Friday, July 29, 2011

Netanyahu's popularity reels as Israel protests take root

TEL AVIV, Israel — Sebastian Engelbrecht, a German radio correspondent stationed in Israel, found himself on the wrong side of a microphone the other day in Tel Aviv.
Semi-amused, Razi Barkai, Israel’s top morning news maven was asking him “Are you covering this? Are Germans really that interested in social protests in Israel?”
Engelbrecht responded, “Not that interested so far, but this German is interested.”
“What are you finding so interesting in this situation?” replied Barkai, saddling up for a proper interview.
“After a year in Israel, my landlord decided to raise my rent by 100 percent,” Engelbrecht said. “One hundred percent! It’s outrageous! Where can you imagine such chutzpah?”
As a late-July heat wave rolls up Israel from the Sinai desert, the country has been seized by a different kind of Egyptian fever: massive and unrelenting social protests taking over almost every last inch of public space.
What started as two unrelated social actions over a month ago — a Facebook campaign against inflated cottage cheese prices (an Israeli staple) and a doctors’ strike — has blossomed into a nationwide, multipronged collective revolt unprecedented in recent Israeli history.
It has also caught the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unprepared as he faces what is turning out to be the first serious threat to his government’s stability.
Two weeks into the tenant’s revolt and after urban tent camps mushroomed across Israeli cities, a clearly discomfited Netanyahu hastily called a press conference. He announced the future construction of reasonably-priced rental units and (addressing the cottage cheese people) the reduction of raw milk prices by one and a half pennies per liter.
Arnon Oshry, chairman of the Israeli Dairy Association, articulated the collective response the next morning: “Is he joking?”
Netanyahu’s approval ratings, meanwhile, have plummeted to 30 percent.
The Arab Spring, it appears, is turning into a hot, hot Israeli summer.
Nachum Barnea, senior political analyst for the daily Yedioth Acharonoth, couldn’t hide the admiration in his voice when he said, “I don’t think this has anything to do with Syria or Libya, of course, but I can’t help but feel there is something of Tahrir Square in these protests, in the relentlessness of them and also in their lack of focus. People are simply fed up and unhappy, and they are taking to the streets until things change. Without specific demands for negotiation or anything. They just want change. And they are patient.”
More from GlobalPost: Forget the Middle East, here are the other revolutions you should know about
Barnea thus elegantly revealed a truth few here have dared to utter: as revolts toppled Arab leaders this past spring and Israeli government officials raced to sow the fear of regional instability among the population, regular Israelis sipping tea in cafés and chatting with friends at work could not restrain their esteem for what their neighbors had peacefully wrought.
“This is for our brave brothers in Egypt,” boomed a jazz singer at Jerusalem’s popular Israel Festival, in June.
The day following Netanyahu’s press conference, opposition leader Tsippi Livni got up at 6 a.m. and marched with striking doctors on their way from Tel Aviv to Israel’s parliament in Jerusalem.
“I hope and think these protests will bring about a change of government. The earlier, the better,” she said, uttering a sentiment unthinkable only days earlier.

