When bureaucrats and politicians are out of touch

you get the most inane ideas proposed, agreed and implemented.
.
Surely the latest one in the UK - to require registered sex offenders to reveal their email addresses and for these to be forwarded to social networking websites like Bebo, Myspace and Facebook has been put through by people with only a banal understanding of the internet.
.
According to the Daily Telegraph:

"Under new guidance to improve internet safety, (police) officers will pass on the details to social networking sites in the hope that they will remove the profiles of anyone caught preying on children. Offenders who refuse to hand over their details, or supply false email addresses, will face a five-year prison sentence"

Now think about that, why would you refuse to hand over the details? How would they know they are false? What would happen? Presumably perv@uknet.com gets a nice email from PC Plod saying "Hello Mr Perv just confirming it's your email address" and he says "Yes officer thank you", before he logs on to Myspace using perv2@hotmail.com or whatever.

I have lost count of the number of email addresses I have had. I have had hotmail, yahoo, netscape, usa.net, netaddress and several other email addresses almost all of which have expired - after all they are free and easy to get. It's not as if it's your home address or phone number, though I don't doubt that some of the bureaucrats and politicians involved think it is!

The scaremongering and nonsense surrounding this issue is palpable. The same report says "Officials estimate that as many as one child in 12 who makes contact with someone online goes on to meet them." Well yes, perhaps. How many of these people are adults they meet? How many do they meet with parents or in groups or in public places? In other words, what are the actual crime statistics attached to this?
.
There are really only a few sensible approaches to this. Firstly, parents have to control net access in sensible ways. Most importantly by listening to (properly) their children, talking to them and knowing how they are. Inculcate dignity, pride and confidence to them so they look after themselves. Place the computer in a public room. Have some strict rules about meeting people online that includes insisting on meeting them with a parent, responsible adult or a couple of friends. There is only so much you can do of course. If you can't control your 15 year old drinking on a Saturday night then you'll hardly stop them meeting strangers over the internet.
.
Secondly, sentencing of sex offenders (and violent offenders) has to be proportionate to risk. Those who are clearly dangerous should have long custodial sentences. If there are truly dangerous people out there, then why are they free?
.
Finally, there needs to be a cultural change that stop making the care of children a matter for the state. If children are reaching out outline for company isn't this a particularly sad set of affairs? When I was a child, the neighbours in my street knew who I was and where I belonged, and I had no reason to fear any of them -women or men. It felt safe and almost certainly was. Nowadays adults are more fearful of any friendly contact with someone elses' kids for fear of being branded as perverts or predators - when we know this is highly unlikely. It's time to be realistic - despite the tabloid media - there aren't perverts under every corner. In fact the situations where kids are most at risk are either large extended families where parental supervision is lax, or single mothers who have questionable male partners (and daughters desperately seeking male attention). That is the sad tragedy about it all - the real issue being why are people's kids meeting strangers they meet on the internet in the first place? and if they are, how many of these cases are really a problem? The truth is nobody knows the answer to the latter question.
.

Telecommunications nationalisation

Not PC has said much of what I want to say, and I have said much in the past about the absurdity of local loop unbundling, and the de facto decision by the state to decimate investment in competing telecommunications networks by granting property rights over Telecom's network by its competitors.

There is a story about the success of deregulating telecommunications from 1989 through to 2001, the time that getting a phone line installed became quick and easy, when national and international call prices plummeted, as did cellphone calls. This is the time that a company came in and built, from scratch a duplicate nationwide telecommunications network - it was BellSouth at first, but Vodafone built the bulk of it. It is the time that Saturn (later Telstra Saturn and then Telstra Clear) built a hybrid fibre/coax telecommunications network to homes and businesses on the Kapiti Coast, Wellington City, Lower and Upper Hutt, Christchurch city - and planned to do the same in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and Dunedin - yet, funnily enough, decided not to when the government started granting property rights over Telecom's network.

Now the very same people who wanted Telecom's network to be everyone's to use, but not anyone's to make an investment out of - decry that there might not be the incentives to build a next generation network of fibre optic capacity to the kerb. Funnily enough, when dialup internet was king in the late 1990s there WAS the incentive for two firms to do it - Telstra Clear as I mentioned, but Telecom did so also in parts of Auckland and Wellington, until it decided ADSL was cheaper to roll out in the meantime.

So what has been created in the last eight years of Labour government reforms has been to incentivise usage of Telecom's existing network - which is all very well if you believe that is the beginning and the end of telecommunications - except most don't. Some believe that fibre to the kerb is the next step - some believe it is wireless, some may argue that satellites can offer a solution. The state wont of course know best - in fact not one company will. Telecom got it wrong on mobile phone standards, and got it wrong on hybrid fibre coax in the late 1990s. The Post Office got in wrong in the 1970s by having triple twisted copper wire lines installed in parts of Wellington. How can the state get it right now?

and no. The arguments that "we'll all benefit" and it's "like the roads" are just fatuous. Those who will benefit from state subsidised investment (which all state investment) are those who will be internet intensive businesses. They aren't special any more than energy intensive, labour intensive or land intensive businesses. Remember how the great state folly in the late 1970s, early 1980s was replacing foreign oil - when all those "investments" were written off, as the price of oil plummeted and energy was no longer a problem (funny how most of those are irrelevant now when oil prices ARE high).

and roads? Well let's remember how roads are managed. When most people want to use them, they queue for them and get appalling service, some are in excellent condition, others are barely usable, there has been a massive backlog of deferred investment, except in politically driven projects which have dubious benefits. It takes years to get any extra capacity built, and there are plenty who lobby against it - and if you don't like the service, you generally don't have a competitor (except the railways, which may be akin to the postal service competing with email).

