Reflections about Brexit the Movie – Part 3

Also check out Part 1 & Part 2 of this series.

Table of Contents


Brexit the Movie – Enter the EU

Jean Monnet – the architect

Movie quotes: Then came something called the Common Market. Joining the EEC seemed like a great idea.  It meant escaping the dismal dreary confines of post-war Britain. In the 70’s we had terrible problems, double digit inflation, the three day week, prices and incomes policies and we looked across the channel and we thought – these chaps are doing something right. But the architect of the EEC was not German.  He was French. Jean Monnet was stepped in the French bureaucratic big state tradition. Indeed, he’d spent the second World War in Britain helping to create the very regulations which had all but destroyed the post-war British economy.

Fun facts: Monnet was actually instrumental in stabilising several Central and Eastern European economies and was invited to help develop the Chinese economy (source).  He also  convinced President Roosevelt to launch a massive arms production program, both as an economic stimulus and to supply the Allies with military resources. He also stated that “The European states must constitute themselves into a federation…” (source).  He drafted the Schuman Declaration which halted the ongoing dismantling of German industry in 1951 and lead to the lifting of the last civilian productions limitation in 1953 (source).

And let’s not ever forget that even Monnet did not introduce these changes.  It was Schuman, (foreign minister of France at the time), who did so.  The important point here is that he may have been the architect of the ECC and the EU but none of the EU iterations would be around if it was not for democratically elected governments opting to bring them into existence.  How many other intellectuals did not exist at the time who’s ideas did not come to fruition?


Those pesky EU intellectuals (again)

Movie quotes: It soon became clear that the Common Market was so much more than a trade deal.  Shiny new buildings kept appearing, the administration grew and the price of membership kept going up, as the EU assumed greater powers and demanded more money from Member States. Inevitable this burgeoning bureaucratic machine reflected the values of the university educated people who ran it and who benefited from its general funding.

My comments: The movie then proceeds with quotes from half a dozen British intellectuals describing just how snobbish the EU is and how EU intellectuals want to control the lives of the little people.  So, the EU intellectuals attempt to control the lives of Britons is bad but British intellectuals trying to persuade Britons to leave the EU is good.  Anybody else see the irony in this?

Fun facts: As the Union grew and developed, so did the checks and balances.  in 1967, when the Treaty of Rome introduced the Commission, it also introduced its counter weight, the Council of Ministers.  The European Council was introduced in 1974 and the European Parliament in 1979.  All institutions giving elected government representatives control over the work of the bureaucrats of the Commission.


Ignorantia juris non excusat

Movie quotes: As the EU’s power steadily increased, so did the regulators and the volume of regulations. “The bureaucratic class can not find an area of human life that they do not want to write a rulebook about. What vacuum cleaner you got, where you get your hair cut, what kind of size your shoes are. And those rulebooks stack up one on top of the other such that no reasonable human being could now possibly have an understanding of all the rules they need to obey.”

Correction:  The movie confuses the principle of criminal law where “ignorance of law excuses no one” with EU harmonisation legislation.  No citizen is legally expected to have to learn ANY of the EU harmonisation legislations from the Common Market.  Only with the onset of the Lisbon Treaty (2009) can the EU (not the Commission but the Parliament and the Council of Minister) legislate in a way that EU laws automatically come into force in all Member States.  Previously, every legal act had to be transferred into national legislation.


More pesky bureaucrats

Movie quotes: “You’ve got thousands and thousands of bureaucrats, civil servants and administrators and their job is to push paper, write on paper, have rules on paper, pile up more and more paper – you just get a mass of growing telephone directory sized rules and regulations one, after the other.  Ceaselessly, endlessly – that is actually what the bureaucracy sees itself as there to do.”

Correction: The bureaucracy – any bureaucracy, not just the European one – is there to implement the strategies, directives, principles decided by those in charge.  In the case of the EU, it is the Council and the Parliament.  And to some extent the Commissionaires – but they function under the guidance of democratically elected governments / representatives.

But more importantly, if this is true of EU bureaucrats, it must certainly be true for UK bureaucrats.  So what exactly will change if the UK leaves the EU?  The UK bureaucrats will continue pushing papers – because you can bet that the UK government is not going to let go of thousands of civil servants to join the ranks of unemployed people when their workload is cut – because they no longer have to deal with EU bureaucracy.


Brexit the Movie – EU Regulation overkill

The EU regulates every part of everyone’s life

Movie quote: Regulation is so vast and complex, even the EU is unable to tell us how many laws there are covering different areas of our lives. So we’ve used some helpful EU databases to make the best estimate that we can. Here is regulated EU man, waking from his regulated slumber to start his regulated day. You wouldn’t think you need a law for pillow cases but the EU has 5. But that’s nothing the pillow inside is subject to 109 different EU laws. As far as we can tell, there are only 11 EU pertaining to radio alarm clocks. There’s around 400 governing the other stuff on Jo Citizen’s bedside table. You can’t be too careful with the duvets and sheets so there’s around 50 laws governing those.

And so the movie goes on for another couple of minutes. But let’s examine a few of the claims in detail.

Movie claim: there are 5 laws governing pillow cases.

Correction: it is very difficult to know what the movie means by “laws” and which database they used, but out of the 4 Commission Regulations that show up in the EUR-Lex database when searching for “pillowcases” none have any impact on consumers or companies importing, exporting or selling pillowcases.  Likewise, the Commission staff working document that shows up in the results has no impact on anyone outside the Commission.

There is also a Commission Decision from 1982 terminating an anti dump procedure for importing polyester pillowcases from the USA.  The Decision from 1996 may, however, have an impact for companies as it establishes the criteria for awarding the ECO-label to bed linen and T-shirts.

So, is it that horrible that there is a uniform definition of ECO labeled bed linen across the EU?  And for the rest, the movie did HORRIBLE background research when already the titles of regulations they mention show they have zero impact on the lives of EU citizens or companies operating on the EU market.


Movie claim: There are 31 EU laws for toothbrushes

Correction:  Out of these regulations, only 1 would be applicable to any company manufacturing toothbrushes in the EU for sale in the Common Market.  That is a Directive from 2006 about a prohibition on the selling of batteries containing hazardous substances and contains specific rules for the collection, treatment, recycling and disposal of waste batteries. None of these regulations would have an affect on citizens other than not having toxic waste dumped in the Thames.

Details: But lets look at these laws in detail.

Like it was said above, there is one Directive (2006) about hazardous substances in batteries.

12 (1/3!!!) of these “laws” relate to the almost annual changes in the nomenclature (terminology) used for tariffs and statistics.  That is, it is just a long list of updated terms and numbers. They don’t really apply to anyone but government agencies and tax/customs offices.

