Migration Statistics

The latest migration statistics have been released, and so the seemingly-perpetual “the foreigners are taking over” story hits the front pages of the media once again.

The Mail screamed Immigration soared by 20% last year – making a mockery of Government pledge to bring it DOWN. The Express ran with Immigration soars 20% in a year. The stories weren’t just restricted to the right, either. The Mirror and the Independent jumped on the “Immigration up 20%” bandwagon. Others such as Sky News and the Evening Standard joined in the fun.

The problem is – that is not what the statistics show.

The ONS report actually describes net migration – the number of incoming immigrants minus the number of outgoing emigrants. Net migration was estimated at 198,000, it was actually 239,000 – a 21% difference. Two further key points explain why net migration has risen:

• “Emigration is at its lowest since June 2005".
• “Immigration remains steady at 575,000”.

So what the report actually says is that the reason net migration has increased is that less people are moving out – not more people are moving in.

Funny – that’s not the impression you get from the headlines above. Read the articles, however, and they all talk about net migration. It seems the headlines do not match. Let’s see what our regulators say about that. According to the Press Complaints Commission’s Editor’s Code of Practice (not that it means much anyway):

“1 i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”

Furthermore:

“1 iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.”

Are these newspapers doing the above? No. Will anything be done about this? No. According to the PCC:

“Given that headlines are usually only a few words in length, it can be quite challenging for newspapers and magazines to summarise what are often quite detailed or complicated stories. The editor will have to decide how much prominence to give to particular aspects of the story; some parts may be omitted from the headings altogether. The PCC's approach to headlines is that a headline should be read in conjunction with the text of the article before considering whether or not it is misleading.”

It seems fair enough that a headline should be read in context of a story, but the above advise does not reflect that a headline can be physically separate from an article. After all, the front page of the newspaper only has a shouty statement rather than a full article. A passer-by or a skimmer will pick up the headline, but not the article. How are they meant to judge if the headline is misleading? The logic is flawed. But in the eyes of the PCC this is fine. Clearly the article content undid the damage caused by the headline, just look at the comments under the Daily Mail’s online article:

As a result of the PCC’s total inability to handle the ongoing phone hacking scandal, it seems as if they will not be around in their current form for much longer, so hopefully whatever replaces it will have the strength to be able to enforce its rules, and make sensible rules in the first place.

The reason why these things matter can be found on our streets. The perpetuation of the fear of immigration is one of the causes for the rise in far-right groups such as the BNP and the EDL. Constant demonising of Muslims and immigrants in general has led to the immortal phrase “I’m not racist, but”. Immigration was one of the hot topics of the 2010 General Election. In the first live TV debate, the on-screen Tory approval ratings shot through the roof when Cameron started talking about imposing tougher border restrictions.

This “them and us” culture is a difficult one to tackle, especially when those who spread these stories have no concerns of retribution. Even when the PCC does wrangle an apology out of a newspaper it is never given equal prominence. These stories are spread like wildfire on forums and social networking sites, but the retractions and apologies never fully percolate the minds of the public.

Politicians tap into the fears of the public to gain power. We cannot say that the fear of immigration elected a Tory-led coalition, but I’m sure it contributed something. It’s time we stopped creating boogeymen and viewed the world in a different, more factual way - maybe then we'll have a better society.

Istyosty Down–Google Next?

The proxy service istyosty has had to close due to legal threats from Associated Newspapers (aka The Daily Mail). The cease-and-desist letter has been published online.

Istyosty worked by caching webpages and providing a URL to the cached version. This means that the cached website does not get hit every single time the cached page is loaded. This deprives the target site of advertising revenue, whether that be through page ads (which can be stripped by an automated script – this is what browser extensions like Adblock do), or by pay-per-hit schemes.

Obviously, the Daily Fail found istyosty either vocal enough, or popular enough to warrant it a threat to its online business. We can take that as a good thing. The Daily Mail is one of the most popular online news sites, gaining in popularity through flamebaitery articles (case in question: Facebook gives you cancer), reams of celebrity drivel supplemented by photographs, and the sheer ignorant and offensive columns of the likes of Richard Littlejohn and Jan Moir. Their bile is what causes people to take these measures – but they don’t care too much about that.

Now, the source of some of this content has been brought into question – allegations stand from multiple sources that the Mail online uses copyrighted images without remuneration or attribution; and there is also evidence of plagiarism. From a business perspective, this all makes sense. Competing on the Internet largely translates for competing for Google search rankings. The Mail is always up there at the top of the first page – an impressive feat. It seems as if they are willing to do anything to get there, whether that be rip off content or threaten

The big question is – will the Daily Mail go after Google? Google caches web pages in the same way:

Furthermore, I can link to the Daily Mail homepage using that cached link, just like istyosty. Google is considerably stronger that istyosty (both in terms of financial and server power) – and so will cache pages at a vastly accelerated rate. Surely this is a bigger threat to them?

