If you don't buy any other cd this year then you should invest in GODSKITCHEN THE ANTHEMS 2009 - CD 3 IS OUR FAVE EVEN THOUGH THE LISTINGS ON THE CD ARE WRONG - THE LISTINGS ON THE BOX ARE CORRECT - WORTH EVERY PENNY!!!
Website Address is GODSKITCHEN
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Fact Sheets: Privacy and surveillance
1. What is surveillance?
Surveillance is the monitoring of activities of an individual, group or groups of people. New opportunities for mass surveillance are opening up daily with high-speed, networked computers facilitating many of our everyday activities. Surveillance today may be carried out via the Internet, via telephone networks or via the data profiling of individuals. It is carried out for a variety of reasons - by the private sector for commercial ones (such as the protection of intellectual property rights), or by states for security reasons.
Surveillance may be:
Passive – this analyses the trails of information generated by people’s everyday activities. It usually focuses on patterns of activity and includes techniques such as:
* data profiling and dataveillance (often used for market research, direct marketing or political lobbying)
* online monitoring of internet activity (for example, through data communications, information or cookies to track information on which websites are visited by an individual)
* enforcing intellectual property rights (through embedded information which tracks an individual’s use of a particular software or online service)
Directed – this can usually only be used in certain circumstances relating to serious crime. It directly targets and monitors specific individuals. It includes techniques such as:
* tapping communications (including internet data);
* bugging places of work;
* monitoring or infiltrating activities and networks through human agents.
2. How is surveillance covered by law?
Directed surveillance is covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and the Terrorism Act 2000. They update the powers of the state to tap communications and to infiltrate networks or organisations. These laws require that:
* any directed surveillance must be properly authorised by a person empowered to do so;
* this authorisation must be subjected to scrutiny to ensure that it was justified under the relevant law, and that it was correctly applied.
Some kinds of directed surveillance controls are enabled primarily through general powers given to the police to 'maintain order'. The use of surveillance in policing demonstrations is something of a grey area in terms of regulation; although the type of surveillance used does not necessarily target specific individuals, the Security Services Act 1996 and the Police Act 1997 state that concerted action by many people, even if in itself not illegal, may be investigated as 'serious crime'.
The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 strengthens the powers of the state to hold traffic data (see glossary). It also allows government departments to pool their information on terrorism and serious crime as part of their investigations.
Controls over the monitoring of communications data are less restrictive than those for directed surveillance. Communications data is accessible to local government agencies as well as the police or security services.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act widened the scope of powers for surveillance. It introduced a new requirement for telecommunications service providers to install special taps to facilitate blanket surveillance based around the automated collection of traffic data.
The RIP Act provides that communications data may be intercepted:
* in the interests of public safety;
* for the protection of public health;
* the collection of tax or charges payable to a government department; or
* for preventing death or injury.
It requires that message contents, on the other hand, should only be read in cases involving:
* national security;
* the prevention of serious crime;
* the protection of the ‘economic well-being’ of the UK.
The European Cybercrime Convention permits communications data to be routinely databased and held for many years and shared with other states that are signatories to the Convention.
Safeguards for the rights of individuals in terms of the use of their personal data come under data protection laws. The rights of individuals to privacy are defined by the Human Rights Act 1998, which implements the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention states that:
* Everyone has the right to respect for his(/her) private and family life, his(/her) home and his(/her) correspondence.
* There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Under UK law, therefore, a person has no absolute privacy rights. They are all subject to the exceptions above, so there is a wide range of circumstances in which government and other bodies may argue for such exceptions to be made.
3. Does the use of electronic surveillance threaten civil liberties?
In situations where data has been used (even where information is erroneous) in a way that damages a person's private life, individuals have limited legal rights to prevent further disclosure or to seek redress for the damage caused.
Many Internet privacy activists believe that there may be significant cause for concern on the privacy implications in the use of, for example;
* data profiling;
* the growing number of software tools that can only be registered online;
* internet firewalls and cookies;
* communications traffic data which identifies the source of requests, names of files supplied, dates, times, etc. This can enable the generation of profiles of the activities of groups or individuals;
* the databasing and archiving of that information.