Netanyahu’s own interior minister, Eli Yishai, a member of the religious Shas party that has historically identified itself as fighting for the poor, told Israel Radio he would “be out there on the streets with these people if I wasn’t part of the government.”
Jumping with some delay into the fray, Ofer Eini, chairman of the Histadrut Labor Union, called for talks about tenants’ rights with the government.
Israel’s citizenry seems to have collectively blown a fuse. The first unlikely indication this took place was six weeks ago, when Israelis returning from early summer weekends abroad began to notice that the same Israeli-made cottage cheese they bought abroad, particularly in Sofia, Berlin and London, cost more than double in their local supermarkets.
GlobalPost on Syria: Palestinians turn against Syria's regime
Activists discovered that Israeli cottage cheese prices had risen by more than 50 percent in the past two years, across the board, no matter the company. One of them started a Hebrew-language Facebook page called “I Also Won’t Buy Any Cottage Cheese This Month” and it caught fire.
“Israelis are sick of incompetent politicians hiding behind ‘security needs.’ They want action,” Barkai said after interviewing Engelbrecht. “Who knows where this is going to end up.”
The issue of tenant rights is possibly the most serious matter challenging the government as every social sector appears to be letting off steam. On Thursday afternoon, for instance, thousands of parents across the country gathered for various Marches of Strollers, demanding free, obligatory day care starting at the age of three months.
According to Michel Strawczynski, director of the Bank of Israel Research Department, one reason for Israel's robust economy during the global economic crisis has been its extremely conservative mortgage policy.
“It has always been very difficult to get a mortgage in Israel,” he said. As a result, many rent instead.
Frolicking in an entirely unregulated market (the concept of rent control has yet to reach Israeli shores), landlords like Engelbrecht’s regularly take advantage of renters' desperation.
On Wednesday night about 200 angry protesters, many of them young men shirtless in the night heat, marched past Netanyahu’s Jerusalem residence loudly calling for immediate action for young tenants.
Among them were Netanel Tzedek and Golan Atari, both 22 years old.
“Our government is like a fish,” Atari said. “It stinks from the head on down. Lieberman, Netanyahu, they’re all disappointments.”
Atari did not vote in the last elections. Tzedek, in the first elections of his life, voted for Green Leaf, a party championing the rights of marijuana smokers that has never garnered a seat in parliament.
“Who else was I going to vote for? Have you seen these bozos? He said, gesturing vaguely in the direction of Netanyahu’s residence.
They were standing feet away from a spacious, open white tent, unlike the compact hatches used by protesters downtown. This is the tent of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured by Hamas five years ago.
His parents have been quietly sitting in front of the prime minister’s residence for 13 months. Protesters aimed to connect their struggle to his. One woman, walking past the Shalit tent, said “their struggle is also a social struggle, just like ours.”
“Not really,” said Noam Shalit, Gilad’s father, after the crowd had passed. “Our struggle is about life or death.” There has not been a sign of life from his son for more than four years.
“The government is doing nothing.”

Anonymous no more


IF YOUR face and name are anywhere on the web, you may be recognised whenever you walk the streets—not just by cops but by any geek with a computer. That seems to be the conclusion from some new research on the limits of privacy.
For suspected miscreants, and people chasing them, face-recognition technology is old hat. Brazil, preparing for the soccer World Cup in 2014, is already trying out pairs of glasses with mini-cameras attached; policemen wearing them could snap images of faces, easy to compare with databases of criminals. More authoritarian states love such methods: photos are taken at checkpoints, and images checked against recent participants in protests.

In their first experiment, the researchers collected images from 5,000 profiles of people on a popular American dating site in a particular city—most of whom used pseudonyms. They fed the pictures into an off-the-shelf face-recognition programme that compared them with 280,000 images they had found by using a search engine to identify Facebook profiles from the same city. They discovered the identity of just over a tenth of the folk from the dating site.
But could such technology soon be used by anyone at all, to identify random passers-by and unearth personal details about them? A study which is to be unveiled on August 4th at Black Hat, a security conference in Las Vegas, suggests that day is close. Its authors, Alessandro Acquisti, Ralph Gross and Fred Stutzman, all at America’s Carnegie Mellon University, ran several experiments that show how three converging technologies are undermining privacy. One is face-recognition software itself, which has improved a lot. The researchers also used “cloud computing” services, which provide lots of cheap processing power. And they went to social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn, where most users post real names and photos of themselves.
That might not seem a big percentage, but the hit rate will get better as face-recognition software improves and more snaps are uploaded. The researchers did a second experiment: they took webcam photos of 93 students on Carnegie Mellon’s campus, with their assent. These were fed into the face-recognition software along with 250,000 photos gleaned from publicly available profiles on Facebook. About a third of students in the test were identified.
But the most striking result was from a third experiment. By mining public sources, including Facebook profiles and government databases, the researchers could identify at least one personal interest of each student and, in a few cases, the first five digits of a social security number. All this helps to explain concerns over the use of face-recognition software by the likes of Google and Facebook, which have been acquiring firms that specialise in that technology, or licensing software from them. (Google recently snapped up Pittsburgh Pattern Recognition, the firm which owns the programme the researchers used for their tests.) Privacy officials in Europe have said they will scrutinise Facebook’s use of face-recognition software to help people “tag”, or identify, friends in photos they upload. And privacy campaigners in America have made a formal complaint to regulators. (Facebook notes that people can opt out of the photo-tagging service by altering their privacy settings.)
Given the sensitivity, Google decided not to release a face-recognition search engine it had made. Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman, has said it took the decision because “people could use this stuff in a very, very bad way, as well as a good way.” But face-recognition methods may still spread. As Mr Acquisti says, sharing named photos online has “opened the floodgates” to a new, privacy-sapping world. Shutting them will be hard.

