in London.

What will you be writing about?

If my blog is anything to go on, politics and civil liberties, which despite the Sun's faux-patriotic nationalistic tendencies seems to be virulently opposed to.

When Tim announced the site, I expressed an interest in the task as the Sun's coverage of pretty much everything needs to be commented on and for it to be compiled into one place seems the best way of doing it.

It also stems from a general antipathy towards what passes as “journalism” and “journalistic integrity” in the UK's best-selling tabloid newspaper.

Why have you chosen your specific beat and/or what skills and expertise can you bring to it?

My opposition to the Sun's position on civil liberties mainly stems from how it covered Blair's plans to have 90 days detention in a police cell before they would have to get around to charging people with something like shoplifting... In the run-up to the Parliamentary vote, the Sun's front page coverage consisted of using pictures of the survivors in a propaganda ploy to get the public's support (the picture was of someone who was opposed and of whom the Sun didn't seek his permission to use his image); then it went to personal attacks on David Cameron and David Davies then on the morning after the vote – which Blair lost – the Sun's front cover consisted of the word “Traitors” in big letters with a picture of Abu Hamza.

The Sun had a similar way of covering the recent debate into the extension of detention without charge to 42 days. Again the Sun supported it whole-heartedly and resorted to name calling the people who were opposed it and was very happy when it passed the House of Commons.

There's also the fact that in David Davies' recent by-election at first the Sun slated him for resigning, and had articles ridiculing him only to withdraw the planned candidacy of their columnist (and ex-editor) Kelvin MacKenzie when they realised he had a lot of public support (first apparent here), despite the obvious denial that they could possibly have misread the situation.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to covering these areas and judging by what is usually covered by it, I'm expecting to be overloaded with potential posts (rod for my own back...)

Those loony European judges.

The Sun is typically outraged that European judges are once again daring to interfere with our judicial system, this time over their decision to defer Abu Hamza's extradition until they have considered his appeal.

The paper though does its best to make this as clear as mud, only making clear that this is temporary until five paragraphs into its article, while describing the judges as "clowns" and as being unlikely to be a target in the "war on terror" due to their nationality. This is ignorant and misleading because while most are from European countries that have not been targeted by Islamic extremism, the judges are of just one section of the European Court of Human Rights, while the president of the court is French, a nation which has dealt with Islamic terrorism for decades, and one of the vice-presidents is a Brit. Additionally, Bosnia has definitely suffered from Islamic extremism, and Poland is also a potential target due to its involvement in the Iraq war.

It's the Sun's complete lack of context though which most rankles and misleads its readers:

"This is just the latest example of how Europe rides roughshod over the UK. It’s time we stood up and said enough and no more."

If this is meant to give the impression that this decision is something to do with the European Union, then it works judging by the response of commentators. In fact, the European Court of Human Rights has got nothing to do with the EU or its forebear, the European Economic Community. Rather, the ECHR and its base, the European Convention on Human Rights are connected with the set-up of the Council of Europe, one of the main suggestions of a certain Winston Churchill. The drafting of the Convention was done under the supervision of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, with it being ratified by the Council in 1953, with the Court itself set-up in 1959. The ECHR serves as the last potential point of appeal for someone who has exhausted all the other options in Britain, and has done since that date. This is neither new nor Europe riding roughshod over the UK: if anything, it's our creation riding over our other own creations.

The reality is that Hamza's appeal is hardly likely to succeed, but the Sun cannot possibly miss an opportunity to attack both Europe and the human rights brigade, all while not informing its readers of even the slightest of contexts.

A longer version of this post is available on my own blog.