Surveillance is the monitoring of activities of an individual, group or groups of people. New opportunities for mass surveillance are opening up daily with high-speed, networked computers facilitating many of our everyday activities. Surveillance today may be carried out via the Internet, via telephone networks or via the data profiling of individuals. It is carried out for a variety of reasons - by the private sector for commercial ones (such as the protection of intellectual property rights), or by states for security reasons.
Surveillance may be:
Passive – this analyses the trails of information generated by people’s everyday activities. It usually focuses on patterns of activity and includes techniques such as:
* data profiling and dataveillance (often used for market research, direct marketing or political lobbying)
* online monitoring of internet activity (for example, through data communications, information or cookies to track information on which websites are visited by an individual)
* enforcing intellectual property rights (through embedded information which tracks an individual’s use of a particular software or online service)
Directed – this can usually only be used in certain circumstances relating to serious crime. It directly targets and monitors specific individuals. It includes techniques such as:
* tapping communications (including internet data);
* bugging places of work;
* monitoring or infiltrating activities and networks through human agents.
2. How is surveillance covered by law?
Directed surveillance is covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and the Terrorism Act 2000. They update the powers of the state to tap communications and to infiltrate networks or organisations. These laws require that:
* any directed surveillance must be properly authorised by a person empowered to do so;
* this authorisation must be subjected to scrutiny to ensure that it was justified under the relevant law, and that it was correctly applied.
Some kinds of directed surveillance controls are enabled primarily through general powers given to the police to 'maintain order'. The use of surveillance in policing demonstrations is something of a grey area in terms of regulation; although the type of surveillance used does not necessarily target specific individuals, the Security Services Act 1996 and the Police Act 1997 state that concerted action by many people, even if in itself not illegal, may be investigated as 'serious crime'.
The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 strengthens the powers of the state to hold traffic data (see glossary). It also allows government departments to pool their information on terrorism and serious crime as part of their investigations.
Controls over the monitoring of communications data are less restrictive than those for directed surveillance. Communications data is accessible to local government agencies as well as the police or security services.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act widened the scope of powers for surveillance. It introduced a new requirement for telecommunications service providers to install special taps to facilitate blanket surveillance based around the automated collection of traffic data.
The RIP Act provides that communications data may be intercepted:
* in the interests of public safety;
* for the protection of public health;
* the collection of tax or charges payable to a government department; or
* for preventing death or injury.
It requires that message contents, on the other hand, should only be read in cases involving:
* national security;
* the prevention of serious crime;
* the protection of the ‘economic well-being’ of the UK.
The European Cybercrime Convention permits communications data to be routinely databased and held for many years and shared with other states that are signatories to the Convention.
Safeguards for the rights of individuals in terms of the use of their personal data come under data protection laws. The rights of individuals to privacy are defined by the Human Rights Act 1998, which implements the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention states that:
* Everyone has the right to respect for his(/her) private and family life, his(/her) home and his(/her) correspondence.
* There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Under UK law, therefore, a person has no absolute privacy rights. They are all subject to the exceptions above, so there is a wide range of circumstances in which government and other bodies may argue for such exceptions to be made.
3. Does the use of electronic surveillance threaten civil liberties?
In situations where data has been used (even where information is erroneous) in a way that damages a person's private life, individuals have limited legal rights to prevent further disclosure or to seek redress for the damage caused.
Many Internet privacy activists believe that there may be significant cause for concern on the privacy implications in the use of, for example;
* data profiling;
* the growing number of software tools that can only be registered online;
* internet firewalls and cookies;
* communications traffic data which identifies the source of requests, names of files supplied, dates, times, etc. This can enable the generation of profiles of the activities of groups or individuals;
* the databasing and archiving of that information.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Obama wants Al Gore in govt..
CHICAGO (AP) President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday praised former Vice President Al Gore's ideas on the environment as one part of helping the nation's struggling economy recovery.