4 of these relate to trade agreements between the EU and Central America (2012), Serbia (2013), Colombia and Peru (2012) and Republic of Korea (2011). There is also a regulation reducing custom duties on good from the Ukraine (2014), a regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of hairbrushes originating in China, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand (2000) and a regulation changing the import arrangements established of various agricultural and industrial products from China (1987).

There are 3 Commission Decisions assessing whether company mergers or acquisitions are in violation of merger/monopoly legislations – Gillette acquiring Duracell in 1996, Procter & Gamble acquiring Gillette in 2005 and the merger of SmithKline Beecham and Block Drug Company in 2001. There is also a decision from 1975 evaluating whether an Italian dental expo organiser is restricting competition in the Common Market.

In terms of changes to EU bureaucratic terminologies: a regulation defines a list products (prodcom) to be included for statistics on manufactured goods in the EU (2010). Another regulation establishes the sub-indices of the harmonized index of consumer prices (HICP) which each month shall be produced by the Member States (1996). Yet another regulation amends the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV) (2008). Another regulation requires Member States to amend the procedures for data collection and transmission regarding the harmonised indices of consumer prices (1999). Another two regulations relate to the reporting mechanisms of the Fund for European Aid (2014 and 2016). Finally there is a regulation about the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (2007)

There is also a recommendation (not a law) on the use of a harmonised methodology for classifying and reporting consumer complaints and enquiries (2010).



Regulations are bad for business

Movie quotes: For small and medium size businesses and startups – its perilous. Complying with regulation imposes huge costs and falling foul of regulation can put you out of business. Big established firms don’t mind regulations so much. For a start, it means less competition. Big corporate interests then to love the EU – it suits their purposes perfectly.

My comments: I agree with these points.  Over regulations is good for big businesses who can use can afford the lawyers to do navigate the legal minefield – something small businesses can’t.

But the movie makes it sound like there are thousands and thousands of regulations and miles of red tape that small businesses have to navigate.  This is absolutely not true!  Money spent on book keepers, accountants and paying tax are much more cumbersome for a small business than EU regulations and red tape.

If you look at the details of the regulations about toothbrushes above – not one small company in the UK would have any problems revolutionising the toothbrush or suffer the consequences of trying to understand 32 cumbersome EU laws about toothbrushes when trying to sell it within the EU.  Should they want to turn their eyes to markets outside the EU, then they would have to pay attention to 1 or 2 regulations on trade agreements with various regions.

So it is a huge overstatement that the EU regulations make it impossible to have an a small innovative business in the EU.

But what about something not so straight forward?  What about importing coffee?  Well it’s no more complicated than what can be summarised in two pages


Reflections about Brexit the Movie – Part 2

Also check out previous and the next part of this blog series

Table of contents


Brexit the Movie – Case Study: Fish

When Britain joined the Common Market, it lost control of its Fishing grounds

Movie claim: When Britain joined the Common Market [aka European Economic Community aka ECC], it lost control of its Fishing grounds.

Correction:  The UK government was fully aware of the consequences on the fishing industry should the UK join the ECC. Regardless, the British government chose to do so in 1972 unlike Norway that did not join the ECC following a referendum (source).

In 1976, the initial 12 mile territorial waters (aka exclusive economic zones) were expanded to 200 miles.  At the time “Representatives from the UK fishing industry claim a 100-mile exclusion zone would provide enough fish for British markets and workers “to keep us going forever”.” (source).

The details: If the Wikipedia article is to be believed then there was a lot of foul play in the 70’s around the UK’s membership negotiations (the article has no source but seems to originate from this blogpost which says it quotes lectures by Professor Vernon Bogdanor on Britain and Europe and can allegedly be found in their entirety here).

The first rules on fishery were created in 1970. The original six Common Market members realized that four countries applying to join the Common Market at that time (Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway) would control the richest fishing grounds in the world. The original six therefore drew up Council Regulation 2141/70 giving all Members equal access to all fishing waters, even though the Treaty of Rome gave no authority for them to do this. This resolution was adopted on the morning of 30 June 1970, a few hours before the applications to join the ECC were officially received. This ensured that the regulations became part of the acquis communautaire before the new members joined, obliging them to accept the regulation. At first the UK refused to accept the rules but by the end of 1971 the UK gave way and signed the Accession Treaty on 22 January 1972, thereby handing over an estimated four fifths of all the fish off Western Europe (source).

Thus the member states did not lobby against the UK but sneaked in an allegedly illegal demand on giving all member states access to the fishing grounds of the UK, Ireland and Denmark.  More importantly, the decision to join the EEC was taken by the UK government being fully aware of the consequences.  Thus, the EU member states set their terms and the UK government and politicians accepted. In contrast to Norway, which still has not joined the Union.


Several countries lobbied the EU for Britain’s fishing rights

Correction: The quotas (aka total allowable catch) were not divided up between other European countries.  The decision about fishing rights in 1972 gave fishermen from any EEC country the right to fish in any other EEC country’s fishing grounds. (See previous section about 200 miles worth of territorial waters that UK got exclusive access to in 1976).


Quotas (akak total allowable catch) are decided by the Council of Ministers on an annual basis (source) .


The British government was powerless to stop this

Correction: The UK ministers have always been present at meetings where these were discussed and decided.   Such decisions are made in forums where the UK has always had the option of being represented.  Decisions are accepted with qualified majority voting.

Fun fact: Currently the UK has the fifth larges EEZ in the world (source).


The EU pays fishermen to leave an industry and destroy their boats

Correction: the EU provides partial funding for UK fishermen to destroy their boats following the national plan drawn up by the UK government.

Explanation: This ties into the different funding programs of the EU which started in the 70’s already.  Under the Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries  Guidance (provided funding between 2000-2006) and the European Fisheries  Fund (2007-2013) there was the possibility to receive EU funding for decommissioning or transferring vessels.

Under the FIFG, these actions were available in specific circumstances, related to vessels 30 years or older or with reduced capacity (source).

Under the EFF, “aid may be available for vessels permanently or temporarily ceasing their activities”.  However, such aid was ONLY available if the Member States had decided to cut fishing opportunities and defined this in their NATIONAL strategic plans (source).

Also worth to point out is that the EU only funds such projects partially, the remainder (usually at least 20% of a project) is financed by the Member States – in this case the UK.

Details: In 1977 an aid programme was introduced to improve the fish processing industry (source).

In 1993 The Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries  Guidance  (FIFG) was created.  Between 1994 to 1999 the budget for FIFG totalled 700 million ECU (source).

