In yesterday’s announcement, Theresa May, who as home secretary led the original legislation, said: “We were disappointed to receive feedback on the original Communications Data Bill from technology experts and civil liberties campaigners who considered it more important for citizens to be able to continue using encryption for non-essential activities like secure online shopping / banking, than for the police to be able to monitor the communications of anyone who could be a terrorist. The country was extremely healthy under John Major’s government in the 1990s before online services such as e-commerce and e-banking even existed, so it is a trivial and easily justifiable sacrifice to replace the freedom to use those services securely with laws creating a powerful deterrent for terrorists, who would face stiff fines and potentially even jail-time if found guilty of using encrypted communications.”

“However, during consultations with the financial sector in the City, we have been advised that banning use of all encryption software would prevent large UK corporations from trading on global markets.”

She continued, “We also discovered that communication can be encrypted non-electronically, for example using simple mathematical techniques on pen and paper, and we cannot in good conscience allow potential terrorists to use these techniques without fear of being arrested and detained for an arbitrary amount of questioning.”

“Therefore the only logical course of action is to amend the bill to ban use of all types of mathematics for which permission has not been explicitly granted by the government. A whitelist will be drafted for the upcoming debate on the bill. In order to avoid any impact on the economy, a special security exception will be made to allow financial institutions to continue using mathematics as before. For ordinary citizens, basic arithmetic will of course be allowed, although in financial contexts some restrictions will be imposed; for example, in the interests of national security, it will be forbidden for the general public to perform calculations relating to any personal expenditure of MPs or peers in the House of Lords.”

David Cameron issued a separate statement reinforcing the Home Secretary’s announcement and also rejecting an opposing argument which highlighted that whilst every year in the UK around 2,000 people die from traffic accidents and 65,000 from heart disease, in the past 5 years there have only been 2 people killed through terrorism. “Terrorism is a rising global threat, and must be countered at any cost, even at the expense of civil liberties and personal privacy”, the newly re-elected Prime Minster said. “If you have nothing to hide, why would you need privacy anyway? Everybody already shares everything on Facebook anyway.”

The post Tories to limit use of mathematics in amendment to anti-terrorism bill appeared first on Structured Procrastination.

I am a huge fan of Avaaz and regularly sign petitions. The beneficial changes the organization has achieved so far across the world are truly staggering and inspirational.

However the latest email I just received from you entitled “Hilton sex slaves” did not quite meet the high standards that I customarily expect, and in fact demand from an organisation whose now enormous membership base enables it to wield immense global political power.

The language used in the email sounds worryingly similar to the kind of article frequently found in the UK tabloid press, which deliberately uses sensationalist language (and frequent use of bold typeface) in order to manipulate the reader into agreeing with the writer’s viewpoint.

For example, the 3-word email subject is vague enough to imply that Hilton actively promotes or even organizes sex slavery. This is a far cry from an apathetic lack of preventative action, which is of course a genuine issue but nowhere near as bad.

Then the opening paragraph (“It’s shocking. Hilton […] could be complicit […]”) focuses on aggressive sensationalism rather than facts. The Pope could be complicit in a heroin trafficking, but is that shocking? No, of course it isn’t – until it’s proven fact, it remains unsubstantiated speculation.

Thirdly, the sidebar on the right states “Hilton refuses to sign an international code of conduct on sex trafficking” which directly contradicts this text in the main body of the article: “Hilton acknowledged its need to address the problem of child prostitution. But to date no concrete steps have been taken.” Again, the former is an active refusal to act, whereas the latter is a passive failure to act.

It also seems slightly odd that Hilton has been singled out for this campaign, given that other huge hotel chains such as IHG (incorporating Holiday Inn) and Marriott have not signed up to ECPAT‘s Code of Conduct either. I appreciate that Hilton’s terrible track record in this area should compel them to act without hesitation, but it is important that your campaigns should remain as balanced as possible. This could have been achieved by including a sentence in the email such as “Other large hotel chains such as IHG and Marriott have not signed up, but if we succeed in persuading Hilton to sign up, it will send out a strong message to their rivals to get on board too.”

Incidentally, the email omitted a link to the ECPAT website, which may seem like a trivial point, but it encourages your members to independently verify the facts provided, which strengthens the credibility of the campaign.

I should point out that I have no loyalties, connections, or other interests with Hilton or anyone else in the hotel industry. I’m purely concerned that Avaaz campaigns maintain an extremely high level of quality and accountability, and that the Avaaz “brand” name continues to be perceived as completely trustworthy, so that you can continue these wonderful achievements.

So please, don’t be tempted to stoop to Rupert Murdoch’s level by using sensationalist or manipulative language – just keep focusing on the facts and let people make their own minds up.

Last but not least, many thanks for all your amazing work so far!

Regards,
Adam Spiers
UK

P.S. I have also published this as an open letter on my blog at http://blog.adamspiers.org/open-letter-to-avaaz and would be very happy to include any replies from you there. (You can also comment directly there if you prefer.)

Sent via webform at avaaz.org/en/contact

The post open letter to Avaaz appeared first on Structured Procrastination.