Technology Sledgehammer To Crack Justice System Nut...

Home Office officials have drawn up secret plans to lobby the independent privacy regulator in an attempt to push the rollout of controversial facial recognition technology into high street shops and supermarkets, internal government minutes seen by the Observer reveal.

The covert strategy was agreed during a closed-door meeting on 8 March between policing minister Chris Philp, senior Home Office officials and the private firm Facewatch, whose facial recognition cameras have provoked fierce opposition after being installed in shops.

Wouldn't you be better off sorting out the justice system instead, to ensure that theft is properly policed and punished? But no, falling for shiny new toys is so much more fun...

The Question No-One's Asking...

The arrest in London of a radical French publisher under counter-terrorist powers has been referred to the police watchdog after the reviewer of terrorism legislation found that it was wrong.

Ernest Moret, 28, was held for almost 24 hours by counter-terrorist police and asked about his opinion of Emmanuel Macron and participation in anti-Macron protests after he arrived at St Pancras station in April for a book fair.

...is why on earth the UK police farce should be protecting a French politician in the first place? Given that there was no danger to that politician in this country, as he wasn't even here! 

In a damning report published on Friday, Jonathan Hall KC, the reviewer of the terrorism legislation, said the police should not have used schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act to confiscate Moret’s phone and laptop and demand he reveal passcodes to the devices.

Moret’s lawyer, Richard Parry, said his client was “very pleased” with Hall’s report. “We will now be writing to the Met commissioner asking for a full apology and compensation for all the distress of the detention and everything else that’s followed.

“The police shouldn’t be doing this. They really need to get their house in order. Mr Moret has been the sacrificial lamb to highlight the extreme dangers of crossing the line from terrorism into public order policing. It has gone too far.”

You're not wrong, but I wish you hadn't stuck your hand in my pocket. Because we all know that's where the compensation is coming from in the first place... 

Announcing that the case would be referred to the IOPC, Commander Dominic Murphy, who leads the Met’s counter-terrorism command, said the force accepted that use of terrorism powers should be subject to “constant vigilance and attention to safeguards”. He added: “We fully cooperated with this review and we know how important it is that our work is as open and transparent as it can be, so that the public can have confidence and trust in what we do and how we do it.”

The public no longer has that, though, does it? Because they are well aware that the police no longer represent their interests, but those of everyone else instead. 

They Can't Stop The Boats Coming Across The Channel...

...but they can stop you FaceTiming Auntie Joan:

Apple has said planned changes to British surveillance laws could affect iPhone users’ privacy by forcing it to withdraw security features, which could ultimately lead to the closure of services such as FaceTime and iMessage in the UK. The firm has become a vocal opponent of what it views as UK government moves against online privacy, and it said last month that provisions in the forthcoming online safety bill could endanger message encryption.

Is this really the most existential threat facing the UK at this time? Is it really what we should be spending money and resources on? 

Apple also expressed concern over a proposed amendment that it says would allow the government to immediately block implementation of a security feature while a TCN is being considered, instead of letting the feature continue to be used pending an appeal.

And the possible consequences are huge: 

Alan Woodward, a professor of cybersecurity at Surrey University who has signed an open letter warning against online safety bill proposals that could dilute encryption, said Apple’s submission on the 12-week consultation represented a “stake in the ground”. He said: “If the government push on regardless then Apple will simply join the growing band of vendors that would leave the UK. British users could end up as one of the most isolated and insecure groups in the world. In that scenario, nobody wins.”

So...why is the Home Office dead set on this destructive path? What's the real agenda here?