Between 2000 and 2006 the FIFG funded more than 84,000 initiatives with a total of 3.7 billion Euro from EU contribution (thats not counting the national contribution which was a minimum of 20% of the total cost) (source). The FIFG funded initiatives falling under the following topics: Adjustment of fishing effort, Fleet renewal and equipment or modernisation of fishing vessels, Small-scale coastal fishing, Fishing in inland waters, Protection and development of aquatic resources, Fishing port facilities, Development of aquaculture, Processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products, Measures to identify and promote new market outlets, Social measures accompanying restructuring, Measures by groups within the trade, and Temporary cessation of activities (source).

In  2007  the  FIFG  was  replaced  by  the  European Fisheries  Fund  (EFF).  A total of 4.3 billion Euros were allocated in this fund (source).

The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) replaced the EFF in 2014 making available a total of 6.4 billion Euros between 2014 and 2020 (source).

Interesting facts: What is interesting to point out, however, is that each country’s share of the funds total budget is based (at least in the EMFF) on the size of its fishing industry (source). However, looking at the official statistics about the UK fleet and the Spanish fleet, it is unclear why the Spanish fishing industry which has almost twice as many ships and catches roughly twice as much fish as the UK receives more than 100 times as much funds than the UK industry.
Between 2000 and 2006, the UK received 165 million Euros (5% of the total) while Spain received 1.7 billion Euros (48% of the total) of the available 3.5 billion.

Between 2007 and 2013, the UK was allocated 137 million Euros while Spain was allocated 1.1 billion Euros of the available 3.5 billion.

Between 2014 and 2020, the UK is allocated 120 million Euros while Spain is allocated 1.16 billion of the available 6.4 billion.

(see above links for sources).

An interesting article on the subject.


Britain is always defeated in the Council votes

Movie quote: Britain voted against 72 measures in the European Council and been defeated 72 times

Clarification: It is important to note that the European Council consists of Ministers from all Member States that VOTE on a topic.  Beyond that, it is impossible to know what the person was referring to – is it 72 measures on fishery? 72 measures in general?  During what time period?
The Guardian’s research (regarding European Council votes between 2004-2015) shows quite the opposite to this statement – the UK looses only 5% of the votes on the topic of Fisheries.  On the topic of budget, foreign policy and international development it looses European Council votes approximately 35% of the time, but never 100% of the time (source).

Fun facts: The various configurations of the European Council met 73 times in 2015.  The UK did definitely NOT loos 73 of those votes.  Check it out for yourself.

Also, regarding the topic of fishery, there have been 27 votes since 2009.  The UK has voted against the proposal once and abstained from voting once  (source).


Brexit the Movie – Why are British the cussed ones in Europe?

At this stage, the move leaves the topic of fisheries and starts a rant about why things were always better before.  In my opinion, these ideas are at best generalisations aiming to incite nationalistic feelings of former days of glory.  But there are plenty of false information in it as well.


Britons do not like to be bossed around by bureaucrats

Movie quotes: Britons do not like to be bossed around by bureaucrats; Britons don’t want to have a group of wise, experienced, public spirited experts who will run things in the best interest of all.  The British, historically have been sceptical to this kind of approach.

Correction: None of the decisions described above have been taken by a bureaucrat.  The European Commission bureaucrats and the experts prepare studies and proposals which the national bureaucrats and experts examine and comment on, which is negotiated between the national and EU bureaucrats and experts in Brussels and is then voted upon by national ministers.  The Brussels bureaucrat has no more power to decide than a public servant working for a ministry in the UK.


Why are we so attached to our independence and freedom?

Movie quotes, questions: Why are British the cussed ones in Europe?  Why are we so attached to our independence and freedom?  Why do we take so badly to regulation? Where does it all come from?

My comments: The movie never answers these questions, just talks about how things were much better in the time of the Great British Empire because there were no regulations then.


Britons freed from serfdom

Movie quotes, answers: The British freed themselves from feudal regulation centuries before the Europeans. While serfdom existed in large parts of Europe. The Great British were carrying out the great industrial and commercial revolution that gave birth to the modern world.

Correction:  While serfdom was abolished in the UK in the 15-16th century, slavery was only abolished in 1833 – i.e. just around the time when serfdom was abolished in the other European countries (give or take 10 years).  So indeed, the British didn’t need serfs to do the farming back home when they could get things done for even cheaper with slaves in their colonies. Back home the British could work under horrific conditions as factory workers instead.


Great Britain – ruler of the waves

Movie quotes: In the 19th century, unregulated Britain was the pioneer of global free trade, workshop of the world, dominating the world economy like a Leviathan.  Even on the dawn of WWI Britain was building about 60% of the worlds commercial ships and owned almost half the world’s cargo carrying, ocean going steamers.

My comments:  So it’s the fault of EU bureaucrats that Greece has now the largest fleet of tankers and that most of the production is in Asia… (source)

Also, note how Britain “dominated” the world economy.  And they certainly did.  It’s a contradiction of terms to compare global free trade with the British domination of the world economy.  Britain had an empire based on exploited colonies the consequences of which we are still feeling today on a global level.


Regulations – the root of all evil

Movie quotes: But the 1st World War changed everything.  New ministries were set up as the government extended its control over every aspect of British life. Industry became heavily regulated.  First shipping then the railways, canals and agriculture. A company was no longer private property but a national asset to be directed from above.  During the war the government increasingly thought that it should plan, it should control, it should regulate.

Comment: Ah, it wasn’t the EU who took away the freedom of the British, it was the British government!  It is ironic though that after 300 years of free trade pioneering and free trade, it was once the regulations took away Britons’ freedom, that life expectancy increased with 20 years, child labour was banned, labour laws were introduced and the quality of life generally improved.

Fun facts:

Life expectancy in the UK
between 1543 – 1850: +/- 40 years
between 1850 – 1900: rose from 40 to 50 years
between 1900 – 1950: rose from 50 to 70 years

Even with the dips for World War I, it seems that those harsh years made unbearable by heavy regulations still managed to increase their life expectancy with 20 years (source).

Child labour – “Many of the new factory owners preferred to employ children as they viewed them more docile tractable than adults.” (source).


Post WWI regulations

Movie quotes: When the War was over, so was the excuse for government regulation, and many were scrapped.  But not all of them and not for long. British government sought to control major sectors of the British economy. Basically checking the spirit of innovation that has been such a dominant feature of the British manufacturing sector in the 19th century.  With World War II regulation increased still further. War planning gave unprecedented control over our lives. And after the War, they were unwilling to hand back their power. Everything from heavy industry down to cloths, food and children toys were regulated. Britain became perhaps the most state controlled economy in Europe. A heavily regulated economy, ordered from above – the politicians assured us – would be a screaming success. But the very opposite happened. The purpose of regulation was to end wasteful competition. But it was competition that had kept industry efficient and innovative.  Nimble entrepreneurs who were rewarded for success and punished for failure were now replaced by plodding bureaucrats ticking boxes. Productivity and output plummeted. Shortages pushed up prices led to heavy rationing of some products.