Gaddafi is stronger than ever in Libya


The war on Libya has not gone well. Kim Sengupta's report on Wednesday detailed this starkly:
"Fresh diplomatic efforts are under way to try to end Libya's bloody civil war, with the UN special envoy flying to Tripoli to hold talks after Britain followed France in accepting that Muammar Gaddafi cannot be bombed into exile.

The change of stance by the two most active countries in the international coalition is an acceptance of realities on the ground. Despite more than four months of sustained air strikes by Nato, the rebels have failed to secure any military advantage. Colonel Gaddafi has survived what observers perceive as attempts to eliminate him and, despite the defection of a number of senior commanders, there is no sign that he will be dethroned in a palace coup.

The regime controls around 20% more territory than it did in the immediate aftermath of the uprising on 17 February."
If the Gaddafi regime is now more in control of Libya than before, then this completely undermines the simplistic view put about by the supporters of war – and unfortunately by some elements of the resistance – that the situation was simply one of a hated tyrant hanging on through mercenary violence. Of course, he uses whatever resources he has at his disposal, but a) it would seem that the involvement of imperialism has driven some Libyans back into the Gaddafi camp, as it's unlikely he would maintain control without some degree of support, and b) we know that rebellious sectors started to go back to Gaddafi within mere weeks of the revolt taking off, meaning in part that his resources of legitimising his regime were not exhausted even before the US-led intervention. Despite the defections, he has consolidated his regime in a way that would have seemed improbable in the early weeks of revolt.
It's important to bear in mind what this means. Both Ben Ali and Mubarak had the support of the US and its major allies – especially Mubarak. They had considerable resources for repression, and there was financial aid being channelled to them, talks aimed at offering reforms to the opposition … and in the end they proved too brittle, too narrowly based, to stay in power.
The state apparatus began to fragment and decompose. The protests kept spreading, and withstood the bloodshed. Nothing they could offer or threaten was sufficient. Gaddafi, on the other hand, has hung on in the face of not only a lack of support from his former imperialist allies, but active political, diplomatic and military opposition. That he did so to a considerable extent through sheer military superiority doesn't mean that the regime hasn't a real social basis.
Perhaps as important has been the weaknesses of the rebellion. I argued that the chief problem facing the revolt was that it had taken off before any civil society infrastructure had been built up to sustain the opposition. This meant that unrepresentative former regime elements were well placed to step into the fray and take effective control. As a result of the defeats they faced, those arguing for an alliance with Nato grew stronger and gained more control. There's no question that if Nato really wanted to, they could defeat Gaddafi. It would, however, require a level of commitment (serious ground forces) that they aren't ready to use. I think this is because, far from this being a pre-planned wave of expansionism by the US, the decision to launch an aerial assault constituted a desperate act of crisis management, which the "realists" in the administration were never particularly happy with. Only the zealots of "humanitarian intervention" could seriously have contemplated the kind of protracted, bloody land war in Libya that would have been necessary to win. So, the bet on an alliance with Nato now appears to have been doomed from the start, even on its own terms – even if the best outcome sought was nothing more than a slightly more liberal regime incorporated into the imperialist camp.
Now, what can Libya expect? The leading war powers are once more bruiting negotiations, but to what end? Gaddafi may be persuaded to abandon direct control, in which case the result will most likely be a moderately reformed continuity regime, with ties to European and US capital fully restored.
There appears to be little prospect of his going into exile. But that's not all. The Transitional Council led by former regime elements continues to state that it is the only legitimate authority in Libya. It has been internationally recognised as such by a number of crucial powers. But this is pure cynicism. The imperialist powers know that the Transitional Council can't control all of Libya. They're certainly not taking any steps now to give them the military means to do so. So this means that the tendencies toward partition are sharpened.
There are signs of such a resolution being offered as a "temporary" measure to secure the peace and allow some process of national reconciliation to take place (note that this conflict has increasingly been described as a civil war). This would be economically disabling for all of Libya, including those territories controlled by the rebels. It would also be dangerous in ways that I hope I don't need to spell out.
The final justification for this debacle will be that speedy intervention, however half-hearted, prevented a massacre. Now, there may once have been reason to believe this. But there no longer is.
Gaddafi has enough blood on his hands, and deserved to fall to the insurgents, but there's no reason to submit to war propaganda. In reality, as Amnesty put it, "there is no proof of mass killing of civilians on the scale of Syria or Yemen". Which is an interesting way of putting it. It's no secret that the coalition that was supposedly preventing a genocidal bloodbath in Libya was actually behind much of the bloodshed in Yemen. This completely demolishes the last leg of the moral case for war. The "humanitarian interventions" of the 1990s left the US in a stronger position, both geopolitically and ideologically. I'm not convinced that this will be the result of the bombing of Libya. In fact, if there was any idea that the US could offer an alternative model of development for the populations of the Middle East, it now lies in ruins. It is more than unfortunate that Libya had to be reduced to ruins for this to become apparent.

