Author: old_wp_importer

Britons can have their citizenship revoked by the Home Secretary.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism looks into the 16 cases where Theresa May has used that power:

In a case known only as L1, a Sudanese-British man took his four British children on holiday to Sudan, along with his wife, who had limited leave to remain in the UK. Four days after his departure, Theresa May decided to strip him of his citizenship.

With their father excluded from the UK and their mother’s lack of permanent right to remain, the order effectively blocks the children from growing up in Britain. At the time of the order the children were aged between eight and 13 months.

In one case, Theresa May removed a man’s citizenship just before he was seized in Djibouti and rendered to the US. There has already been much reporting around this person, Mahdi Hashi, and there is a group campaigning on his behalf.

Here’s a worrying look at the implications of Google Glass:

Anywhere you go in public – any store, any sidewalk, any bus or subway – you’re liable to be recorded: audio and video. Fifty people on the bus might be Glassless, but if a single person wearing Glass gets on, you – and all 49 other passengers – could be recorded. Not just for a temporary throwaway video buffer, like a security camera, but recorded, stored permanently, and shared to the world.

To expand what’s implicit here: creepshots will be getting worse. For somebody now to photograph you without your consent on the street, they at least have to

point a phone at you

. A year from now, you’ll never know if that guy is ‘just’ ogling you, or if he’s also videoing your body for the benefit of the seamier end of the internet.

And I don’t see anything we can do to stop it. Even if we make it illegal (I believe it may already be so, in Germany), the internet is still sufficiently anonymous for this to become commonplace.

Aaron Swartz contained multitudes. In the outpouring of grief since his suicide, it’s striking how, despite being only 26, he could mean

so many things

to so many people.

Perhaps the surface picture is of a hacktivist, an open data campaigner, the wunderkind coder behind rss, reddit and web.py. Well, he was. But his talent and curiosity was so much broader than that stereotype. As historian Rick Perlstein writes:

I didn’t understand anything about [the technical] part of his professional world; it was only that he somehow understood everything about my professional world. All of our minds, each of us, contain a universe, but how is it that his mind contained fourteen or fifteen of them?

To Perlstein, as to his fans at humanities-academic hangout Crooked Timber, Aaron was one of them. His posts there and on his own blog shone light on anything from the political economy of think-tanks to what AI can teach stats about causation. Aaron was a major public intellectual in the making: he had the smarts, and the breadth of knowledge, and willingness to pick a fight.

Then there’s the politics. Matt Stoller “

knew Aaron as a political activist interested in health care, financial corruption, and the drug war

“:

he burned with a desire for justice, but also felt a profound desire to understand the system he was attempting to reorganize. He didn’t throw up his hands lazily and curse at corruption, he spent enormous amounts of time and energy learning about and working the political system

To me, Aaron was such an inspiring figure because he embodied

all

these talents, and more. This world has far too few people who can step between the worlds of the programmer, the activist and the intellectual — and it needs every one of them.

Last word to danah boyd:

I adored Aaron because he was an emotional whirlwind – a cranky bastard and a manic savant. Our conversations had an ethereal sense to them and he pushed me hard to think through complex issues as we debated. He had an intellectual range that awed me and a kitten’s sense of curiosity…he wanted to mainline books and live in the world of the mind.

This impressively

vicious book review by Evgeny Morozov turns eventually into an

attack on TED, accurately attributing its failures to the lack of

politics:

Whatever problems lurk on the horizon are imagined primarily as

problems of technology, which, given enough money, brain power, and

nutritional supplements, someone in Silicon Valley should be in a

position to solve. This is consistent with TED’s adoption of a

decidedly non-political attitude, as became apparent in a recent

kerfuffle over a short talk on inequality given by a venture

capitalist—who else?—which TED refused to release for fear that it

might offend too many rich people.

Since any meaningful discussion of politics is off limits at TED, the solutions advocated by TED’s techno-humanitarians cannot go beyond the toolkit available to the scientist, the coder, and the engineer. This leaves Silicon Valley entrepreneurs positioned as TED’s preferred redeemers. In TED world, tech entrepreneurs are in the business of solving the world’s most pressing problems.

The 2012 Financial Olympics:

Sailing – It’s going to be tough with so many competitors sailing so close to the wind this year. Barclays opted to do their own rigging, having allegedly refused the advice of their BoE advisors, however the sudden suicides of the team captain and cabin boy have left an opening for Iran’s HSBC crew. With more storms forecast this year, we expect many of the field to be capsized. Team US-JPM have already spent billions on repairs having hit a whale.

….