Correction:  The government nationalised about 20% of the economy, including coal, railways, road transport, the Bank of England, civil aviation, cable and wireless, electricity and gas, and steel (source).
Fun facts: Clement Attlee formed the Attlee Ministry in the United Kingdom in 1945, succeeding Winston Churchill. During this heavily controlled governmental era:

  • hospitals were nationalised and provided for free universal medical care
  • sickness and unemployment benefits were provided for adults along with retirement pensions
  • expanded the Education Act
  • the government adopted Keynesianism

My comments:  To summarise the the movies argument:  Before regulations, everything was great (thats why people lived to be 50).  After regulation life became horrible (thats why they lived to be 70).  There was no room for innovation only bureaucracy and everyone was told how to do everything.

So according to the movie, the collapse of the British economy had nothing to do with the collapse of the British Empire or the fact that the rest of the world was recovering from two World Wars and the Great Depression.  It was because the bureaucrats were repressing innovation.


Brexit the Movie – Germany, the economic miracle

For Germany, it was a different story

Movie quotes: The War had left Germany little more than smoking rubble. Germany would receive some Marshall aid but only half of the amount sent to Britain. Germany needed a miracle. In the first free elections after the war Ludwig Erhard, the son of a shop keeper, became minister for the economy. A post he held until 1963.

Fun fact: During the Attlee Ministry, James Chuter Ede, the Secretary of State for the Home Department was also the son of a shopkeeper. George Henry Hall, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, worked in the mines since he was 12 (source)


Movie quotes: Erhard began the economic miracle by completely scrapping all of the controls that he had inherited from the Third Reich and he did this agains the strong advice of his British superiors in the occupied zone. They were happy to have an open and free trade, a deregulated economy, stand on their own two feet – and those that cant must make way for those that can.

Clarification: The British did not not advise the Germans to take away regulations.  Actually the US Military government of occupation in Germany, through Joint Chiefs of Staff directive 1067 (in force until 1947), was ordered to “…take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany [or] designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy” (source). It was in violation of the JSC that Germany made it’s currency reforms which was the first step in restoring the economy (source).


Movie quotes: Germany was open to the world, had free entry into business and commerce and professionals and the result was that the German economy became much more dynamic much more innovative and ultimately much, much more successful.  In Britain, there were shortages and rising prices, in Germany, goods were abundant and wages rose steeply.  The result for the ordinary person in Germany was sensational.

Clarification: The movie claims that it was free commerce that allowed wages to rise steeply.  It does not mention the tax reform that lowered taxes from 85/95% to 18%.


Movie quote: Britain, who won the war, was still rationed year after year whereas Germany who lost the war, rationing was abolished.

Correction: The last of the war-time rationing was ended in UK in 1953.  Food rationing stayed in place in Germany too after the war. “In early October 1945 the UK government privately acknowledged in a cabinet meeting that German civilian adult death rates had risen to 4 times the pre-war levels and death rates amongst the German children had risen by 10 times the pre-war levels” (source) . Also, in 1947, 4 million German prisoners of war were still working abroad as forced labour and there were acute food shortages in Germany (source).

Fun facts: Ludwig Erhard was a staunch believer in economic liberalism meaning social market economy (source). This is a social and economic system combining free market capitalism which supports private enterprise, alongside social policies which establish both fair competition within the market and a welfare state (source).

Reflections about Brexit the Movie – Part 1

I came across Brexit: The Movie by accident.  I didn’t particularly care about the topic, but when I started watching it, I was struck by the amount of distortions, misconceptions, half-truths and lies. So here is a blog post going through the whole movie (or as much of it as I can manage before the referendum) comparing the statements from the movie to reality and pointing out fallacies in their arguments.

Update (08/06/2016): Two new sections added:


Table of Contents:

My commentary continues here


Brexit the Move – Q1 How it works

How is a Commissionaire appointed?

My comments: This is not a relevant question regarding democracy.  It is similar to discussing whether the appointment of Ministers and their staff in the UK is a democratic process.

Also, the Commission is not a decision making body. It drafts and enforces legislative proposals but does not have the authority to accept them.

Britons don’t know how the EU works

My comments: How many people on the street know how their governments work?  How many know how their local/municipal governments work?  Is it the fault of the EU that Britons don’t know how the EU works?  If you have any questions please visit

The EU imposes laws on 28 countries

Correction: The institutions of the EU legislate laws that 28 countries have to apply.  See below for the legislative process

The EU has 7 institutions

Fun facts: These institutions are:

  • the European Parliament – democratically elected members, co-legislator with the Council;
  • the Council of the European Union (simply called ‘the Council’) – the ministers of the 28 EU countries, co-legislator with the Parliament making decisions by voting;
  • the European Council – the heads of state from each of the 28 EU countries, decides on general political guidelines and policies;
  • the European Commission – consists of public officials, initiates law proposals;
  • the Court of Justice of the European Union – consists of 1 judge from each EU Country, ensures uniform implementation of EU law;
  • the European Central Bank – objective is to maintain price stability;
  • the Court of Auditors – consists of 1 member from each EU country, independent external auditor and financial watchdog.


The EU has 4 presidents – its confusing and nobody knows who they are

My comments: This is a matter of semantics. As a point of reference, the UK has “Secretaries” that in other countries are called “Ministers”.  The UK has, for example, three secretaries of state: First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

If the movie had asked Brits about the different Secretaries in the UK government, they would have had similar reactions from the people on the streets.

This section is full of personal hypothesis and opinions on why the EU is setup this way.


Brexit the Move – Q2 Who is in charge

Who are our representatives?

My comments: During this section, the movie shows how people on the streets can’t recognise  the President of  the Commission,  President of Parliament or the UK Commissionaire – Jonathan Hill.  I urge the movie makers to make the same experiment with pictures of Theresa May, Mark Harper and Mark Sedwill.

Fun facts: In the European Union, only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislations. However, the Parliament and Council can request the Commission to propose legislations in fields other than the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Also, citizens can request the Commission to propose legislation on a topic by collecting 1 million votes (there are approximately 500 million people living in the EU). (source)

Compared to how minsters and public officials are assigned positions in national governments, the process of selecting Commissionaires is much more democratic.