Let's stop assuming the police are on our side


Can confidence in the Metropolitan police sink any lower? Even before the past few weeks revealed the possibility of their complicity in the News of the World hacking scandal, and the past few months their brutal attitude towards the policing of students and other protesters, there were many who already had reason to mistrust those who claim to be "working together for a safer London".
Take Ann Roberts, a special needs assistant, who was recently given the go-ahead in the high court to challenge the allegedly racist way in which stop-and–search powers are used: her lawyers claim statistics indicate that a black person is more than nine times more likely to be searched than a white person.
Or take the family of Smiley Culture, still waiting for answers after the reggae singer died in a police raid on his home in March this year. They are campaigning on behalf of all those who've died in police custody. Inquest, a charity which deals with contentious death, particularly in police custody, reports that more than 400 people from black and ethnic minority communities have died in prison, police custody and secure training centres in England and Wales since 1990.
Ian Tomlinson's family may finally be able to see some justice when PC Simon Harwood comes to court in October on manslaughter charges, but if the story had not been tenaciously pursued by journalists (particularly the Guardian's Paul Lewis) the police would no doubt be sticking to their line that a man had merely collapsed at the G20 protests and that missiles had been thrown at medics when they tried to help him.
The appointment of Cressida Dick as head of counter-terrorism following John Yates's resignation is similarly unlikely to inspire confidence in anyone who remembers her role in authorising the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, mistaken for a terror suspect because an officer decided he had "distinctive Mongolian eyes".
One of the positive effects of "citizen journalism" is how much harder it makes it for the authorities to disseminate disinformation, such as the stories put out by the Met concerning Tomlinson's death. More recently, in the case of the arrests of UK Uncut protesters in Fortnum & Mason, video footage of chief inspector Claire Clark deceiving the group into a mass arrest has proved highly embarrassing to the police, who nevertheless freely admit that arrests at protests are part of an ongoing intelligence-gathering operation. The use of undercover police officers, such as Mark Kennedy, recently found to have unlawfully spied on environmental activists, has further increased suspicions regarding the motivations for police spying, not to mention the fact that its illegalitymakes it wholly ineffective against those it would seek to prosecute. It is cheering to see those targeted fighting back against such criminalisation of legitimate protest, particularly among those too young to vote, such asAdam Castle, who is taking the police to court over kettling at a student protest last November.
But given the many allegations of police corruption, racism, spying and death in their supposed care, why does anyone feel safe when the police are around? Robert Reiner, professor of criminology at LSE and author of The Politics of the Police, describes the phenomenon of "police fetishism" in the following way: "the ideological assumption that the police are a functional prerequisite of social order so that without a police force chaos would ensue". In fact, as Reiner points out, many societies have existed without an official police force or with very different models of policing in place. While it may be hard to imagine Britain without a police force of some kind, it is increasingly clear that those who "protect" its largest city are far from doing any such thing.
In the runup to the 2012 Olympics, we should be deeply concerned about the Met's policies and actions, particularly when they congratulate themselves on things that appear to be utterly in contrast to the way everyone else experienced them, such as the supposed "restraint"shown by police on recent demonstrations. Before the royal wedding, many were arrested on what have been described as "pre-crime" charges, with the effect that many were banned from the city for several days for doing precisely nothing. In parliament, David Cameron described the royal wedding as a "dry run" for the Olympics. If by this he means simply a large spectacular event watched by many around the world, then that's one thing. If, on the other hand, he means it to be yet another opportunity to pre-emptively criminalise, to increase surveillance, to restrict the movement of individuals and to condemn protesters, then we have a serious problem.
The resignation of those at the top of the police, and waning public trust in police policy in general, give us a perfect opportunity to question the Met's organisation and tactics. It may be difficult to shake off the idea that the police are "a condition of existence of social order", as Reiner puts it, but to stop imagining they are automatically on our side might be a good place to start.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Buddhists make the best targets

