In a chat with web users on Google+ and YouTube, Obama discussed for the first time the covert drone program that has dramatically escalated under the Obama administration. Previously the administration refused to discuss the strikes publicly.

Talking down the estimated civilian casualties as a result of the strikes, Obama said: “I want to make sure the people understand actually drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties. For the most part they have been very precise, precision strikes against Al-Qaeda and their affiliates, and we’re very careful in terms of how it’s been applied.”

The New America Foundation think tank in Washington says drone strikes in Pakistan have killed between 1,715 and 2,680 people in the past eight years, while the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates between 2,386 and 3,015 people have been killed including between 391 and 780 civilians and around 175 children killed. It is not known whether Obama is accepting these civilian death counts as not being a “huge number” or whether his own administration has much lower estimated death counts. Either way, human rights campaigners have expressed deep concern over increased use of drone strikes.

Obama has increased drone strikes since he came into presidency. The Telegraph has a video of Obama discussing the drone strikes for the first time.

Related articles

• Obama Confirms Drone Strikes in Pakistan – Voice of America (voanews.com)
• Civilian Deaths Due to Drones Are Not Many, Obama Says – New York Times (nytimes.com)
• Barack Obama admits US drone strikes on Pakistan (telegraph.co.uk)
• With its deadly drones, the US is fighting a coward’s war | George Monbiot (guardian.co.uk)

Image via Wikipedia

You don’t hear the once frequently-touted line “we’re all in this together” much anymore. Vote for “change” was another phrase repeated by the Conservatives who promised to bring equality, justice and, above all, trust back into a government that had seemed to forget that it was elected by the people and for the people. Cringeworthy as it sounds coming from a Tory politician, the phrases were obviously perceived by many to be legitimate as they rushed to the polls to vote Conservative, forgetting for a moment that the very nature of the word “conservative” contrasts strongly with the word “change”.

Perhaps Cameron doesn’t dare spout the line “we’re all in this together” these days because he knows he’ll be laughed out of government, or perhaps he innately knows that now he’s in power, heartwarming phrases that don’t actually mean anything are no longer needed to garner votes. Still, there’s no doubting that the simple phrase was powerful coming after years of a Labour government that seemed unaccountable to the public. A party that had lost the trust in the people, prompting the Conservative party, of all parties, to act as if they were going to bring trust and accountability back into government.

Despite never really believing Cameron’s rhetoric of “we’re all in this together”, I was still stunned to find that Cameron didn’t act on that phrase and step in to ensure that Stephen Hester, the Royal Bank of Scotland’s chief executive, was blocked of his nearly £1m bonus. Cameron has also been stating for months now that he would be “tough” on executive pay, especially in light of growing public anger.

I was stunned because I believe Cameron missed a trick here. Actually living up to one’s rhetoric is, surprisingly, admired in a politician, and had Cameron followed through with his sentiments I believe he would have won back a lot of public support in both his leadership and the coalition itself. Here Cameron was offered a golden opportunity, yet he let his Tory sentiments get the better of him.

It also awarded Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, a chance to strike back at Cameron for failing to act on his rhetoric. Now, whilst I feel the Labour party has been a pretty rubbish opposition party (missing many chances to really strike back at the coalition and assert their own position and a counter deficit-reduction plan), this inaction on Cameron’s behalf was impossible for Miliband to ignore.

“It’s a disgraceful failure of leadership by the prime minister,” Miliband said, in a rare moment where he channeled the public’s anger. “He’s been promising, for months, action against excessive bonuses, executive pay – and now he’s nodded through a million-pound bonus.

“He’s also been lecturing shareholders about how they need to be more active in holding executives to account. He owns, through the British government, 83% of the Royal Bank of Scotland. He must now explain, not least to the British people, why he has allowed this to happen.”

You see, the RBS (now 83% owned by taxpayers) decided to award Stephen Hester a £963,000 bonus. Hester already earns a basic salary of £1.2m, and the move to award nearly £1m as a bonus has led to public outcry, and a missed opportunity by the coalition to actually act on behalf of the will of the electorate.