First of all, the President of the Commission has to be elected by the  European Parliamanet (MPs that have been elected by the citizens of the EU countries).  Candidates for the position are proposed by the heads of the EU countries.

Secondly, the government of each EU country nominates 1 person to be their Commissioner. The President of the Commission then assigns the portfolios to the proposed Commissioners.  The suitability of all the Commissionaires is then discussed during hearings in the Parliament.  If not elected, the team must be reshuffled or new Commissionaires must be nominated by the respective member states.

Find out more here.


Brexit the Move – Q3 Accountability

The European Parliament is not a parliament

Movie quotes: “It is not in charge”; “No power over them”;  “It can not initiate, propose or repeal legislation – that is done by the Commission”; “Once a decision has been made the voters can’t change it”; “Those who are appointed have the real power”

Clarifications: The movie is basically claiming that the Commission and Commissionaires are running the EU making all the decision and that the only democratically elected body (the European Parliament) are powerless infront of them.


  • The European Parliament can dissolve Commission as a whole following a vote of no confidence. By request of the Council or Commission, a commissionaire can be compelled to retire on account of a breach of obligation(s) if so ruled by the European Court of Justice (source)
  • EU legislations are changed all the time.  As discussed above, the Council, the Parliament or 1million EU citizens can request the Commission to propose new legislation or change old ones – although the Commission may refuse proposals. The Commission must follow such requests and the Parliament is not obliged to accept any Commission proposal it does not agree with.
  • The work of the Commission and of the rest of the legislative branches is overseen by the Court of Justice which can and has overturned legislations in breach of the various treaties (example).


Power to legislate resides with EU officials – they debate their laws in secret

Correction: The Commission prepares drafts to be approved by the Council (national ministers of democratically elected governments) and the Parliament (democratically elected representatives).  Their deliberations do indeed happen behind closed doors but they can not make decisions.  How is this different from the ministries in the member states? Are the law proposals public while they are being drafted?


Where do my taxes go

Movie quote: “I want to be able to know where the taxes are going and be able to remove from power those spending them”

Comments: Please go to:

Like I already said, the Parliament can have a vote of no confidence to kick out Commission (the ones spending the money) at any point.


Magna Carta

Movie quote: “No government can pass any law or any tax without first getting the authority of the British people (Magna Carta)”

Comments: It is very fortunate then that no EU laws can be passed without the approval of the members of the EU parliament (consisting of elected representatives) or the Council (where the British ministers are present).

It is also questionable whether the EU contributions are actually taxes any more than the UK’s contribution to the UN is…


Complex state machine run by unelected officials

Movie quote: “Complex state machine run by officials whom we didn’t elect but who have the power to impose on us laws that we haven’t debated and have no democratic means of repealing”

Comments: Again, the Commission doesn’t have the power to impose laws – they PROPOSE laws to be voted upon by those democratically elected.  This line of argument is like saying that national ministries are undemocratic because they are run by officials you didn’t elect who have the power to draft legislation.


Power without accountability for EU officials

Corrections: See above how the Parliament can kick out the Commissionaires through a vote of no confidence. The Court of Justice can annul laws that violate EU treaties or fundamental rights.  Also, any person or company who has had their interests harmed as a result of the action or inaction of the EU or its staff can take action against them through the Court of Justice. (source)


Shelter for kicked out politicians

Movie quote: “Kicked out politicians can get a job there”

Correction: Just where exactly is “there”?  Remember, there are 7 institutions.  In the Council Secretariat for example, there are ambassadors, and other representatives sent (and paid for) by the EU Countries.  But nowhere, can a kicked out politician get a job for being an “EU-sympathiser”.  The staff of all institutions, who are not elected or sent/nominated by their respective countries go through public recruitment procedure.

Find out about the public recruitment procedures here.


The Brussels gravy train

Movie claim: in the EU buildings, EU bureaucrats can get their nails done, hair done and there is even a massage parlour.

Clarifications: indeed these are stores in one of the buildings (Parliament I think). However, anyone using these services have to pay, and the fees are not subsidised.  There is also a office supplies store, a news stand and a restaurant.


10,000 EU bureaucrats (1/5) are paid more than David Cameron

Correction: According to the latest staff figures by the Commission, there are 32,966 staff working for the Commission (source) not including staff working for agencies.  The movie claims that one fifth of the staff (10,000 people) get higher salaries than Cameron.  Last I checked, one fifth of 35,000 is not 10,000.

Cameron earns €180,500 per year or about €15,000 per month (see details below).  Only EU staff in the two highest salary scales earn that much.  In 2016, there are 195 officials/staff with those grades (source).  But let’s lower the bar and include a benefit rate of 30% along with the basic salary.  That includes staff with a monthly salary of about €11,500 – which includes category AD 12 and above in the EU salary scales (see here).  So REALLY generously counting there are a total of 4,801 EU official who MAY make more than Cameron counting their salaries and benefits.  So, nowhere near the claimed 10,000 officials nor the 1/5.

Its not for me to argue whether that is a lot or not, just to point out the false information presented by the movie. Also, here’s an interesting article (from 2007) about the bullshit way the Commission calculates staff numbers.

The details:

Lets compare salaries and benefits:

David Cameron€180,500 (£142,500) including € 94,000 (£ 74,000) MP’s salarySame as members of the House of CommonsSource
Cabinet Ministers€180,000 (£141,505)Same as members of the House of CommonsSource
MP House of Commons€94,000 (£74,000)Office expenses, housing, second home, travel, pension arrangements, resettlement grant and winding-up allowance
Average MP's expenses cost taxpayer £118,000
EU MP€98,400 (£77,000)Any salary from country of origin.
General expenditure allowance - €51,840 (£41,000) per year.
Travel expenses.
Daily subsistence allowance - €76,500 (£60,000) per day (counting 250 working days at €306 per day)
EU Officials - highest pay grade (AD 16 step 3)€222,000 (£175,000)
Expatriation allowance: 16% of salary + household allowance
Household allowance: €171,88 + 2% of basic salary (per month)
Dependent child allowance: €375,59 per month and per child
Education allowances:maximum €509.66 per month per child
Birth grant: €198,31 per child
Installation allowance: maximum 1 months basic salary
Daily subsistence allowance: maximum €5.729,4 for the first 120 days of employment

Tax: progressively between 6-45%
Solidarity levy: 6-7%
Pension: 10,1%
Health insurance: 1,70%
Accident cover: 0,10%
Unemployment insurance: 0,81%
EU Officials - lowest pay grade (SC1)€28,150 (£22,100)
Same as above

For more comparisons have a look at these official figures.