Obama, Gore and Vice President-elect Joe Biden met privately at Obama's transition headquarters here for almost two hours. Obama said they discussed so-called green jobs as a way to boost employment across the country, improve national security by reducing reliance on foreign oil, and reduce energy costs.
Obama said global warming is "not only a problem, but it's also an opportunity."
"We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now, that this is a matter of urgency and national security, and it has to be dealt with in a serious way," Obama told reporters and photographers at the end of the closed-door meeting.
"We have the opportunity now to make jobs all across this country, in all 50 states, to repower America. ... We are not going to miss this opportunity," Obama said.
- Advertisement -
The president-elect's comments closely resembled Gore's plan for an environmental economy, outlined in a speech in July, and he echoed the title of Gore's effort, Repower America.
The president-elect's two guests did not speak to reporters.
Gore sought the presidency in 2000 but lost to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in a disputed election that was settled by the Supreme Court. He then became a leader in the movement to draw attention to climate change and global warming. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, and his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award the same year.
He lends Obama instant credibility among environmental activists. Aides also said Obama didn't plan to recruit Gore to become a formal part of his administration.
Obama has pledged to use part of his proposed economic stimulus package to develop alternative energies and green technologies. Obama's aides said the private meeting would help shape the president-elect's economic policies.
In April, as Obama was fighting for the nomination, he lavished praise on the former vice president and said he would play a role in dealing with the environment.
"I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis," Obama said in Pennsylvania. "I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now."
At the time, Gore was one of the most coveted endorsements up for grabs as the primary narrowed to between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Gore was vice president under President Bill Clinton, but remained out of the primary contests.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Canadian leader suspends Parliament to stay in power
(CNN) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday that Canada's governor general has allowed him to suspend Parliament, postponing a no-confidence vote from his opponents that he was likely to lose.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Parliament will resume on January 26.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Parliament will resume on January 26.
Harper called on his opponents to work with his government on measures to aid the nation's economy when Parliament returns on January 26.
"The first order of business will be the presentation of a federal budget," Harper told reporters outside the governor general's residence in Ottawa, Canada.
"Those who were elected here to serve the interest of Canada as a whole should work together -- at least to some degree -- on planning an economic plan for Canada."
Had Governor General Michaelle Jean -- who represents Britain's Queen Elizabeth II as head of state -- denied Harper's request, Monday's vote would have likely brought down Harper's government, less than two months after his Conservative Party strengthened its minority position in federal elections.
The Liberal Party and the leftist New Democratic Party announced plans earlier this week to form a governing coalition with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, which supports independence for French-speaking Quebec.
Liberal Party Leader Stephane Dion, the man who would fill Harper's role under the planned coalition, said the coalition would look to replace Harper unless he makes "monumental change."
"For the first time in the history of Canada, the prime minister of Canada is running away from the parliament of Canada," said Dion, accusing the premier of placing "partisan politics ahead of the interest of all Canadians."
New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton said Harper had used a "maneuver to escape accountability."
"He refuses to face the people of Canada through their elected representatives," he said. "The prime minister is choosing to protect his own job rather than focusing on the jobs of Canadians who are being thrown out of work today."
The news comes one day after Harper appealed directly to Canadians for support, vowing in a nationally televised address on the economy to halt his opponents, whom he accused of imposing their own agenda on the Canadian people.
"Unfortunately, even before the government has brought forward its budget, and only seven weeks after a general election, the opposition wants to overturn the results of that election," said the prime minister, whose Conservative Party strengthened its minority position in federal elections on October 14. iReport.com: Outrage brewing in Canada
Harper rejected the idea of a "power-sharing coalition with a separatist party," referring to the Bloc Quebecois, and insisted the country must stand together.
"At a time of global economic instability, Canada's government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together. At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada," he said Wednesday.
"The opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent, and without your vote. This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists; it is the time for Canada's government to focus on the economy and specifically on measures for the upcoming budget. This is a pivotal moment in our history," he said.
