Johann Hari has an article in the Independent today defending the UK government's proposed integration of state computer systems to share personal information.

I dispute his thesis on several levels:

Firstly, he treats as equivalent a criminal action committed by the state or by an individual criminal. This to me is plain wrong - as an elector I have vicarious responsibility for a cop who makes his dog cripple a child - I don't have such responsibility for the actions of a random psychopath, paroled or otherwise.

Secondly, he uses rape as an example of why it is acceptable for the state to invade personal privacy to prevent a much worse consequence. Leaving aside the likelihood that circumstances, not identity are at issue in most of the 50,000 unsolved rapes he cites, how desirable is a society where crime is suppressed through individual surveillance?

The widespread deployment (in the UK) of numberplate recognition is likely to allow the police to have a list of all vehicles (and eventually faces) that passed near the site of an offence. Given the pressure to make use of this information, it is likely that before long most people will become "suspects" in several serious offences every year. What will it do for the tolerance of policing once everyone gets a regular knock on the door and a demand to justify their movements?

It is technically possible (and becoming easier) to perform random drug testing on the entire population. Given that drug use is illegal, it would be justified in Johann's logic for the state to try and wipe it out by drug testing the entire population and imposing "rehabilitation" on those that fail. Would this be an acceptable use of state power?

It is an unfortunate fact that a largish minority of the UK (and NZ) population are hardline racists, support radical Islam, physical force (Irish) republicanism or other undesirable ideologies. Should the government monitor all communication and discussion in order to blacklist such people and prevent them working in jobs where they might discriminate against or attack other citizens?

I'd suggest to Johann that just as using state power to try and enforce better government on Iraq turned out to be a bad idea, so using state power to try and coerce the domestic population into better behaviour may be a good idea in theory, but a thoroughly bad one in practice.

My PageRank's collapsed (and then recovered)

My Google PageRank has gone from 6 to 0! No idea why - have they changed the rules so that blogs drop down unless you post at least once a month?

It's been Xmas - I haven't had anything to write about!

Oh: Now I switched to the new Blogger it's gone back up again - must be a new feature to make you upgrade!

Corporate Fandom

Two things I noticed today:

• Apple launched their iTunes site in New Zealand, after several years of depriving us of it.
• I read Robyn's article about Holden fans and the prevalence of them on NZDating.

Which got me thinking about the strange phenomenon of corporations that have fans.

I can understand sports teams having fans. Musicians, actors and authors have fans. But why does anyone bestow their admiration on a publicly quoted company?

For car manufacturers (Holden and Ford in Australia and NZ, Ferrari in Italy) motor racing has been the route to this status (I guess). And while Ferrari have had to spend billions on producing the worlds best racing cars, Holden just hop up an overweight, low-tech family saloon and race a single opponent (Ford, of course) around the backblocks racetracks of Australasia.

Apple's method of reaching adulation has mostly involved Not Being Microsoft. Pushing their gear mostly to influential creatives and up market home users ensures cachet (David Brett uses a PC - he would never in a million years be furnished with an Apple). So while an MSFT product launch involves a good deal of sneering about bugs, security and how many dollars Bill Gates is making, the launch of iTunes is met with pure obsequiousness: "Can you tell us again how insanely great the iTunes store is, Mr Cue".

What other companies have corporate fans? Sony almost has, but could just be trying a bit too hard lately. Vodafone would dearly, dearly like to, but at the end of the day they're the phone company and they take your money. Google might have, but it's hard to see really how the search process is exciting enough to keep the fans amused.

Maybe MySpace - it's a bit ugly, but then that was never an absolute bar to fanned-ness.

Dumb and dumber

If you think the stadium is a silly idea (and I only disagree really because it's a waste of public money, not on planning grounds), look at this plan to make Albany "a city in it's own right".

Like Auckland needs more "edge cities" on greenfield sites! I suppose there might be a place for this in 20-30 years time when the central city reaches an optimal density, but not now. I know Albany has a busway link to the city but that isn't going to help when people living in the eastern, southern and western suburbs get jobs there and need to commute in - and they will.

Just *why* am I buying a new stadium?

Apparently the government is minded to build a $700 million new stadium on a waterfront site in Auckland. Plus $150mln for land and relocation costs (and that seems quite cheap, assuming the port will have to relocate to Tauranga). If this doesn't work, then the bargain alternative is to spend $350mln improving Eden Park.

I don't really care where they build it. If they did build on the waterfront, then I'll lose what remains of my view from work (below) and won't be able to walk to the rugby/cricket any more. But I'll probably have moved house and job by then.



I just don't see why the taxpayer needs to fork out for this. If the hospitality/rugby industry feels it essential, why don't they raise the money themselves? I have better things to spend $400 (waterfront) or $160 (Eden Park) than to build a stadium for a match I'll almost certainly not get tickets for.