Now lets look at the movie’s claims:

Claim: 10,000 are paid more than David Cameron

Clarification: There is an automatic progression built into the salary system for EU officials where every two years officials move up one step within their grade (see table here).  There is also the possibility for reclassification into the next grade (generally after minimum 4 years of service).  So somebody who has worked in the EU system for 25 years has probably progressed 5 grades.  So if they started as senior specialists or middle management 25 years ago (source), then together with various allowances, they may indeed earn more than the basic salary of Cameron.   This is especially true for officials hired before 2004.  Since 2004, the entry grade level of new officials has been lowered (source).  Looking at the current positions, however, only about 1400 staff members are classified as middle or senior managers (source).  But, like I said, people who have been working there for a long time

Fun fact: “Over 94% of the EU budget goes to citizens, regions, cities, farmers and businesses. The EU’s administrative expenses account for under 6% of the total EU budget, with salaries accounting for around half of that 6%.” (source)

Movie claim: Officials get entertainment allowance

Correction: See table above.  There is no such thing as “entertainment allowance”  the movie may, however, be referring to the expatriation allowance (16%).  This allowance is only available to those officials who come from a different country than their place of work (i.e. Belgians don’t get this allowance if they work in Brussels, but do if they work in Strasbourg)

Movie claim: Officials get private healthcare allowance

Clarification: As officials do not pay national taxes, they are not covered by any national health scheme. So they pay each month (1.7% of their salaries) to have access to a healthcare scheme run by the Commission. This scheme allows officials to claim costs from any EU Countries medical facilities.

Movie claim: The healthcare includes free Viagra

Correction: Like any medication, Viagara is available after doctor’s prescription.  It is only partially reimbursed, like all other medication.

Movie claim: Officials get private education for their kids

Clarification: Officials get an education allowance (max €509.66). If there is a European school (run/sponsored by the Commission) in the vicinity of their place of work, they get no education allowance but their children get to attend the European school for free.


EU lobbying and the diversion of tax payers’ money

Movie quotes: The EU diverts rivers of tax payers’ cash to the tax consuming middle class intelligentsia; The EU gives money to lobby organisations; The EU gives our money to local authorities and universities and art groups and opera companies.

Correction: The EU doesn’t give away money – it funds projects to which an organisation has to apply for and it very seldom finances more than 80% of a project (source).  But if you look into the details of funded projects, it can be seen that the total costs of projects, is usually at least double that of the EU funding (see the #EUBudget4results below).

Fun facts: In 2014, 3,385 initiatives with at least partial participation from UK organisations received close to 3.5 billion Euros in contribution.  The Financial Transparency System has all the details.
Also the #EUBudget4results contains a collection of 860 projects funded by the EU (between 2007-2013). Here is the list of all projects related to Tourism and Culture.
Did you know about the UK rebate?  It is a financial mechanism which reduces the United Kingdom’s contribution to the EU budget in effect since 1985 (source). In 2015 that rebate reduced the UK’s contribution from £17.8 billion to £12.9 billion (source).
Movie quote: This creates a chorus of noise in favour of the European Project.
Clarification: Every project that has received funding from the EU must have this information publicly visible on for example advertisements.  How is it different from having received funding from any other organisation?
Movie quote: Every charity over a certain size is getting money from Brussels along with every NGO; The EU is taking money from the general population and handing it to people who are lucky enough to be working for the system.
Correction: Funding of projects is based on applications and all funded projects are available for public review.  The claim that ALL NGOs have EU funding does not have any merit what so ever.


For every pound that comes from the EU, you have to pay 2,3 in tax

My comment: The first truth in the move.  If you only focus on how much money UK organisations and projects get out in the previously criticised funds then indeed, the UK contributes much more than it gets out (see the details here). So financially speaking the question becomes how much is the access to the single market worth?


My commentary continues here

Felmeddelande 1022 – BankID på kort från Handelsbanken

Jag har mycket illa att säga om BankID men idag har jag praktiska tips för er som använder Handelsbankens elegitimation på kort på Mac och kört fast med något felmeddelande. Jag har inte hittat denna tips någon annanstans så jag hoppas att den kan hjälpa även i framtida felsökningar.





MacBook (13 tum, mitten 2010) med MacOSX 10.10.2 (just uppgraderad från 10.6)
BankID på kort från Handelsbanken (inkl. USB sladd)
Programmet BankID 6.4.0 installerat
Drivrutinen shbecr från Handelsbanken (Driver version, Date 2014-12-22) installerat

BankID programmet känner av dosan och legitimationen på kortet när man kör programmet separat


Felmeddelande 1022 dyker upp varje gång man försöker logga in på t.ex. med legitimationen.


Det visade sig att det fanns några inställningar i den gömda Biblioteksmappen i användarprofilen som inte hade raderats när jag installerade den nya versionen av BankID. Den kan tas bort på följande vis:

  1. Se till att BankID och din webbläsare är avstängda
  2. Gå till Finder
  3. Från menyn ”Gå” välj ”Gå till mapp…” (kortkommando: CMD-SHIFT-G)
  4. Skriv (kopiera) in ”~/Bibliotek” (eller ”~/Library”) för att öppna denna gömda mapp
  5. Radera mappen som heter BankID

Nu borde din legitimation på kort dyka upp när du försöker logga in någonstans med din BankID. Om det inte funkar kan du eventuellt starta om datorn.


The long story


Nyligen fick jag nöjet att försöka hjälpa min mor när hon inte kunde logga in på en tjänst med sin elegitimation på kort från Handelsbanken. Självklart kunde hon logga in på vissa ställen men inte den nya tjänsten hon ville komma åt. Och jag fick förklara allt på distans! Lyckligtvis så kunde vi använda oss av skärmdelningsfunktionen i Skype så att jag i alla fall kunde se det hon såg.

Då börjar det vanliga felsökningen:
Se om det funkar för en gammal tjänst – ja.
Funkar det för den nya tjänsten? – nej.
Funkar det i en annan webbläsare? – nej.
Uppgradera BankID. – funkar inte.
Inse att Handelsbanken har särskilda drivrutiner för att få dosan att fungera. Installera dem. – funkar inte.
Omstart. – funkar inte.
Försöka se om det är något fel med BankID programmet. – går inte att starta.

Det visar sig att senaste BankID programmet är inkompatibelt med OSX 10.4 som fanns på datorn.

Försöka förklara för morsan vad OS är och vad uppgradering innebär och risker riskerna med den. – OK gör så.