The Daily Mail has a history of setting the lawyers on those who disagree with it – but will Google be considered too powerful to pull the same tactic on?

The Danger of Social Media is also its Strength

In the wake of last week’s riots across the UK, David Cameron announced on Thursday that the government would look into banning people from using social media “when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality”. I think this is a ridiculous, ignorant and impossible position to uphold.

What can already by done?

Social media services are provided by private companies, and by signing up to those services you agree to abide by their rules. You do not have the right to freedom of speech on their services. It is very often the case that “private” messages are rarely private – there is money to be made in mining your data and handing it over to advertisers. This kind of policy exists so that administrators can remove hate speech and graphic content.

Looking at the terms of use of Facebook, Twitter and RIM, it is pretty clear that all three services have clauses allowing them to hand information over to the authorities. Facebook asserts:

“We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests if we have a good faith that the response is required by law.”

Twitter similarly states that:

“We also reserve the right to access, read, preserve and disclose any information as we reasonably believe is necessary to:

(i) Satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request

(v) protect the rights, property or safety of Twitter, its users and the public”

Finally, RIM

“Reserves the right to review materials posted to or sent through a Communication Service and to remove any materials in its sole discretion.”

Furthermore,

“You hereby authorize RIM to co-operate with (i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected criminal violation”.

All of these services will aid law enforcement authorities with their enquiries – which is in their commercial interests as by doing so they will be seen as responsible organisations who do not want to promote criminal activity.

But, David Cameron was not just talking about having these companies hand over information; he was talking about going further and banning people from these sites altogether. So, let’s take a look at whether this could actually be implemented.

The Implementation

As this was just a general speech, not a lot of details were discussed on how such a policy would be implemented. There are a lot of questions to be answered; these are a few of the big ones that come to my mind:

• Will banning be a proactive or a reactive task?
  • If done proactively – how is this reconciled with the presumption of innocence?
• Will this be a blanket internet ban, or a ban on specific sites?
  • If a blanket ban is in place – how can you guarantee that person cannot access the Internet from another machine?
  • If a social media ban is in place:
    • What is the definition of a social media service?
    • Who will keep track of what social media services exist?
    • How often will this be updated?
  • Who will enforce this ban?
• When will users be allowed back on the Internet/services?
• What is the process of appeals?

This is quite a difficult area to be wrangling policy in, as actually enforcing such a ban would incur a massive and ongoing cost to the state, would require the full co-operation of all parties involved, and verges on the impossible. BBM, for example, is encrypted. To actively police this network would require the ability to decrypt a message and identify the origin, in addition to catching the criminal with enough other evidence to prosecute.

Chris Morris’ excellent film Four Lions shows the main characters communicating through a web service called “Puffin Party”. The reason I bring this to your attention is to state that not all social network activity is carried out via the larger services. Once you start heading into the obscure, you suddenly find yourself dealing with hundreds, if not thousands of places in which communications could be taking place. When Twitter and Facebook were blocked in the Middle East uprisings earlier this year, people turned to dating sites to communicate. People even get around the so-called ‘Great Firewall of China’. These systems are never perfect.

Neutral

During the riots there were various rumours going around on Twitter that riots had started in several cities when they hadn’t. Some police forces were very visual on Twitter to dispel these rumours. There is a risk in such a fast-moving story that these rumours might gain some traction and people would take to the streets, but this is not an exclusive feature of social networks. It is good ol’ scapegoating to say that social media was the cause of the riots. Sure, it might have been one of or the major means by which the message spread, but we must also consider the flipside.

Users of social media regularly use the service to do good – by linking to charities, or important stories, or in context of this article, organise a community cleanup operation (see the #riotcleanup hashtag feed). Tom Watson MP was correct in calling this technology “neutral” as the technology does not encourage this kind of behaviour. Social media is unique in that is has the ability to spread information on a scale never seen before – that is one the whole a good thing that we should not want restricted because of some bad apples.

To me, it seems as if this part of David Cameron’s speech is nothing more than populism, with the intention of gaining small-term favour from the public, and ensuring they remain in control of the media cycle by looking ‘tough’. There is clearly a fine line between the need for the Police to be able to effectively police our society, and acting in an oppressive manner. Whilst this does mean that the Police will have to adapt to new technology, we should always be wary of how much power we hand over. In times of crisis – keep a watchful eye on the government, and think critically about what they want to introduce into law.

Scum

This week, I blogged about how we don’t really know what caused these riots. Is it a response to austerity, unemployment, phone hacking or the stock market crashes? I think now is the time to start asking questions. Why did these riots happen? Why now? Why in this particular manner? If we start to open our eyes and minds to these questions, we stand a chance of improving our society.