Even Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London, decried the decision, stating that RBS should be run “on public sector lines”. In an interview with the BBC, Johnson added: “The idea that this is not in the control of the government seems to me to be far-fetched. Stephen Hester is an able man, probably doing a difficult job, and his contract must have been drawn up, I guess, when he was appointed in 2008 under Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown.

“I do not know what they were thinking of when they drew it up that way, but it certainly seems to me to be right that the government should step in and sort it out. People will not understand how somebody can get a whacking great bonus like that when they are basically running a state-owned concern, and I am at a loss to justify it.”

David Cameron and Nick Clegg both pretended it was all the fault of the Labour government and, despite the fact that their government owns 83% of the bank, said there was nothing they could do.

Cameron said: “He was brought in to do this job, his contract was put into place by the last government – we are obviously constrained by that contract.”

Clegg also blamed everything on Labour and acted as if his hands were tied, stating: “The last government not only let the banks get away with blue murder – then they entered into contracts with them, which allowed them to continue to pay themselves large bonuses. Now whether you like it or not – and I don’t particularly like it – we are constrained by those contractual obligations.”

George Osborne also stated that he didn’t really care about any of this rubbish and doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. Speaking in Davos, the chancellor said: “I think it is difficult to justify levels of pay in the financial sector compared to other industries.”

The only problem with Clegg and Cameron’s rhetoric that it was all “Labour’s fault” and Hester’s bonus was “constrained” by a pre-existing contract is… well, it’s not exactly true.

Documents provided to The Independent revealed that their claims were misleading, if not entirely false. As the Independent reports:

“A copy of Mr Hester’s personal contract with RBS, updated in 2009 and seen by The Independent, reveals he has no contractual right to a bonus – and the Government could use its position as the bank’s largest shareholder to veto any remuneration it thought was excessive.

“In the section on bonuses, the contract states: “The executive [Mr Hester] may, at the discretion of the Remuneration Committee, be entitled to participate in any Bonus Scheme as approved by the Remuneration Committee, the terms of which may, at the sole discretion of the Remuneration Committee, require the Executive to defer a proportion of any bonus awarded to him.”

The Independent continues, stating that: “Sources at RBS confirmed that the Remuneration Committee’s recommendations had to be put to a full vote of shareholders at the annual general meeting, which the Government controls.”

Labour also denied such “contractual obligations” regarding the bonus were in place. Lord Myners, the Treasury minister responsible for the banks when Labour was in power, confirmed there was no contractual obligation for a guaranteed bonus in the contract.

Related articles

• RBS chairman gives up £1.4m bonus (guardian.co.uk)
• RBS chairman declines £1.4m bonus (independent.co.uk)
• You: Anger grows over RBS chief’s £900,000 bonus (guardian.co.uk)
• Stephen Hester bonus puts David Cameron under pressure – The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
• Sir Philip waives £1.4m RBS share reward (thetimes.co.uk)
• Boris joins attack on No 10′s ‘failure’ over RBS boss’s bonus (independent.co.uk)
• Labour attacks bonus for RBS boss (bbc.co.uk)
• RBS chief’s £1 million bonus sparks anger – Reuters UK (uk.reuters.com)

Journalism attracts me because of the nature of the job – writing profusely and investigating new things, meeting new people, sharing new experiences. Although I currently don’t have much experience in journalism, I aim to gain more and improve my skills in this area. Journalism is such a broad area, which is another attraction for me. I have always been in awe, and inspired by, investigative journalists. Their work has helped inform the public, shape government police, bring to light repressive regimes and illegal activities, and countless other achievements. Journalists such as John Pilger and Greg Palast, amongst many others, were a source of inspiration for me. Other areas of journalism that interest me are war, conflict and terrorism reporting as well as political journalism. It is my aim to gain more experience in journalism, to become comfortable in the various practises and gain valuable writing skills.