NZ First racism... again

Winston Peters built part of his career on race baiting ignorant white and Maori New Zealanders, scaring them about a so-calld "yellow peril", so it is hardly a surprise that with low poll ratings, NZ First is being blatantly racist - this time according to Stuff, Peter Brown is doing the job.

Brown is, himself, a foreigner. Although British is ok of course. He claims that "Asian immigration", funnily not Pacific Island, European, South African or American immigration is "pushing Maori further down the pile".

What complete utter vile racist nonsense. Not only is it racist, but it plays into the hands of those who think the living standards of Maori people depend upon others - they don't. It implies that Asian immigrants actively suppress the success of Maori. How different is that fin principle, if not degree, from the anti-semitic bile that the Nazis distributed in the 1930s claiming that Jews kept "Aryan" Germans down?

He is also reported as saying that "Asians would form "mini-societies" that led to division, friction and resentment". So unlike Maori iwi, or small villages, or gangs, or suburbs, or religions? The only person breeding resentment is Peter Brown - why be resentful, unless it is the repulsive New Zealand tendency to chop down tall poppies. You know the types - the semi-literate talkback calling envy dripping bigots who don't like the new family next door with the big car, nice clothes, who have spent money on the house, but speak some "foreign" language, and don't mix with us, don't like rugby, don't like drinking Tui's and whose kids are brighter than theirs.

Peter Brown is scratching this underbelly - a combination of racism, tall poppy syndrome and dependency - those who think the government owes them something, and resent when others do better than they.

Labour Party supporters might ask why they continue to support a government which relies on this racist party for confidence and supply, but even more inexplicably appointed its leader to be, of all things, Minister of Foreign Affairs. National supporters shouldn't gloat though. National made Winston Treasurer and Deputy PM, and would be sycophants to NZ First again for power (as would Labour).

So that's the test. Will the PM terminate the confidence and supply agreement of NZ First because Labour doesn't want to be reliant on racists for power, and will John Key say he wont do a deal with NZ First to win power for the same reason?

Of course not - both don't want to give Winston the monopoly on the racist vote.

Earth Hour or gulags more important?

I hope the sanctimonious act of mass onanism called Earth Hour gave people what they wanted - a sense of purpose from an act that at best is about saving a couple of cents. Auckland and Wellington cities allegedly participated in this. I'm glad the Green Party didn't promote it.

.

Meanwhile, while the world looks at China - I want yet again to raise the horror of the gulags in North Korea. I'll do it because unlike "climate change" you don't hear about it most days, you don't have sanctimonious little do-gooders telling you to do something about it - just 50,000 men, women and children in slave labour camps.

.

Yes, and when they escape to China - China returns them so they can all go back to the gulags.

.

LiNKorea's blog takes an uncompromising view on addressing the horrors of North Korea. They should be the top of the agenda for Amnesty International, and anyone else demanding improvements in human rights.

Many Heathrow travellers enjoying relief

well not those at Terminal 5. That's a disaster. It's not even a wholesale shift of all BA flights. All that happened is that most Terminal 1 BA flights were shifted to Terminal 5, none of the Terminal 4 flights have moved. They are scheduled to move in a month, but that's unlikely to happen on time. So expect a second major failure when that shift occurs.

.

However, by contrast Terminal 1 by some accounts is an absolute breeze.

.

You see, with almost all BA flights having moved out of Terminal 1 to Terminal 5, those remaining ones are flying through with a capacious, though aging terminal.

.

Biggest airline at Terminal 1 is BMI, enjoying its highest ever reliability levels at Heathrow, as well as a boon from those avoiding BA with all of the troubles. You can also enjoy Heathrow's easiest to use terminal if you fly:

- Aer Lingus;

- Asiana;

- Cyprus Airways;

- El Al;

- Finnair;

- Icelandair;

- LOT Polish Airlines;

- South African Airways;

- Transaero; and

- US Airways.

.

BA also has kept flights to Spain, Portugal and Finland at Terminal 1, for now (partly as BA wants routes operated jointly with codeshare partners not to operate from Terminal 5).

.

So, for now, avoid Terminal 5 - which continues to have flights cancelled, baggage delayed and more disturbingly luggage lost for transit. That means don't use Heathrow as a transit hub flying BA.

.

On the other hand, if you are flying any of the above airlines, Terminal 1 is apparently a breeze, with a 60% reduction in passengers - there are plenty of places to sit, baggage is getting through fast, no queues for gates on arrival. Meanwhile it's getting refurbished, and both Air New Zealand and United Airlines are moving there from Terminal 3 on 10 June.

.

So there is a new experience at Heathrow - it's at Terminal 1. Give the other one at least a month to shakedown.