(Politics) Why Government Privacy Breaches Have Very Little To Do With Privacy

While most Americans may experience shock and anger upon reading news stories that inform them of the extent that their fourth amendment rights have become obsolete, it would confirmed what more informed parties among the American populous have been witnessing for 12 years and even longer. For all the breaches of the fourth amendment under the Bush Administration and the Obama rhetoric promising his regime will avoid following suit, the Obama Administration  not unlike many other issues, has largely continued and even escalated policies started under the Bush administration to the point that it has become a fair question to ask whether the president is at the helm of a car or express train.

The president has stood up and defended the mass data collection of millions of his fellow citizens and argued its legality which must gall constitutional law professors across the nation that one of their own is actually arguing in favor of one of the biggest fourth amendment breaches ever.

However, what makes the recent stories in the press detailing privacy breaches by the executive branch so interesting is not the breaches of the fourth amendment, as it should be, but the ongoing struggle and debate over where executive power begins and corporate power ends as the reality is that there is no beginning or end to both as the split is arbitrary and metaphorical.  

The Obama administration has been clearly demanding that corporations (most of them in the tech field) should give their vast store of data for analysis and many, despite some denying such actions, have cooperated and in the case of Verizon, have been forced by secret court orders to give up information of their customers. Many in the press have been arguing that these companies should put the privacy of their customers before anything else but what they don't seem to realize is that despite the talk of corporate power, corporations have to acquiesce when the state asserts itself.

In sum, for the last two to three decades, we have often heard of  the diffusion of power or the end of the state power which has been true for the most part with regards many issues but as last week showed, not where it counts.

(Interviews) Immortal Technique on The Alex Jones Show

(Opinion) Pharmaceutical Industry Controversy: You Can’t Trust Your Medicine

The truth is out about medically prescribed drugs. If you were hoping that the drugs prescribed to help cure your illnesses by your doctors were thoroughly and transparently tested by responsible and unbiased professionals, then I am afraid you will be disappointed. The good news is that you can still trust your local doctor as much as you did before. Your physicians are not acting maliciously towards you at all. The bad news is that the legal framework of the pharmaceutical industry appears to be specifically constructed to allow the pharmaceutical industry to put drugs into the marketplace regardless of their effectiveness and regardless of their potential negative side effects.

Okay, so let’s talk this through. Medical professionals will tell you that very few if any medical drugs are perfect and that drugs have varying degrees of success with different people and even drugs that are extremely helpful can have negative side effects. However, there is a very basic expectation that when you are prescribed medicine, it will be have been proven that that medicine can have some sort of positive effect on your health, and that the doctor prescribing you that medicine will have enough information to decide whether the benefits outweigh the side effects of the drug they are prescribing.

This article will contest that the recent controversies surrounding the pharmaceutical industry show that not only is this basic expectation not being met, but that legal and systematic processes are insuring that it isn’t. Recent findings paint a picture of an industry that prioritises its own financial gain over any concern for health or even a basic sense of morality.

Ben Goldacre recently published some absolutely incredible data in his recent book that demonstrates the pharmaceutical industry actively deceiving physicians and the general population. Reboxetine is marketed as an antidepressant used to treat clinical depression, panic disorder and ADHD. If you read up on the drug it will show you a convincing list of seemingly well-designed tests with positive results. The drug is reported as performing better in trials both against a placebo and other antidepressants.

 However, in October 2010 the full picture of Reboxetine was finally revealed by a group of researchers. Seven trials had been conducted with only one showing positive results, but the company elected to publish the only positive results. It should be made clear at this point that there is no legal requirement for all trial results to be revealed. However, once the other six trials were brought to light, they showed a shocking tale of deceit. In all six trials it was shown that Reboxetine was no better than a dummy sugar pill. 

The trials showed 507 patients benefitted more from Reboxetine over other drugs with all of those results being published. A further 1,657 patients worth of data clearly demonstrated without question that Reboxetine was no better than other drugs. It seems that the current structures allow the pharmaceutical industry to actively discount three quarters of the data from their trials.Even more worrying is that Reboxetine actually displayed several negative side effects on certain trial subjects. This was not reported because the trials were simply discounted. Officially, they were never conducted.

               

 An even more horrific example is the case of paroxetine in children. Paroxetine is another anti-depressant drug. GlaxoSmithKline conducted trials of the drug on children with no benefits shown. The company decided not to reveal this information and internal documents actually revealed a deliberate cover up of the trial results to protect the company’s interests. During that time 32,000 prescriptions were given to children by doctors believing the pharmaceutical industry’s claim that the drug worked. 

Not only did GSK withhold the fact that the drugs were ineffective, but they also withheld much more serious information about its side effects. A legal loophole meant that GSK did not have to inform the regulator of the side effects on children from Parexotine. Parexotine’s safety data was not revealed to the regulator because the drug doesn’t have specific market authorisation for use on children. The side effect that wasn’t reported was that Parexotine increased the risk of suicide in children.

