Tuesday, 1 May 2012 9:43 AM

The queue at Heathrow snaked around the whole of the Passport Control hallway, then spread out down the corridor. I walked to the end of it to find another corridor full of people stretching into the distance. At the end of that, another corridor was rammed with angry tourists and business travellers, seemingly on the verge of mutiny. It took minutes to walk to the end of the line. That was the day I learned that an Englishman should never be too smug.

I had just arrived back in the UK from a trip to India. The airport in Delhi was horrific. It was that curious mixture of chaos and pedantic officialdom which the Indians do so well. The queues were long, unruly and badly organised, but everywhere men with extraordinary moustaches and army uniforms slowly picked through people's luggage. It took a very long time indeed and any visitor would instantly have been able to spot several ways in which the process could be improved. Throughout the ordeal, I made various dismissive statements to my Indian travelling companion about the obvious limitations to her country's rumoured world power status – namely that it cannot organise even the most basic of arrangements, no matter how quickly its economy is growing.

Eight hours later, we were in Heathrow and I had to eat my words. The queue at the airport looked like it would take several hours. It was late at night and we both had work the next morning. There was a very real possibility we would spend all night in the airport and then go straight to work from there. Instead, we took a gamble and waited in the UK and EU passport holders' queue (my travelling companion had a multiple entry Indian visa). That queue took a mere hour, at the end of which we convinced the border staff to allow my companion through with me even though she was technically in the wrong line.

I still remember the faces of the people in the non-EU queue. They were angry, baffled and exhausted. Behind them, like a conscious mockery, was a series of huge colour photographs of stereotypical British characters – cabbies, beefeaters etc – all smiling with the words 'Welcome to Britain' emblazoned above their head. Nothing could have been more apt. A family of American tourists looked appalled. An oriental student was aghast, shaking her head with disbelief. Fair enough. I've travelled through many third world countries and I've never seen anything like that.

No-one cared of course. This was before Theresa May's border security row, which anyway discouraged sensible practical initiatives to fix this problem. With any luck, the Olympics, which won't rejuvenate east London, might at least provide the spark to correct this problem. Those queues humiliate us in the eyes of the world. They stand as a testament to how far we have allowed our neurotic obsession with immigration and cost-cutting to become self-defeating. It's a shame we need the Olympics to fix something which is so patently damaging to our country, but there you go.

Nevertheless, that queue taught me something important. An Englishman should never sneer at anyone else's country. Chances are, we will find a way of conducting ourselves in a manner which is far more hapless than they could ever dream of.
 

Monday, 2 April 2012 4:08 PM

I've just spoken with one of the few civil liberties people who seems to understand both technology and the law, and they had an interesting perspective on the Home Office surveillance proposals.

Of course, we don't know really know what the proposals are yet – we've just the odd leak to the press about 'real-time' access. Try calling up the Home Office and asking about it, if you fancy a laugh. What we do know is that authorities want access not just to telephone records and emails but to communication on newer technology, like Skype and Facebook.

Quite how they would access that information has not been mentioned, but experts tell me the only possible way to do so is through 'deep packet inspection', where a black box recorder is put on Internet Service Providers. The result of that change? Every single thing you do online is intercepted. Interception will be the norm, the only question is whether the authorities bother to look.

Why would they use this system? Well, the government's problem is that while it can ask your phone provider for telephone bills, getting access to information on Facebook or other social media sites is more difficult because most of them are based in other jurisdictions. So instead of making deals with each firm, you would keep track of all the information at the ISP source using the black boxes.

If accurate, the surveillance being discussed would need an appropriate warrant under Ripa [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act], because it amounts to an interception. That directly contradicts what ministers have been saying.

Of course, we don't actually know that this is what they're planning because the Home Office, while keen to leak to certain sections of the press, suddenly gets very coy when you start asking questions back. Even during the Home Office consultation in 2009, for legislation which the coalition is now bringing back from the dead, there was little information about how any of this information would be secured.

Presumably, the Home Office wants as few details out as possible when parliamentarians vote on the matter, so the debate can be restricted to people on the radio screaming about catching paedophiles and terrorists. In fact, this morning's leaked Liberal Democrat briefing paper encouraged MPs to rely on stories about catching paedophiles. Keep the story on that level, and you've a good chance of doing whatever you want. After all, who doesn't want to catch paedophiles?The last thing the Home Office wants is for techies and legal experts to get together and figure out precisely what it is they're actually going to do.