PATTANI, Thailand — The monk suddenly realized he was running. What just happened? All around him, soldiers assigned to guard his morning alms run fired their M-16s through a cloud of smoke and airborne debris. Some rolled in the dirt. Screaming.
The monk screamed too. My arm, he thought, it’s blown off. But when Wacharapong Suttha looked down, there it was, intact but streaked with blood. He had not even dropped his silver alms bowl, held fast by fingers curled around its basin in a death grip.
Wacharapong would spend nine days in the hospital, where a doctor plucked metal chips from his rump. The stinging has since faded. But the January bombing blackened the 27-year-old’s psyche. It dominates his waking thoughts.
“I weep in my chambers,” said Wacharapong, perched under a wooden temple shelter, his bare feet studded with ruby-colored shrapnel welts. The stress finally compelled him to leave the monkhood, though he still lives on the temple grounds as an assistant.
“I have felt sick as if possessed by a demon,” he said. “I think of suicide.”
In the Thai Buddhist mind, almost nothing is so disturbing as harming a monk. That is exactly why insurgents shoot monks at close range, hide bombs on their alms routes and occasionally hack off their heads.
Monks were once the lowest-hanging fruit, unarmed targets attacked to inflict peak damage to Buddhist morale. The army has since decided to guard them at all hours. Troops have transformed Buddhist temples into military camps.
Wacharapong’s temple in Yala city is, for all practical purposes, a fortress with a tall golden spire in the middle. It is defended by G.I.s, their helmeted heads just visible above walls of black sandbags. Barracks trailers crowd the temple grounds.
State security forces in the deep south — a patchwork of troops, cops and civilian paramilitary groups — amount to roughly 100,000 people among a population of about 1.8 million. About 25,000 of them belong to the Village Protection Volunteers. It is essentially an all-Buddhist militia.
Locally known by the shorthand “Or Ror Bor,” the militia is government sponsored, army trained and often meets inside Buddhist temples. Any Buddhist 18 or older is encouraged to sign up, grab a gun and join patrols. Can’t afford a 12-gauge? The government will loan one out or offer a 60 percent rebate.
“We’re all Buddhist. No Muslims among us,” said Choedsak “Pig” Isaro, a Pattani city militia captain who runs a tin-roofed tea shop with his wife, Chicken.
“Used to be, they could just drive in and shoot us,” said Choedsak. “Not anymore. The terrorists have their network. Now we have ours.”
“Absolutely everyone here has to know how to shoot,” said Penporn, the matronly captain of her village’s 190-person defense unit. The 2,000-person settlement, Tung Ka, lies within a military-designated “red zone” under insurgents’ sway.
“I never feel safe. My sleep is restless,” Penporn said. “We never know when the attackers will come next.”
But while she dutifully trains with troops twice a year, the subject of firearms turns the grandmother melancholy. To be honest, Penporn said, she probably doesn’t have the guts to kill anyone.
“I wouldn’t shoot them in time,” she said. “How do you know, before they get you, if they’re bandits or good guys? You can’t just shoot them first. You’re out of luck.”
Reading, writing, revolvers
“We have more than 100 soldiers here,” said the Lak Muang temple’s 62-year-old abbot, Tong. “And we have only seven monks.”
His monks can still perform alms runs. Each morning, two pre-pubescent novice monks in day-glo orange robes trod barefoot into town and collect food. But as merit-making Thais spoon rice and curry into their alms bowls, an entire platoon stands guard.
All those guns, all that concertina wire piled high as hay bales around holy grounds. Does it not undermine Buddha’s teachings?
“It is not a contradiction,” said Abbot Tong in a whispery monotone. “The soldiers try to act according to Buddha’s principles. But the other side does not.”
“We’re at a disadvantage,” the abbot said. “We don’t wage battle. If we catch them, we look after them with karma in mind. If they catch us, we are treated like animals.”
But while monks are defenseless, their flock is armed to the teeth.
Even teachers, targeted as agents of Buddhist indoctrination, arrive to school with handguns tucked under their belts. At one school within a “red zone” district called Rueso in Narathiwat province, the administrator estimated that 30 percent of his staff is armed in the classroom.
“I don’t pressure the teachers to carry guns,” said Principal Karan Satthatipkul, who keeps a Glock 9 millimeter in his desk. “It’s their decision.”
Like the region’s temples, schools too have become de facto battlements. Troops were even ordered to teach four years ago when nearly 80 percent of the region’s 3,500 Buddhist teachers requested transfers or simply stopped showing up. The government briefly considered installing 500 satellite dishes so school staff could beam in lessons from afar.
“We have bad guys coming in, pretending to be parents and even hugging the kindergarten kids,” Karan said. “You never know who they really are.”