100 meters – Facebook reached the 100 yard mark in record time but didn’t quite manage the full 100 meters. Having thought they had won, they returned 30 meters back down the track and sat down moaning that the banks had guaranteed their victory.

….

Kayaking – The Greek team have excelled throughout the past 3 years, navigating the most extreme of rapids. Experts are left amazed that they are still afloat at this point in the competition despite their leaky craft, complete lack of leadership and large debts.

Rowenna Davies has a justified rant about milk, oligopoly, and the urban bias of left-wing politics.

Britain’s milk industry, she points out, is dominated by three companies. Sheer size gives these the power to squeeze dairy farmers, who are locked into ungenerous contracts and have nowhere else to turn. They’ve been steadily grinding down the price of milk, forcing farmers out of business. She wants government intervention:

They could introduce a law allowing farmers to terminate a contract with three months notice (although the minister says EU rules prevent this). Or they could increase investigations and sanctions for price collusion. These measures wouldn’t block the free market; they’d empower it. Farmers could also help themselves here by starting co-operative processing chains of their own.

“I don’t think politicians realise what it’s like,” says Rob, “They should come and do a milk internship for a few weeks and see what we do here. See what it’s like to deliver a calf or get bruises or broken fingers from young heifers. The dedication we have to show.”

The world is losing faith in capitalism, says Pew.

The American pollsters have just released their Global Attitudes Report, soliciting opinions primarily on the economy. Everywhere, people are gloomy about it — no surprise there. More striking is how deep the mistrust goes:

The global economic crisis has eroded support for capitalism. In 11 of the 21 nations surveyed, half or fewer now agree with the statement that people are better off in a free market economy even though some people are rich and some are poor.

Pew also asked whether “

most people can succeed if they are willing to work hard

“. The results are a little odd. The US comes out among the believers in hard work — this is the American Dream codified, after all. But it’s pipped by Pakistan, where 81% believe in hard work. Tunisia, Brazil and even India follow close behind. But in China, which seems from outside the paragon of workaholism, less than half accept the idea.

Pew give no historical data, and there’s sufficient international variation in

Neither/Don’t Know

answers to make me wonder if the question was misunderstood in some countries. Still, interesting thing to ask.

Ah, it’s nice to see the government contorting themselves, attempting to get around the stupidity of their own policies. Case in point: immigration. Allowing foreign students should be a no-brainer: people come, pay money, get indoctrinated, and leave. Put in the most cynical terms, it’s soft power with a negative cost.

It’s just a shame that the only way to get this through is by cooking the books. The government have promised to reduce immigration, thus their only way out is to stop counting students as people:

Prime Minister David Cameron is understood to be concerned that visa restrictions are stopping wealthy foreigners from studying in British universities.

….

The idea of removing students from official immigration figures was floated by a Conservative and Labour MP yesterday, who say they are trying to build a cross party consensus on the issue.

Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi and Labour MP Paul Blomfield said there was a “growing perception abroad that in terms of higher education, Britain is closed for business.”

The problem is, it’s a fix:

The idea of excluding students was rejected by immigration minister Damian Green last month, amid concerns that he would be seen as “fiddling” the figures.

Well, yes, it is fiddling the figures. Maybe we need separate categories for ‘profitable immigrants’ and ‘unprofitable immigrants’? At least then the statistics would, um, reflect government priorities.

Today’s news: Nick Clegg sold the NHS.

Worse: Nick Clegg sold the NHS,

and got nothing in return

.

The Times has the story. After the humiliation of the Lib Dems in the electoral reform referendum, Cameron gave Clegg another shot. He could choose another change in policy, and get the Prime Minister’s backing:

The Conservatives thought Mr Clegg would aim high, perhaps asking them to drop the troubled Health and Social Care Bill, a recommendation they would have acepted readily.

Instead Mr Clegg and his team came back with only two demands: ltax-raising powers for local councils and help in making Lords reform finally happen

Personally, I’m furious that Clegg would sell out the NHS in favour of Lords reform. You can’t say it’s backhanded: the one unchanging fact about his party is their obsession with electoral reform. I’m pretty sure that the rest of the country, of all political stripes, cares more about doctors than Lords.

But, weren’t the Liberal Democrats supposed to be good at coalitions? That’s what they claimed at the last election: to have strategised every possibility, and to be ready to punch above their weight through their deep understanding of coalition politics.

Since then, they’ve spectacularly messed up. Their main demand was, not PR, but a referendum on PR. That is, a referendum they were sure to lose. It was a miscalculation, obvious at the time, and which can be blamed squarely on the top of the party. And then this: choosing a distant and unenforceable promise over saving the NHS.

So all in all, this party aren’t just obnoxious. They’re obnoxious and incompetent.