 GSK were not legally obligated to report the findings of their safety tests. The pharmaceutical industry, an industry responsible for producing medicine, prioritised their reputation and financial gain over the health and safety of children; children whose doctors had judged needed to be treated with anti-depressants. It might be worth dwelling on that point. Children who needed treatment for issues like depression and panic disorder were prescribed a drug that not only wouldn’t help them, but could increase the risk of their committing suicide, and there were people who knew this, people who could have prevented it.

There are no mysteries surrounding the people who are perpetrating these travesties. In 2010, academics in Toronto and Harvard researched a huge range of drug trials and found that 85% of industry funded drug trials turned up positive results, while government funded trials produced a success rate of just 50%. This is far too large of a gulf to be anything besides manipulation. Besides the fact that researchers are free to bury any negative results and at times academics and researchers are even contractually obliged to maintain secrecy, there are also other ways in which these trials can be manipulated. Researchers can watch results as they come in, intervene at any point and even test their drug against other drugs that they know do not work. This isn’t the way in which science or medicine production is supposed to work.

The pharmaceutical industry can only be trusted to act in its own financial interest. This is a fact about businesses that is generally accepted in society, but there has always been an implicit assumption that the production of medical drugs was regulated and designed to ensure the health and safety of the patients that will eventually be prescribed them. Private industry cannot even be trusted to inform doctors of an extremely harmful side effect for a drug being prescribed to children. The case of the pharmaceutical industry would seem to be yet another argument against the privatisation of NHS services. The consequences for allowing market and capital to take priority over social responsibility can be truly catastrophic. 

(Video) Joseph stiglitz on the eurozone

 The Nobel prize winning economist shares his view on the euro zone

(Opinion) G4S Security: When you Can’t Catch A Break in a snooker hall

Every once in a while a company goes through a difficult period and is confronted with headline after headline detailing it weaknesses and past screw ups but G4S is a company that couldn’t buy a break in a snooker hall.  However, it is more than fair to say that it has earned critical media scrutiny as reports detailed G4S lax attitude to recruitment and general incompetence before, during, and after the Olympics.

The main reason why G4S failure is big news is not because of the extent of how much G4S was unprepared for the games, but it has been a major loss for the coalition government plan to outsource parts of the public sector, especially the police. The Labour Party was quick to attack in light of G4S lack of preparation with Labour leader Ed Miliband linking the company’s failures to the coalition government plans for the public sector[1]. Miliband cited the pace of outsourcing of the police and the need   “for a rethink of the role of the private sector in policing”[2].

This could prove to be an effective strategy for labour as the coalition government (the conservatives in particular) have made enemies out of the police, traditionally a natural ally of the Tories due to their tough stance on crime.

The Tories have done their best to alienate the police with a regime of spending and pay cuts to the point where Home Secretary Theresa May was subject to “heckling and jeering” when she spoke at the Police Federation Conference earlier this year[3]. Greeted with absolute silence the year before, the home secretary and her government were subject to criticism from all angles as the police federation chairman Paul McKeever revealed warning the home secretary of ‘public disorder’ and illustrated his point  with images of police officers under duress during the  student protests in late 2010[4].

The financial implications of G4S Olympics failure have been severe as the company ”has seen more than 400 million wiped of its market value since the debacle”[5]. Standard and poor’s has indicated that it may cut down G4S credit rating in light of the company’s major ‘underperformance’[6]. However the fiasco has not affected the ability of the company to win contracts as G4S has managed to seal a deal worth “72 million” to secure the British embassy in Kabul[7] .

While G4S may be able to secure deals abroad, it can forget any government contracts, especially roles belonging to the police as plans that were once approved by three regional police authorities that outsourced job roles to G4S are now ”under review”[8] . The main point of concern by ‘chief constables’ was that G4S was not capable of the “effective and efficient delivery of organisational support services”[9].

In sum, G4S found itself on the world stage and dropped the ball for all to see, however this will have little effect on its existing work abroad but it can forget winning any contracts from the government due to the major retreat from outsourcing by several police authorities. This could be a real fillip for the Labour Party as the conservative continue to alienate the police force, giving some room for Labour to win back law and order voters they lost in 2010.

---

[1] A. Topping, 2012,  G4S Olympic Scandal: Ed Miliband calls for rethink of police outsourcing,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/19/g4s-olympic-ed-miliband-police?newsfeed=true

[2] Ibid, Quoted by Topping

[3] A. Travis, 2012, Theresa May heckled and jeered during police conference speech, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/16/theresa-may-heckled-police-conference

[4] A. Travis, 2011 police greet Theresa may speech with complete silence, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/18/police-greet-theresa-may-speech-silence?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

[5] F. Attewill, 2012, Police Taken Off To Cover G4S Olympic Staff Shortfall, http://www.metro.co.uk/olympics/905360-police-taken-off-beat-to-cover-g4s-olympic-staff-shortfall

[6] A. Monaghan, 2012, Olympics debacle may cut G4S  credit rating, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/9416528/Olympics-debacle-may-cut-G4Ss-credit-rating.html

[7] Morning Star, 2012, G4S extends Kabul contract for £72 m,  http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/122589

[8] BBC News, 2012, G4S police outsource plans ‘concern chief constables,

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18984972

[9] Ibid, quoted by BBC News

(Opinion) Chick-fil-a controversy: Much a chick about nothing

While the comments of Chick-fil-a  president and chief operating officer Dan T, Cathy about gay marriage were ill advised, he does have the right to say it and people boycotting the store have all the rights in the world to hate it. It should be no surprise he made such comment as the store is open in its traditional stance on the family. his comments are anti gay marriage but this no controversy as the company was founded by a baptist preacher so expect a ham-fisted comment about gay rights or two. 