Among the armed is Kongrapan Ngoipala, 35, the school music teacher. He grows embarrassed when asked about his own .22-caliber pistol, acquired after masked insurgents fired on his wife and kids at an outdoor aerobics class.
“Guns are not that important. This is,” said Kongrapan, tugging out a clump of Buddhist amulets hidden under his button-up shirt. “In this world, there is birth, pain, aging and then death. So if I die, I die.”
Kongrapan refuses to leave. Who would take his place? But he still recalls the last words of a policeman friend who, like Kongrapan, also hailed from Thailand’s poor northeast. Both came in search of work with extra danger pay.
They last met in a hospital room where the cop, hit by a roadside bomb, was slowly dying. “He told me, ‘Don’t stay, brother,’” Kongrapan said. “‘Just move away.’”

News of the World targeted phone of Sarah Payne's mother


Sara Payne, whose eight-year-old daughter Sarah was abducted and murdered in July 2000, has been told by Scotland Yard that they have found evidence to suggest she was targeted by the News of the World's investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who specialised in hacking voicemail.
Police had earlier told her correctly that her name was not among those recorded in Mulcaire's notes, but on Tuesday officers from Operation Weeting told her they had found her personal details among the investigator's notes. These had previously been thought to refer to a different target.
Friends of Payne have told the Guardian that she is "absolutely devastated and deeply disappointed" at the disclosure. Her cause had been championed by the News of the World, and in particular by its former editor, Rebekah Brooks. Believing that she had not been a target for hacking, Payne wrote a farewell column for the paper's final edition on 10 July, referring to its staff as "my good and trusted friends".
The evidence that police have found in Mulcaire's notes is believed to relate to a phone given to Payne by Brooks to help her stay in touch with her supporters.
On Thursday night Brooks insisted the phone had not been a personal gift but had been provided to Payne by the News of the World "for the benefit of the campaign for Sarah's law".
In a statement, Brooks said the latest allegations were "abhorrent" and "particularly upsetting" because Sara Payne was a "dear friend".
Responding earlier to news that Payne's details had been found in Mulcaire's notes, one of Payne's close colleagues said: "We are all appalled and disgusted. Sara is in bits about it." It is not known whether any messages for Payne were successfully hacked by Mulcaire.
Coming after the disclosure that the News of the World hacked and deleted the voicemail of the murdered Surrey schoolgirl Milly Dowler, the news will raise further questions about whether News Corporation is "fit and proper" to own TV licences and its 39% share of BSkyB.
It will also revive speculation about any possible role in phone hacking of Brooks, who was personally very closely involved in covering the aftermath of Sarah Payne's murder and has always denied any knowledge of voicemail interception. On 15 July Brooks resigned as chief executive of News International and was arrested and interviewed by police.
The Labour MP Tom Watson, who has been an outspoken critic of News International, said of the Payne allegation: "This is a new low. The last edition of the News of the World made great play of the paper's relationship with the Payne family. Brooks talked about it at the committee inquiry. Now this. I have nothing but contempt for the people that did this."
Friends of Payne said she had accepted the News of the World as a friend and ally. Journalists from the paper attended the funerals of her mother and father and visited her sick bed after she suffered a severe stroke in December 2009.
In the wake of the Guardian's disclosure on 4 July of the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone, there were rumours that Payne also might have been a victim. Police from Operation Weeting, which has been investigating the News of the World's phone hacking since January, checked the names of Payne and her closest associates against its database of all the information contained in the notebooks, computer records and audio tapes seized from Glenn Mulcaire in August 2006. They found nothing.
The News of the World's sister paper, the Sun, was quick to report on its website, on 8 July, that Payne had been told there was no evidence to support the rumours. The next day the Sun quoted her paying tribute to the News of the World, whose closure had been announced by News International. "It's like a friend died. I'm so shocked," she told them.
In the paper's final edition on Sunday 10 July, Payne registered her own anger at the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone: "We have all seen the news this week and the terrible things that have happened, and I have no wish to sweep it under the carpet. Indeed, there were rumours - which turned out to be untrue - that I and my fellow Phoenix charity chiefs had our phones hacked. But today is a day to reflect, to look back and remember the passing of an old friend, the News of the World."
Since then, detectives from Weeting have searched the Mulcaire database for any reference to mobile phone numbers used by Sara Payne or her closest associates or any other personal details. They are believed to have uncovered notes made by Mulcaire which include some of these details but which had previously been thought to refer to a different target of his hacking. Police have some 11,000 pages of notes which Mulcaire made in the course of intercepting the voicemail of targets chosen by the News of the World.
Friends of Sara Payne said that she had made no decision about whether to sue the paper and that she wanted the police to be able to finish their work before she decided.
Operation Weeting is reviewing all high-profile cases involving the murder, abduction or assault of any child since 2001 in an attempt to find out if any of those involved was the target of phone hacking.
In her statement, Brooks said: "The idea that anyone on the newspaper knew that Sara or the campaign team were targeted by Mr Mulcaire is unthinkable. The idea of her being targeted is beyond my comprehension.
"It is imperative for Sara and the other victims of crime that these allegations are investigated and those culpable brought to justice."
The revelations came as it was announced that James Murdoch had received a ringing endorsement from directors of satellite group BSkyB.
A lengthy board meeting on Thursday at BSkyB ended with unanimous support for Rupert Murdoch's youngest son to continue as chairman of the group following the collapse of his family firm's bid for the 61% of the satellite business it does not already own.
The Hacked Off campaign, which represents phone-hacking victims and is calling for a full public inquiry into the matter, said the Payne allegations indicated "breathtaking hypocrisy and a complete lack of moral sense" on the part of the News of the World.
The Phoenix Chief Advocates, co-run by Payne, said in a statement: "Whilst it was previously confirmed by Operation Weeting that Sara Payne's name was not on private investigator Glenn Mulcaire's list, it has now been confirmed by Operation Weeting that Sara's details are on his list.
"Sara is absolutely devastated by this news, we're all deeply disappointed and are just working to get her through it.
"Sara will continue to work with the proper authorities regarding this matter."