But there are strong hints. Firstly, I'm informed that deep packet inspection is the only technologically feasible way of securing information about third party online transactions – ie Facebook, Skype etc. Unless you're going to establish deals with every online company, you'll need a blanket approach. That's where deep packet inspection comes in.

Secondly, that Lib Dem briefing paper alludes to this technique, albeit with Orwellian terminology. "Where there is no business case for communication service providers to gather this data," the briefing reads, "the government will provide financial and technical assistance to allow it to be collected on companies' local systems."

Finally, although deep packet inspection did not even feature in the Home Office's 2009 consultation, it was mentioned in a couple of news items to newspaper journalists at the time (the Telegraph and the Sunday Times I think, but I haven't had time to look for the pieces yet).

Of course, if they use this technology to intercept all internet transactions on the internet, you'll just have to take their word for it that they won't read the content of the message as well. There will be nothing stopping them. I'm sure that's a comforting thought.

Tuesday, 14 February 2012 12:06 PM

Religion can have a role in political debate, but its adherents must stop trying to gain special privileges.

By Ian Dunt

Baroness Warsi is right. Secularists are becoming more militant. Prayers at council meetings, religious speeches from politicians, bishops in the Lords – we want them all gone. We'd like to be more reasonable about it, but religious people, unfortunately, can't be trusted.

They've been given several opportunities to behave responsibly and they keep dropping the ball. Most secularists welcome religious participation in the debate as equal partners – much like we welcome Conservatives (big and small c) socialists, feminists and the like. Everyone's welcome. The Archbishop of Canterbury is undeniable perceptive, reasoned and civilised. John Sentamu also provides a reasoned and valuable voice. There are many others. Even on issues such as gay marriage, where their views are incomprehensible and barbaric, they serve a useful function in giving voice to a large minority of traditionalist voices in the country.

But give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Warsi demonstrates as much in her speech today, made on a trip to the Vatican to plan the defeat of 'militant secularism'. First, she insists faith has been "neglected" and "undermined", citing, among other things, the British Airways ban on a flight attendant wearing a crucifix. Fair enough. People are entitled to wear whatever necklace they like, be it Che Guevara or Jesus Christ. Warsi just wants Christianity to have "a place at the table" she says.

Then she takes the fatal next step, which religious figures always take. God, Warsi says, should have been included in the European constitution. Seemingly without realising the irony, she then insists it is secularists who are "deeply intolerant".

To include God in a document which covers all the citizens of a country or continent would be deeply intolerant. It would be an attack on those of us who do not believe in God. By leaving religion outside of political life, we ensure free expression for all. Its inclusion is a minor tyranny, putting atheists on a secondary platform. If this is a 'Christian' country then surely it’s not mine. If it’s a secular country, it belongs to everyone.

The religious always make this mistake. It is not a coincidence. The fiery passions that accompany faith are a direct result of holding beliefs on the basis of emotions rather than reason. Believers are so wrapped up in their own ill-conceived superiority they can't tolerate an equal footing with others. We want them to have an equal voice, but they simply can’t be trusted not to try a power-grab. Give them a speech and they'll propose a religious constitution

Faith schools indoctrinate children with a world view before they are old enough to consent to one. Bishops in the Lords hold a role in the legislative process which no political formula could justify. The government is increasingly keen to introduce a religious element to its mission statement. Prayers are said in the Commons before it starts its sessions. And deeper down, at the social level, religious people are increasingly wary of even engaging in argument. Religion has been put 'off-limits'. The intellectual interrogation of someone's faith is now judged 'offensive', as if relinquishing rationality entitles you to special privileges which other belief systems do not.

There is no official separation of church and state in this country despite the overwhelming indifference of the British towards religion. Church attendance is at an all time low, faith is in decline: the British ambivalence towards those who claim absolute truth is alive and well. The secular majority in this country tolerates the continued lack of separation between church and state because religious and political leaders have been civilised and practical enough to limit their calls for greater power. That will not necessarily last. Warsi and her allies in the Vatican should stop rocking the boat.