Journalism is under attack at the moment, from censorship, restrictive laws, and the threat of increased regulations which could harm the freedom of press. Even the internet, a tool used for freedom of expression and connectivity, is a potential threat to journalism. The rise in ‘citizen’ journalists for example and the near-instant speed that news, images and video can be shared means that traditional journalism will have to change and adapt, or risk being damaged… However, it is also true that we need journalism now more than ever. With governments threatening to censor the internet, with oppression and conflicts still raging across the globe, with government corruption and propaganda still present, journalism is still the bridge between the rulers and the people. The gap between the truth and the lies.

Image via Wikipedia

Google has recently announced its controversial plan to merge all user data collected across its websites into one profile, which would then be used to target users with advertising and services and to further alter Google search results.

User data from Google products – including Gmail, Youtube, Google+, Google Maps, and even Android mobile – will be collated and treated as a single set of data to be used for various targeted services and revenue-generating schemes.

The Guardian reports that “users will have no way to opt out of being tracked across the board when the search company unifies its privacy policy and terms of service for all its online offerings, including search, Gmail and Google+. The move is being criticised by privacy advocates and could attract greater scrutiny from anti-trust regulators.”

Google’s director of privacy, product and engineering, Alma Whitten, wrote in a blogpost: “Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience.”

“Our recently launched personal search feature is a good example of the cool things Google can do when we combine information across products. Our search box now gives you great answers not just from the web, but your personal stuff too.”

“We can make search better—figuring out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink. We can provide more relevant ads too.”

The changes take place on March 1st, and users will be unable to opt out of the changes.

“Google’s new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening,” said Common Sense Media chief executive James Steyer told the Washington Post. “Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to opt out — especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search.”

Google can store cookies on people’s computers to see which Web sites they visit or use its popular maps program to estimate their location. It can collect information about users when they activate an Android mobile phone, sign into their accounts online or enter search terms. For the first time, this data will be collated across its services into one user profile .

“There is no way anyone expected this,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a privacy advocacy group. “There is no way a user can comprehend the implication of Google collecting across platforms for information about your health, political opinions and financial concerns.”

Mat Honan from Gizmodo wrote: “It means that things you could do in relative anonymity today, will be explicitly associated with your name, your face, your phone number.

“If you use Google’s services, you have to agree to this new privacy policy. It is an explicit reversal of its previous policies.”

An interested TED talk on Google is posted below. In it, Eli Pariser speaks about how Google is literally changing the way we view and use the internet, and not necessarily for the better.

 

Related articles

• Google to merge user data across its services (cnn.com)
• Google wants ability to ‘combine’ your user data (news.cnet.com)
• Google Streamlines Privacy Policy to Integrate its Products (wired.com)

The US is now rank 47 on the Press Freedom Index, which stated that the country “owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests”. The index was released on Wednesday by Reporters Without Borders’.

Journalists covering the Occupy protest in 2011 were repeatedly targeted by police. The Huffington Post reported last year that: “Since September, journalists have been arrested in Boston, Nashville, Rochester, Richmond, Milwaukee, Oakland, Atlanta, and Chapel Hill, according to Josh Stearns, associate program director of Free Press, a non-partisan media reform organization. Journalists have also reported rough treatment at the hands of the cops along with difficulties obtaining press credentials under rigid and often arbitrary rules established by police departments in big cities.”

The Huffington Post also reported that “Reporter after reporter — many using the hashtag “#mediablackout” — tweeted through the night, saying that police had either blocked them from seeing what was happening or had acted violently towards them. Some correspondents were also among the scores of people arrested by police.

“At his press conference about the raid on Tuesday morning, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said journalists were barred from covering the raid “to protect members of the press,” and “to prevent a situation from getting worse.”

Reports of beatings, arrests and harassment led the US to drop 27 places on the Press Freedom Index. Iraq (152nd) fell back 22 places, close to its 2008 position (158th). Syria also fell in the index, to 176th position, due to “total censorship, widespread surveillance, indiscriminate violence and government manipulation made it impossible for journalists to work”, the index reported.