7 Filipino troops die, 21 wounded in rebel clash

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — Abu Sayyaf militants killed seven Philippine marines and wounded 21 others who were about to raid their jungle camp Thursday in some of the fiercest fighting this year between the military and the al-Qaida-linked rebels.
About 30 marines maneuvered in stormy weather close to the encampment of about 70 militants in mountainous Patikul township in southern Sulu province, setting off the gunbattle before dawn, regional military spokesman Lt. Col. Randolph Cabangbang said.
A military report, citing intelligence, said at least 13 militants may have been killed in the initial clash and follow-up fighting but troops did not recover any bodies.
The militants were led by Radulan Sahiron, a one-armed commander long wanted by U.S. and Philippine authorities for a string of bombings and kidnappings.
The marines moved overnight on a mission to capture Sahiron, Abu Sayyaf commander Isnilon Hapilon and allied militants belonging to the Southeast Asian militant network Jemaah Islamiyah. The militants were encamped along the slopes of two adjacent mountains, the report said.
Washington has offered $1 million for the capture or killing of Sahiron and $5 million each for Hapilon and Malaysian Zulkifli bin Hir, also known as Marwan, a U.S.-trained Malaysian engineer. He has been hiding in Sulu and is one of the highest Jemaah Islamiyah leaders still at large in the region.
"They were able to the penetrate the camp but the militants were positioned on higher ground, that's why we had casualties," Cabangbang said.
Despite the large number of military casualties, the militants withdrew into the woods after five hours of fighting and government forces captured their hide-out.
The fall of the major Abu Sayyaf stronghold, which is still being searched by troops, was a key victory that came with a steep price, the military said.
"Nothing is free," military spokesman Commodore Miguel Jose Rodriguez said, adding that the marines clashed with veteran jungle-based fighters, who were being pursued by reinforcement troops.
The dead and wounded marines could not be immediately airlifted from the battle zone due to bad weather, Cabangbang said.
Philippine military offensives backed by U.S. training and intelligence have weakened the Abu Sayyaf, which is blacklisted by Washington as a terrorist organization, but it remains a key security threat.
The group is notorious for bombings, kidnappings and beheadings over the last two decades. It is believed to be holding a number of hostages, including two Americans, a Malaysian, an Indian and a Japanese treasure hunter in Sulu, a predominantly Muslim province 610 miles (980 kilometers) south of Manila, and nearby Basilan islands.
The government's Anti-Terrorism Council, meanwhile, has designated the national police to take the lead in the country's battle against terrorism, with the military backing it up, according to documents seen by The Associated Press on Thursday. The decision, made last month, was unrelated to the latest military setback.
Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo, whose department oversees the 120,000-strong police force, said the military would still lead assaults against the Abu Sayyaf in tough areas like Sulu but the police would gradually play a more active operational role in battling terrorism.
Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin said the decision will help free up troops so they can eventually switch to their main role of external defense.


Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Anonymous, LulzSec go legit with PayPal boycott

Hactivist collective Anonymous has called for a boycott of PayPal.
The group wants supporters to empty their accounts and avoid using the payment service in protest against the prosecution of a university student who allegedly participated in denial of service attacks against PayPal last year. Mercedes Haefer, a 20-year-old journalism student at the university of Nevada, is among around 14 people facing hacking charges punishable by a sentence of up to 15 years imprisonment and a large fine. It has been alleged that Haefer had used her home PC to attack PayPal's systems.
In response, Anonymous and LulzSec put out a statement calling for a boycott of PayPal, as the first phase of #OpPayPal.
This lawful direct action represents a change of tactics for Anonymous, which has become much more closely associated with illegal DDoS attacks against targets (Sony, FBI-affiliated security organisations, the entertainment industry, payment firms who blocked WikiLeaks accounts, Scientologists etc). Anonymous, which claims at least 450 PayPal accounts have already been deleted, threatens further unspecified actions in future.
In recent weeks Anonymous and LulzSec have rarely stayed with the same target for more than a day at a time, so it will be interesting to see how long #OpPayPal lasts or how it evolves. Security firm Panda has already spotted chatter suggesting a move towards illegal tactics is already being discussed, at least. ®


L'Oréal's Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington ad campaigns banned


L'Oréal's Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington ad campaigns banned




L'Oréal has been forced to pull ad campaigns featuring Pretty Woman star Julia Roberts and supermodel Christy Turlington, after theadvertising watchdog upheld complaints by Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson that the images were overly airbrushed.


Swinson, who has waged a long-running campaign against "overly perfected and unrealistic images" of women in adverts, lodged complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority about the magazine campaigns for L'Oréal-owned brands Lancôme and Maybelline. The ASA ruled that both ads breached the advertising standards code for exaggeration and being misleading and banned them from future publication.
L'Oréal's two-page ad featuring Roberts, who is the face of Lancôme, promoted a foundation called Teint Miracle, which it claims creates a "natural light" that emanates from beautiful skin. It was shot by renowned fashion photographer Mario Testino. The ad for Maybelline featured Turlington promoting a foundation called The Eraser, which is claimed to be an "anti-ageing" product. In the ad, parts of Turlington's face are shown covered by the foundation while other parts are not, in order to show the effects of the product.
Swinson complained that images of both celebrities had been digitally manipulated and were "not representative of the results the product could achieve".
L'Oréal UK admitted that Turlington's image had been "digitally retouched to lighten the skin, clean up makeup, reduce dark shadows and shading around the eyes, smooth the lips and darken the eyebrows". However, it claimed there were still signs of ageing, such as crow's feet, and that the image "accurately illustrated" the achieveable results.
The company, which provided the ASA with pictures of both women "on the red carpet" to show that they were naturally beautiful, admitted that digital post-production techniques had been used on Roberts but maintained that the changes were not "directly relevant" and that the ad was an "aspirational picture".
Swinson said it was "shocking" that the ASA was not allowed to see the pre-production pictures of Roberts due to contractual agreements with the actor. "It shows just how ridiculous things have become when there is such fear over an unairbrushed photo that even the advertising regulator isn't permitted to see it," she added.
In the case of both the Roberts and Turlington ads the ASA said it was not provided with enough information to evaluate what impact the digital enhancements had on the final image.
"On the basis of the evidence we had received we could not conclude that the ad image accurately illustrated what effect the product could achieve, and that the image had not been exaggerated by digital post-production techniques," the ASA said.
"Pictures of flawless skin and super-slim bodies are all around, but they don't reflect reality," said Swinson. "Excessive airbrushing and digital manipulation techniques have become the norm, but both Christy Turlington and Julia Roberts are naturally beautiful women who don't need retouching to look great. This ban sends a powerful message to advertisers – let's get back to reality."