Forskning om hur man uppgraderar OSX:
Enda möjliga uppgradering av OSX som Appel tillhandahåller är 10.10 Yosemite
Kommer den över huvud taget att köras på morsans dator? – jo då, segt men fungerande
Uppdatering sker genom Appstore
Uppdatering kräver användarkonto hos Apple
Använder mina kontaktuppgifter för att logga in och tanka hem Yosemite på några GB

(OBS jag guidar morsan fortfarande via share screen genom Skype)

När Yosemite väl anländer på morsans dator börjar vi uppgraderingen. Fantastiskt nog informerar den om att stenåldersversionen av MS Office på datorn inte kommer att fungera efter uppdateringen.

Förklarar innebörd till morsan – om du vill komma åt dina dokument får du betala 100kr per månad för att leasa senaste Office paketet från MS eller betala 1000kr + för stand alone versionen. (Kom då inte på OpenOffice som alternativ). Såg fram emot att förklara för henne skillnaderna mellan Office 2013 och hennes stenåldersversion.

Morsan väljer att skita i uppgraderingen. Men nu har hon ju inget fungerande BankID.

Inleder ”operation restore BankID”:
Hittar en gammal version av BankID och drivrutinen bland nerladdade filer.
Avinstallera nytt; installera gammalt.

Efter flera timmars strul så är vi tillbaka till steg ett.

Jag hänvisar morsan till Handelsbankens support för att försöka lista ut om det finns något sätt att komma åt den nya tjänsten. Självklart är det inte deras fel, så att de hänvisar till den nya tjänstens support. Som i princip drar samma valts och kommer till samma slutsats – måste uppgradera till Yosemite med allt det innebär.

Någon månad senare, när jag väl är på plats framför morsans dator, tar jag det tappra steget att uppgradera OS-et. Datorn segar ner till snigelhastighet men överlever med allt intakt. Den piggnar till när Spotlight har avslutat sin indexering men är fortfarande väldigt trög när den startar program första gången efter omstart.

Måste självklart förklara nya interfacet, tweaka den så att hon hittar allt och ta bort allt som bara förvirrar och hon aldrig kommer att använda.

BankID funkar fortfarande inte.

Avinstallering och ominstallering av programmet och drivrutinen följer. – hjälper det inte

Omstart, avinstallation, ominstallation. – hjälper inte.

Töm cache, cookies, preferences etc på webbläsaren. – hjälper inte.

Försöker leta rätt på drivrutinen genom installationsloggen via programmet Systemmedelanden. – ingen större hjälp.

Ominstallation från annat adminkonto, kanske det gör någon skillnad.

Testa BankID från det andra kontot – det funkar!

Testa BankID från morsans konto. – funkar fortfarande inte.

Det innebär att felet är lokaliserat till morsans användarkonto.

Åter till att söka BankID inställningar i morsans konto.

Inser att OSX har skitmånga gömda filer och mappar som man bara kan visa genom Terminal.

Hittar slutligen den gömda Biblioteksmappen under morsans profil. I den ligger en BankID mapp och gömmer sig. Raderade den och presto! Det fungerade som det ska.


Jag hoppas att denna lilla tricks kan hjälpa många som fastnat i BankID träsket. Jag har inte hittat en sådan lösning på Internet och inte heller har några av supportkämparna som morsan talat med beskrivit en liknande lösning.

Lycka till i denna eviga katt och rått leken som det innebär att använda BankID.

The Golden Archetypes

Since the past “recession” of 2007, every now and then the mainstream financial news outlets mention that the price of gold is on a rise. There will, of course be an expert interviewed who will offer an opinion. Being novice to the “gold business” it is not easy to decide whether the person you listen to is trustworthy or not. And if you start researching the subject you will come across these very convincing sounding people with these “unorthodox” ideas about the current financial and political system and they will have their own, very strong opinions. In this kind of environment it is not easy to decide the angle of the different people you hear and their motives. So I have prepared this post, presenting what I believe to be the four archetypes of those who talk about gold in various media.  These four archetypes are those who fall under the stigmatization of “conspiracy theorist”, the mainstream economic advisers, those who actually trade in precious metals and commodities on a daily basis and those who have a vested interest in you buying gold from them. Read more for a more detailed presentation of each archetype.
  Continue reading

Terrorist Threats

France 24 and Reuters recently ran two terrorism related articles. France 24’s article is called: “Seven suspected Islamists arrested in Paris” and Reuters “Bomb attacks double in Northern Ireland“.

Let’s compare the two:

1. France 24, uses the word “Islamist” as synonym for terrorist and militant. Reuter refers to the “Real IRA” as a “Dissident group” yet arrests are made under the Terrorism Act.

2. What do the articles mention as consequences of terrorism? France 24: “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, has kidnapped several French citizens in recent years, some of whom have been ransomed and some killed. Four nuclear workers are still being held. … On April 28 bombers attacked a popular tourist cafe in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh, killing 17 people including eight French tourists”. Reuters: “99 viable bombs either exploded or were defused by army experts in the year to the end of March, compared with 50 a year ago. … At the beginning of April, a car bomb killed a 25 year-old Catholic constable. … [he] was the second Catholic officer to be murdered in two years, several more have been severely wounded or had narrow escapes. … As well as bombings there were 72 shooting incidents, 33 casualties resulting from paramilitary style shootings and 81 paramilitary style assaults.”

3. What about the arrests? France: “Six suspects were detained on Monday but the main target of the operation, an Indian national who recently arrived from Algeria, was taken on Tuesday”. Ireland: “Thursday’s police figures show that 188 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act, compared with 169 the year before. Those charged rose to 40 from 36. ”

So, which group of terrorists is more of a threat?

Down The Rabbit Hole And Into The Cloud

With Chrome OS on the horizon, there has been a lot of blogging about whether client computers will become more secure. I would just like to take this opportunity to look at this question from an other, less discussed, angle – the angle that follows the data and not the computer that access the data.

Since Chrome OS is basically nothing more than a web-browser, it has been claimed that the client computers running it will become a lot more secure. I don’t necessarily dispute this claim but I want to highlight the real reason why this will be the case. Certainly, the less points of attack there are (i.e. the smaller the system), the less vulnerabilities there will be to exploit. But more importantly, the reason why Chrome OS based clients will be safer, will be that the data that is usually stored locally on PC’s will be stored somewhere in the Cloud. As such, it will become less appealing for criminals to find exploits to access data on the client computers.

And if the hackers will no longer care about client computers, where will they then be focusing their attention? That is right, to the Cloud. We are entering a whole new era of storing, processing and accessing of data. As such I would not be surprised if we see a whole new genre of exploits emerge – you know like buffer overflows for C or SQL injections for databases or XSS for websites. I’m quite certain that we will see a new generation of exploits emerge that are specific to Cloud solutions. I don’t know enough about Cloud architectures to know what these exploits will look like but I’m sure that the principle will be as basic and simple as the principles are for any of the exploit categories I just mentioned.