As it released its 10th annual press freedom index, Reporters Without Borders stated: “This year’s index sees many changes in the rankings, changes that reflect a year that was incredibly rich in developments, especially in the Arab world.

“Many media paid dearly for their coverage of democratic aspirations or opposition movements. Control of news and information continued to tempt governments and to be a question of survival for totalitarian and repressive regimes. The past year also highlighted the leading role played by netizens in producing and disseminating news.”

US firm Advanced Cell Technology told The Lancet that structural evidence confirmed the cells had attached to the eye’s membrane as hoped, and continued to survive throughout the next 16 weeks of the study, with no signs of rejection or abnormal cell growth.

The operation involved implanting embryonic stem cells into the damaged retina at the back of the eye. The controversial transplants of embryonic cells is part of an ambitious attempt to utilise stem cells. Stem cells have the ability to develop into any specialised tissue of the body. Such procedures face criticism from those who belief the use of human embryonic tissue to be unethical.

Dr Dusko Ilic, Senior Lecturer in Stem Cell Science at Kings College London, said that these early findings did not necessarily hint towards a viable treatment, saying: ”we should keep in mind that people are not rats.

“The number one priority of initial clinical trial is always patient safety. If everyone expects that the blind patients will see after being treated with human embryonic stem cell-derived retinal pigment epithelium, even if the treatment ends up being safe (which is what Advanced Cell Technology are trying to determine in this trial), they risk being unnecessarily disappointed.”

It is too early to make conclusions yet, though it appears as if the procedure is safe.

UK stem cell expert Chris Mason said: “We do not have a complete answer yet. But it is a valuable next step.”

Related articles

• Embryonic Stem Cells Appear Safe, May Help Eye Disease (news.sciencemag.org)

Websites protest against Sopa and Pipa on 18 January 2012. Photograph: ars technica/ minecraft/mozilla/ reddit/ wired

Yesterday (18 January), thousands of websites joined in unanimous protest against proposed US legislation – the biggest online protest in history. Websites joined in protest against two controversial US bills, SOPA and PIPA, aimed at combating online piracy and protecting copyrighted materials.

Websites that joined in the blackout included Wikipedia, the 6th most visited website in the world, Wired, Reddit, Firefox and thousands of other websites who blacked-out or censored aspects of their websites in protest against US legislation – an unprecedented move. Visitors arriving at Wikipedia yesterday were greeted with a blacked-out page with the message:

“Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge.

“For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the US Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open internet.”

One of the most interesting websites to view yesterday was Wired.com, which had censored virtually every headline, link and text on its homepage as a statement. The only uncensored headline was an article stating “Why _____ Censoring Wired”. Here Wired explained why they were engaging in this day of protest:

“Under the current wording of the measures, the Attorney General would have the power to order ISPs [internet service prividers] to block access to foreign-based sites suspected of trafficking in pirated and counterfeit goods; order search engines to delist the sites from their indexes; ban advertising on suspected sites; and block payment services from processing transactions for accused sites.

“If the same standards were applied to U.S.-based sites, Wikipedia, Tumblr, WordPress, Blogger, Google and Wired could all find themselves blocked.

“Such requests would need to be reviewed and approved by a judge. But accused sites would get little notice of a pending action in U.S. courts against them, and, once blacklisted, have little effective means of appeal.”

Wired censors its homepage in protest

A full list of participants can be found at sopastrike.com. But what is SOPA and PIPA all about? And why is the internet banding together to protest against US law?

SOPA stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act, while PIPA is the Protect IP Act. The two bills are similar in nature, aiming to stop or prevent the piracy of online copyrighted material on websites outside of the US.

As the Guardian writes: “SOPA would allow copyright holders to complain to the US attorney general about a foreign website they allege is “committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations” of copyright law. This relates mostly to pirated movies and music. Sopa would allow the movie industry, through the courts and the US attorney general, to send a slew of demands that internet service providers (ISPs) and search engine companies shut down access to those alleged violators, and even to prevent linking to those sites, thus making them “unfindable”. It would also bar internet advertising providers from making payments to websites accused of copyright violations.Sopa could, then, shut down a community-based site like YouTube if just one of its millions of users was accused of violating one US copyright.”