Harper, 49, has served as prime minister since February 2006.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Farm subsidies - lining the pockets of wealthy farmers eg. Rockefeller (Bilderburg)
Farm Subsidies - Lining the pockets of wealthy farm owners?
What do Ken Lay, Ted Turner, Sam Donaldson and David Rockefeller all have in common? asks Sacha Zimmerman in this months Reader's Digest.
Years of pocketing lots of money -- your money seems to be the answer.
Amazing as it sounds, your tax dollars have been going to rich guys like these in the form of farm subsidies. That's right, our government is paying big bucks to wealthy individuals who happen to own rural land somewhere, as long as they agree to federal rules about how -- and even whether -- they cultivate their spread.
From 1995 to 2005, Lay, the now-deceased Enron CEO, got $23,326 for conservation land in Missouri; business mogul Turner raked in $590,823 for farms in Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana and Florida; Donaldson supplemented his earnings as a broadcast journalist with $88,308 for a livestock ranch in New Mexico; and Rockefeller, a financier and philanthropist, got $553,782 for two farms in New York.
Appalled that your tax money is going to people who hardly need a handout? Well, it's worse than you think. According to a study by The Washington Post, since 2000 the government has paid people around the country $1.3 billion a year not to farm. That equates to 40 million acres annually -- "the equivalent of making every farm in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio idle," says Brian Riedl, a senior budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
And it's only a small part of the subsidy picture: In 2005 alone, 75 percent of the $20 billion in farm subsidies was paid to farmers for cultivating select crops like corn and soybeans. Among those soaking up the subsidies are well-to-do operators of large industrial farms. Meanwhile, the small, struggling farmer who may actually need assistance is getting squeezed out of business by the big boys lined up at the public trough.
What do Ken Lay, Ted Turner, Sam Donaldson and David Rockefeller all have in common? asks Sacha Zimmerman in this months Reader's Digest.
Years of pocketing lots of money -- your money seems to be the answer.
Amazing as it sounds, your tax dollars have been going to rich guys like these in the form of farm subsidies. That's right, our government is paying big bucks to wealthy individuals who happen to own rural land somewhere, as long as they agree to federal rules about how -- and even whether -- they cultivate their spread.
From 1995 to 2005, Lay, the now-deceased Enron CEO, got $23,326 for conservation land in Missouri; business mogul Turner raked in $590,823 for farms in Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana and Florida; Donaldson supplemented his earnings as a broadcast journalist with $88,308 for a livestock ranch in New Mexico; and Rockefeller, a financier and philanthropist, got $553,782 for two farms in New York.
Appalled that your tax money is going to people who hardly need a handout? Well, it's worse than you think. According to a study by The Washington Post, since 2000 the government has paid people around the country $1.3 billion a year not to farm. That equates to 40 million acres annually -- "the equivalent of making every farm in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio idle," says Brian Riedl, a senior budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
And it's only a small part of the subsidy picture: In 2005 alone, 75 percent of the $20 billion in farm subsidies was paid to farmers for cultivating select crops like corn and soybeans. Among those soaking up the subsidies are well-to-do operators of large industrial farms. Meanwhile, the small, struggling farmer who may actually need assistance is getting squeezed out of business by the big boys lined up at the public trough.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Darling & his Vat Petrol farce
BE WARNED: The London Papers and the news programmes this evening forgot to tell you this:
He increased petrol duty to help offset the effect of the VAT cut on fuel consumption. effectively cancelling out the effect of the VAT cut
Taken from: Financial Times : Darling plans tax hit to fund £20bn fiscal stimulus
By Jamie Chisholm
Published: November 24 2008 15:37 | Last updated: November 24 2008 18:02
He increased petrol duty to help offset the effect of the VAT cut on fuel consumption. effectively cancelling out the effect of the VAT cut
Taken from: Financial Times : Darling plans tax hit to fund £20bn fiscal stimulus
By Jamie Chisholm
Published: November 24 2008 15:37 | Last updated: November 24 2008 18:02
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Who in their right mind would want to work for MI6 anyway?
Read this article about Richard Tomlinson before you make up your mind
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