After all, if Google is sitting on all this data why on Earth would hackers keep writing exploits for client computers when most of them will contain limited amounts of useful information. Sure, the temptation of viruses that collect passwords and credit card details is still luring, but I think that the more hard-core hackers will follow the data, and if the data goes to Google, that is where the hackers will go. It just seems silly to spend time and energy to come up with remote exploits to gain access to local clients, when you can gain access to ALL the data stored by Google of ALL their users. Sure, it’s not going to be easy but after all, Chrome OS will be a (somewhat) trusted client connecting to the Google infrastructure – what else do you need as a starting point?

Furthermore, any exploits that do more then collect keystrokes or credit card numbers entered into a browser on a local computer will need to use the Google infrastructure to collect the user’s data from the Cloud. For example if a virus wants to get the address book of the victim to spread itself, it needs to get into the Gmail interface. So, it will need to communicate with the Cloud. And once it is communicating with the Cloud, why would it not take the next step and check out what else is stored in the Cloud under the user’s account. And if it is already there, why not try to escalate privileges and try to gain access to other people’s data? And while there, might as well see if there are any corporations storing data somewhere near… do you see?

So, sure, the Chrome OS clients will definitely be more secure then your average PC’s (even the ones with updated operating systems and virus scanners), but that does not necessarily mean that your data will be more safe. It just means that another attack vector has been added – that of the Cloud. More and more hackers will be drawn to try to exploit the Cloud infrastructure to gain access to several users’ data from within the cloud, circumventing any interaction from the user.

Nothing to hide vs. nothing to fear

One of the arguments used to install more and more public surveillance equipment (besides the obvious “it’s for YOUR OWN safety”) is that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. And after all, it’s not like the surveillance companies post all their recorded videos online for everyone to behold. No, only a few professional security guards have access to these feeds so that they can intervene if a “situation” arises.

NOT! That is a gross assumption. We think that it is a security guard monitoring the monitors, but do we actually know that for sure? Do we even know if there are any regulations regarding who gets to have access to all these video files and under what conditions? I don’t. We assume that there are licensed professional security personnel watching the screens, but it may very well be that in certain places nobody watches the screens – the images are simply recorded onto a computer (or videotape) and accessed by the police after you’ve been shot to find the guy/gal who shot you. But it may just as well be convicted pedophiles sitting there watching the screens. Think about it, if there are no regulations about who gets to supervise the surveillance footage and the surveillance companies need to save money, why not employ any hobo who is prepared to look at a couple of monitors all day for minimum wage?

But it may just as well be hackers or rapists looking at the video footage. Or… hang on… did he say “hackers”? Yes he did! Several years ago there was a Google hack whereby anyone could search for a specific term and Google would spit out a list of private security cameras installed all over the world accessible to everyone over the internet because the persons installing them did not activate the password features. So you could just click on a link and see the security footage of a parking lot outside a bar in Arkansas or something.

More recently, Kevin Finisterre, a security researcher was tasked to test the security of a city’s infrastructure and managed to hack a police vehicle’s on-board camera and microphone. Well, he didn’t even need to do much hacking, he just followed the instruction manuals of the systems (found on Google) and used the default passwords. He could see and hear the live feeds from cop cars and upload and download videos from the on-board computer (which, btw are admissible as evidence in a court of law).

So if the security of surveillance equipment used by the police are so easily circumvented what makes us think that the surveillance equipment used in taxis, public transportation vehicles, train stations, markets, malls, etc are any more secure?

But let’s leave security out of the equation for a moment. The point is that besides the licensed professionals and perverts I mentioned above, we also have hackers who can watch me do whatever I do in public areas such as: walk, talk, eat, shop, sneeze, yawn, scratch my privates, pick my nose, stare at a woman, stare at a man, kiss my wife, kiss my cousin. I’m quite certain there are others who do lot more embarrassing (maybe even illegal) things in public. With other words, we have a group of peeping-toms who, broadly speaking, are fascinated with “boobies”, who are convinced that all information should be made public, who have no quarrels about publishing a clip of their school-mate going to second base on the school-bus or publishing pictures of people scratching various parts of their bodies. And this group of people, with enough patience and conviction can access surveillance data from just about any public surveillance system in the world (and I haven’t even gotten into organized crime or terrorism)

And you tell me that I have nothing to fear if I have nothing to hide? Please! I will have nothing to fear when the surveillance providers go public with their recruitment and security procedures and their security audits. Then I will feel confident that me scratching my privates will not end up on or that my wife’s low-cut top won’t end up on


Who’s liable for the Playstation Network hack?

That the Playstation Network was hacked is yesterday’s news.  The extent of the hack, has to this date not been formally verified. Sony says my login details may have been compromised (makes me wonder if they kept the passwords in plain-text format) but say there is no proof my credit card details were stolen. Uhm… That just means they just haven’t found the proof yet!

This puts me in an awkward position. About two/three weeks ago I decided to un-hack my PSP, because I couldn’t access the Playstation store with the hacked OS to download additional music for my favorite game, Rock Band Unplugged. So, I installed the latest OFW, set up an account, and accessed the store through the game.  I entered my credit card details and off I went paying and downloading.

But now, a legal ambiguity  has arisen.  (Speaking about Swedish legislation only – I know the burden of proof is different in other countries) I am supposed to report to my credit card company if anyone who is not supposed to have access to my card has had access to it. So, I should report to my card company that I was one of the people who had an account with Sony. But Sony hasn’t verified that hackers have had access to my credit card details, and no unauthorized purchases have been made. So there is only a possibility that it may happen in the future. So in theory I should report this. If I do, I have fulfilled my obligations, and if money gets taken of the card without my authorization, the card company has to prove that it was I who made the purchase which I claim I didn’t do. In Sweden, at least, that is the way it works.

So great, I report it. But now I need to check my credit card balance every day for unauthorized transactions… Yay! So, I probably want a new card. But the card company won’t give me a new card since there’s nothing wrong with my existing one (at least not yet)! DOH! I can always pay for a new one – uhm… really?

So to sum it up, Sony have made a big kerfuffle and if I don’t want to be stressing out about reporting unauthorized use of my card, I need to pay for a new card. Will Sony compensate me for that? Doubt it!

Thank you Sony! I’m your biggest fan!


Turns out I’m not the only one with the same concern:

The legal action by a PSN user claims Sony did not do enough to protect the private data of its customers.

It also asks for compensation and for Sony to pay for credit card monitoring to spot if stolen details are being used fraudulently.