This is great example of fake controversy as he didn't say he 'those gays should be damned to hell cos my god says so' or 'if i had my way, ill shoot those sissies and let god sort 'em out' or put 'no queers here' signs outside chick-fil-a stores across the nation. While it does set a serious precedent that a head of a corporation takes a strident stance on a issue that literally split the country down the middle, he does have the right to take such a stance nonetheless. 

Regular customers also have the right to boycott or take their business elsewhere if they don't like the stance of the corporation on any issue they hold to be right or true as it is their right to choose where they spent their money elsewhere and/or boycott the store. The controversy is not really over free speech as there is no question he has the right to say what he did, but what he doesn't have a right to is to tell anybody who disagrees with him how they should feel or react to his comments.

Only in America can such a issue cause such a furor as other nations do not make national and global news due the stance of a company on a issue that barely penetrates the nation conscious and almost nobody (unless they are part of congregation) bats an eyelid. 

In sum, while he shouldn't have said it he right the right to say it nonetheless and boycotters also have the right take their business elsewhere or to take protest outside branches of Chick-fil-a. this controversy is not a debate about free speech or even about gay marriage but of choice and sooner all parties involved realize that they all have the right to choice, the quicker the debate dies down.

Dirty Pharma

(Opinion) Who Would Be A High Street Bank?

Who, in their right mind, would really want to part of a high street Bank with Banks ranking in the top five on the shit list of Politicians, taxpayers, mortgage payers, investors and even other banks! Now, lets not act that such notoriety hasn't been earned.

Banks are responsible for the current economic malaise many find themselves in made up of low income and and sky high debt, Joblessness and an overall lack of credit in the economy starving fledgling business the capital required for expansion just because bankers got bored of taking care of money and wanted make it.The Libor scandal currently dominating the newspapers is another addition in a long line of instances indicating stringent reform of the financial system is required, starting with  smashing the concept of too big fail to pieces and putting the more sensible edict too big to exist in its place. 

Its a shock banks still have customers with the horrid numbers reported by YouGov as 82% of the British public think the banks have not improved (since the 2007-2009 crisis) , two thirds not trusting high street banks outright and a majority think banks are dishonest and incompetent.Imagine if any other business had these kind of numbers they'll be out of business faster than you can say liquidation. 

The only reason banks probably still have business is because of  the lack of choice between them due two decades of constant acquisitions and mergers between banks and a knowledge of how important they rare to people and the economy as a whole.

In sum Banks maybe hated by everybody, but that's only because they screwed everybody and paid themselves royally for the pleasure. 

(Video) the wrong kind of change

(Video) What happens when you don't pay attention to your base

(Opinion) Unemployment and the 'Work For Experience scam'

While the coalition government pats itself on the back as 45,000 people found work despite of the well into 2 million people in the Britain who haven't, and the UK economy set to further contract, the future for many Britons looks bleak to say the least. While it was not bed of roses for working people as they saw their debt obligations rise and their wages stagnate or actively decrease, a dignified existence could be maintained, that is until the bottom fell out in 2007.

Now Britons, especially those of the working class variety, find ourselves in the quagmire of excessive competition for limited places and having to work for free which can explain why the stewards used for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee were largely apprentices or unemployed job-seekers.

While some may rush into the debate and see the relationship between apprentices and job-seekers drafted in by companies for free as purely exploitative, they largely haven't experienced job-seeking at the lower end of the labour market where the unemployed have to deal with one of the oldest catch-22s in the labour market; experience.

With their being a shortage of jobs and surplus in available labour, the main factor used to pick a candidate from all the others is experience, as it is rather costly for employers to train new staff and mitigate the likely cost of rookie mistakes.

To deal with this disadvantage, inexperienced or unskilled workers have to take work where they will probably will work for free or work well below the minimum wage. While those who see this relationship as exploitative are right to say so, without such a relationship there will be no way for inexperienced  or unskilled workers to deal with the major disadvantage in the labour market, and employers know it.

Now with their being a major labour surplus, many unemployed jobseekers, especially those who lack experience, have to work for free while companies may say they are working for experience, anyone with sketchy knowledge of  exploitation will see those people are working for free and companies who take advantage of the labour surplus profit.

In conclusion,  while the relationship between companies and inexperienced workers has always been exploitative, it has increasingly, especially due to large unemployment levels, become necessary as workers seek to mitigate one of the biggest barriers to employment.The furore over the stewards who took part in guarding the event were working for free has only revealed a relationship that has existed for decades and, at one point, was about to become a government backed scheme.