Based on the bile spewing forth from certain sections of the Internet, it seems as if this is not happening. Rather, I’ve seen people calling for the user of rubber and real bullets, water cannon, the army, and for more out-there punishments including removing benefits. The Government are warming to these ideas too, with David Cameron expressing that rubber bullets and water cannon may be used, and that they would ignore “phoney calls about human rights.” I despair at how rapidly we call for an escalated violent response from the State in order to quell violence.

Some think that wanting to understand the causes of the violence means you condone the violence, that you are an apologist, or a sympathiser. These are mutually-exclusive states. Of course any sensible person doesn’t condone the violence, and one expresses extreme concern for the people who have been affected directly by the riots, whose houses and businesses have been burnt to the ground. Since the police have been deployed in larger numbers, there have been more arrests and less violence – something which will improve in the coming days. We have a rule of law, and I am a firm believer that those responsible for their own actions should be brought to justice.

I cannot see the logic in calling the rioters scum. It serves no purpose other than demonising, dehumanising and forcing these people further underground. Behind these calls lie ignorant assumptions, such that the rioters are all benefit claimants – something totally unsubstantiated. In my mind, by referring to people as “scum” you are essentially condemning these people, taking their actions out of their own hands and placing them on their ‘class’, if you can call it that.

Put this all together, and you get the potential for a government to enforce further crackdowns on civil liberties, backed by ‘popular opinion’. We can’t let that happen. Whilst the past few nights have been terrifying for all of us, we must remain focused on building a better society for all of us – not just the few. One step towards that is to stop calling these people scum, holding them to account, and ensuring this never happens again.

London’s Burning–Don’t Let Our Rights Burn With It

London seems to be a pretty dangerous place as of late, as I’m sure you’ve heard. It seems rather difficult to identify why people are rioting and looting – even more so for me because I’m out the country with limited internet access. The media are yet again whipped up into a frenzy, all ready with explanations that miraculously fit their ideological narratives.

I don’t think it is as simple as that.

The protests started in Tottenham over the mysterious death of Mark Duggan. That may have been the spark that kicked things off, but I don’t think it is possible to say this public disorder happened because of this reason, and this reason alone. We just don’t know. Whilst we might try and understand these events in a sentence, or a soundbite – what we have is a mix of mob behaviour, anger, opportunism and confusion; mixed together with a media frenzy, competing rationalisations and an overwhelming sense of information overload. With all of that going around - how can me make full sense of what is going on?

The Prime Minister is chairing COBRA tomorrow. Some on Twitter seem adamant the army will have to intervene in the situation. This may be due to the glamorising of the violence by the media, genuine concern, or a lust for dramatic events. Context is difficult to ascertain in 140 characters. Whatever happens, I hope that we remain aware that there is a disparity between rioting and legitimate, legal, protesting. Any sweeping crackdowns must try and remember that, and not restrict further our ability to hold our lawmakers to account. But this - what is happening right now - is not the way to do it. Stay safe.

Death Penalty

Guido Fawkes is using the government’s new, fantastically broken e-petitions site, and their pledge to consider for debate the most popular petitions, to try and re-introduce the death penalty.

I’m sure he doesn’t think this will actually go anywhere, because it won’t. What this will do is help distract from the Tories messing up in almost every single aspect of government, and from the phone hacking scandal. This seems to me like a couple of idiots stealing the limelight during the Silly Season, rather than a “real” issue.

When discussing the death penalty, one of the major points you frequently hear is that “the murderer took away the victim’s human rights!”. You also hear “It will act as a deterrent!”. The problem with both of these arguments is that when you take a good step back from the situation, these arguments aren’t aren’t the most important ones.

The death penalty is wrong, because our judicial system is not perfect. Neither is our politics, and neither is our media (who are frequently found guilty of contempt of court over their demonising of suspects). To be able to condemn somebody to death, with 100% confidence that they were the guilty party, is moronic and impossible. To have such complete confidence that all those cogs are in perfect working order is just plain silly when you think about it. Any crack in this theoretical perfection leaves room for an irreversible false conviction – it has happened before.

Looking at recent events, we know there is a problem with corruption in the police. The phone hacking scandal revealed News International regularly paid the police for information – and both the Met Police Assistant Commissioner and Police Commissioner have resigned. A police officer during the UK Uncut Fortnum and Mason protest tricked the occupiers into leaving and heading into a planned arrest. Since then, 109 of the 145 cases have been dropped. We know about police spies and what they get up to, and then there is also the well-known case of the police killing an innocent man, and using the media to spin the event in their favour.

Whilst I accept that the police are necessary for the protection of the public, you cannot deny that they are not perfect – not by a long shot. Until then, claims about whether the death penalty will work are irrelevant in all but hypothetical terms; and hopefully it will forever stay that way. We are not savages.