The US bills are an attempt to expand the US federal government’s power to impact the internet. Protestors have pointed out that the two anti-piracy bills are essentially allowing censorship of the internet, a move which is not in keeping with the notion of democracy.

Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said:

“These bills propose new powers for the government and for private actors to create, effectively, blacklists of sites … then force service providers to block access to those sites. That’s why we call these the censorship bills.”

EFF’s McSherry also defiantly stated that “no one asked the internet – well, the internet is speaking now. People are really rising up and saying: ‘Don’t interfere with basic Internet infrastructure. We won’t stand for it.’”

It seems as if support for SOPA is withdrawing, but that doesn’t mean the battle is over. An anti-piracy could still be rushed through Congress.

Chris Dodd, former senator and chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), slammed Wikipedia and others protest plans, calling them “dangerous” and a “gimmick”. He called on Congress to engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy. A vote on Pipa is still expected in the senate on January 24.

• 2,254 nurses (on annual median wage of £26,614).
• 3,065 ambulance staff (excluding paramedics) on annual median wage of £19572.
• 2,875 student’s tuition fees for a full three-year degree at maximum-charging institution.
• 51,369 free travel passes based on annual tube pass (London, zones 1-2) costing £1,168 each…..

…is what I would like to write, although unfortunately this is not the case.

In reality, Michael Gove, the education secretary, has taken upon himself to suggest that the nation buy the Queen a £60 million as a celebration of her diamond jubilee, the Guardian reports. Perhaps proving how out-of-touch this government really is, Michael Gove genuinely suggested that taxpayers, themselves feeling the brunt of the bailouts and cuts, should pay out another bailout to buy the Queen a new yacht.
Presumably forgetting that there is a financial crisis and widespread pubic cuts, Gove sent round a confidential letter to fellow ministers proposing the ludicrous idea. In it, he writes:

“My suggestion would be a gift from the nation to her majesty; thinking about David Willetts’s excellent suggestion of a royal yacht, and something tangible to commemorate this momentous occasion.” He adds: “The year ahead provides an enormous opportunity to showcase the very best of Britain.”

The letter evoked surprise from both Labour and Liberal Democrats, with Tom Watson, the Labour party vice-chairman, saying: “When school budgets are being slashed, parents will be wondering how Gove came even to suggest this idea. This is not the time to spend £60m on a yacht”

In his letter, Gove shared his fears that the diamond jubilee could be “overshadowed” by the Olympic Games and stresses how the jubilee should “form an integral part of this great year for our country.”

The education secretary also wrote: “I feel strongly that the diamond jubilee gives us a tremendous opportunity to recognise in a very fitting way the Queen’s highly significant contribution to the life of the nation and the Commonwealth.

“I feel strongly more should be done to achieve a longer lasting legacy. Events such as proms and the party at the palace organised for the diamond jubilee, and street parties, although excellent, are transient. It would be appropriate to do something that will mark the significance of this occasion with fitting ceremony.

Downing Street quickly moved to denounce Gove’s private proposals. David Cameron, perhaps becoming aware of the public backlash to such a suggestion, said: “Clearly there is a difficult economic situation, there are scarce resources, and therefore we don’t think it would be an appropriate use of public money at the present time.”

No 10 tried to claim that no one was talking about the use of public money, pretending that Gove was talking about private donations all along, despite Gove writing: “If there is not sufficient public money, then we should look for generous private donations to give every school a lasting memento of the occasion.”

Nick Clegg denounced the proposals as well, stating: “I suspect more people in the country would think, given there’s very little money around, that this isn’t top of their list of priorities for the use of scarce resources.”

Meanwhile, Michael Gove is running into further trouble with his “gift to the nation”: a copy of the King James bible being sent to every school in the country, with a foreword written exclusively by Mr. Gove himself. Unfortunately, this “gift” is also being bought with public money.

The Daily Mail reports that: “The Prime Minister had reportedly told Michael Gove that while he supported the idea, he should avoid using taxpayers’ money, according to sources.”

Gove didn’t seem to like this much, deciding that taxpayer money was going to be used regardless. He said: ‘The taxpayer is there to underwrite the costs but we are in conversation with a number of individuals and organisations that may share some of the burden,” he said. That sentence in reverse states much the same: “We are in conversation with a number of individuals and organisations that may share some of the burden but the taxpayer is there to underwrite the costs.” – Gove clearly sees the taxpayer’s purse as an infinite pool of free money to “underwrite the costs” of whatever crazy project he comes up with. Never mind that the same public purse could be better spent patching up the school budget cuts (or even preventing those same cuts from being made).

Officials in the education department insisted the bibles would be distributed before Easter even if no sponsor had been found. A senior education department source said enough public cash was available to press ahead and No 10 had merely indicated that “sponsorship was desirable”.

That Gove plans to spend public money on his pet projects while hacking public spending in other areas is indefensible. The Guardian writes that Whitehall sources reported that Gove was told at the highest levels that it would be wrong to spend nearly £400,000 on the project at a time when the government was in negotiations with teaching unions over cuts to their pensions. Clearly Gove’s project is running into trouble, though it is worrying that it appears as if the education department will press ahead regardless.

The project does seem to be a waste of both time and money. As National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson said: “It’s not as if Bibles are in short supply in schools. But if Mr Gove intends to go ahead with this, will he also please ensure that a copy of On the Origin of Species is sent out on Darwin Day?

‘This book is much harder to find in schools and would be in line with his policy of promoting science and evidence-based education. I’m sure that he could write an excellent foreword to this too”

Regardless, it does seem that Michael Gove is acting rather hypocritical. Whilst school budgets are being slashed, education secretary Michael Gove is attempting to spend over £60 million on thousands of unnecessary bible books and a brand-new yacht. Clearly this money could be better spent in alleviating some of the education sector cuts.

Related articles

• Gove suggests new yacht for Queen (bbc.co.uk)
• Give Queen a new royal yacht for diamond jubilee, says Michael Gove (guardian.co.uk)
• Gove: Queen deserves £60m yacht for Jubilee (independent.co.uk)
• Nick Clegg dismisses calls for new royal yacht to mark Queen’s diamond jubilee (mirror.co.uk)
• Gove: Queen deserves £60m yacht for Queen (independent.co.uk)
• David Cameron: ‘taxpayers will not pay for new Queen jubilee yacht’ (telegraph.co.uk)

Amnesty International is currently gathering signatures for a global petition to close Guantanamo Bay.

Sign the petition, “10 years on: Close Guantánamo Bay”, here.

Amnesty International writes:

On 11 January 2002 the first detainees were transferred to Guantánamo Bay. Since then, the US detention facility has made headlines with allegations of torture, enforced disappearances and illegal detention.

A decade on and 171 detainees remain at Guantánamo Bay. At least 12 arrived as part of the original group first transferred ten years ago. Most have never been charged with a crime and don’t know when they will face trial, if at all. Those who have been charged face unfair trial by military commission.

Indefinite detention without trial violates international human rights law and must end now.

We call on the United States President Barack Obama to address the detentions at Guantánamo Bay as a human rights issue that requires urgent attention.

• Guantánamo detainees should either be charged and prosecuted in fair trials or released to countries that will respect their human rights, including into the USA if that is the only available option;
• The US military commissions, which do not meet international fair trial standards, should be abandoned, as should any pursuit of the death penalty;
• Former or current US officials responsible for human rights violations must be held to account, including in respect of crimes under international law such as torture and enforced disappearance by bringing them to justice. Victims of human rights violations must be provided genuine access to effective remedy
• The USA must recognise the applicability of, and fully respect international human rights law, when conducting counterterrorism operations, including detentions in Guantánamo, detention facilities at Bagram in Afghanistan and elsewhere.