Unless you live under a rock, you know Donald Trump is thinking about running for president. His sensational public endeavors—pushing the White House to release President Obama’s long-form birth certificate and, most recently, questioning the authenticity of the president’s academic record—have met with astonishment, outrage, and dismay. A recent Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover featured a photo of Trump in mid-rant with the one-word headline, “Seriously?” Journalists, commentators, and even Jerry Seinfeld (who recently canceled an appearance at a Trump fundraiser) have taken to calling Trump a demagogue.

In recent decades, this powerful term, traditionally a scalpel for taking apart dangerous leaders, has become blunt and ineffectual through overuse. I’ve been thinking and writing about demagogues for a decade. I’ve been watching with a mix of bemusement and concern as Trump strains to elevate himself into an actual political figure, rather than the ego tornado he’s been for decades. But one of the lessons of history is that, while it’s easy to underestimate demagogues, it’s also easy to overestimate them. For the time being, I’ve concluded that Trump is not a demagogue. He lacks both the common connection and the lawlessness of classic demagogues, whether Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez today or, in the past, figures ranging from Benito Mussolini to George Wallace to Joseph McCarthy. Instead, call him a quasi-demagogue: a political figure with the desire, but not the chops, to manipulate the masses. 

Demagogues are part of the natural life cycle of democracy. So much so that the Founding Fathers designed our various checks and balances and circuit-breakers in part from their mortal terror that a predatory mass leader—a demagogue—would convert popular adulation into American tyranny. James Madison, for instance, explained that “provisions against the measures of an interested majority,”such as an independent judiciary, were required to control “the followers of different Demagogues.” This doesn’t mean, however, that demagogues haven’t popped up throughout the country’s history.

During my years studying and watching demagogues, the one lesson that has stuck with me is this: Many politicians could become demagogues if they wanted to. They could choose the gross emotional appeal, the naked ambition, and the cunning blend of vulgarity and artistry that is the true demagogue’s métier. They don’t because most of them are governed by an ethic of shame. Where others blush and quail, the demagogue happily blusters ahead—crossing boundaries, coloring outside lines, toppling walls. 

Demagogues often look most ridiculous to the people they’re most uninterested in impressing. When the colorful, autocratic Louisiana Governor Huey Long was sworn into the U.S. Senate in 1931, it was precisely his clownishness that gave him such political amplitude. He prompted a firestorm of controversy when he met a German naval commander paying an official call in a pair of green silk pajamas and a bathrobe. One scholar writes, “[T]he lesson he learned from the incident was less the importance of diplomatic niceties than the value of buffoonery in winning national publicity.” With these techniques, Long soon attracted more attention from the press than his 99 Senatorial colleagues combined. He would have challenged FDR for president in 1936, had he not been assassinated by the son of a political opponent in 1935.

You might think that Trump’s own clownishness puts him in the class of a Huey Long. But let’s take a closer look. As I argued in my book Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies, a true demagogue meets four tests. First, he presents himself as a man of the people, rather than the elites. Second, he strikes a very strong, even overpowering emotional connection with the people. Third, he uses this connection for his own political benefit. Fourth, he threatens or breaks established rules of governance. This fourth test is the most important, distinguishing a demagogue like Huey Long (who routinely used the National Guard to intimidate or brutalize political opponents, for instance) from populists like William Jennings Bryan (who, as rambunctious as he may have been, tended to play by the rules).

For Trump, let’s take the four tests in turn. With his Theater of the Absurd hairdo and his massively knotted silk ties, his Manhattan address and his glitzy brand, Trump is hardly a man of the people. True, he’s employing incautious bluster as a proxy for common appeal. “Authenticity” has become the coin of today’s reality-television realm, and there is a mass appeal to his straight-talkin’ persona—this is why his recent use of the “f bomb” plays to his curious political strengths, even while appalling elites. But for Trump to swap his fancy persona for that of a commoner would require him to blow up the brand he’s spent decades building, a task for which he is probably not constitutionally capable.

Second, Trump does not have the broad emotional appeal to the masses that marks the classic demagogue. Over the last decades, Trump has enjoyed billions of dollars of both paid and earned media exposure. He couldn’t be better-known by the American people. Yet he is consistently polling under 20 percent right now among Republicans and right-leaning independents (a recent CNN poll has him at only 14 percent), giving him a base of well under one in ten among the general voting population. The emotional surge for Trump among the very hard-core Tea Party right should certainly be noted. But it’s more likely this brushfire halts at a particular firebreak: the general American public’s hostility and suspicion to the Tea Partiers.

On the third test, it’s very unclear whether Trump is interested in actual political power, or just in increasing his personal brand and wealth. Even now, we can’t tell whether he will run—and keep running, after the glitz of the initial launch wears off—for president. Even if he gets into the race, will he slog through the hard work of an 18-month campaign, including getting on the ballot in all 50 states, participating in debates, developing policy positions? And, if he drops out, will he really have an interest in putting his shoulder to a real political end? Time will tell, but the initial signs are that this is mostly about Trumpery rather than government.

The most important test is the fourth—that demagogues, unlike populists, bend or break the rules. Trump clearly has no inhibition about lying for political benefit. But real demagogues go much further. Look at Joseph McCarthy, who used his selected issue of anti-communism to demolish people’s personal and professional lives. It’s hard to imagine that Trump really wants to encourage threatening behavior. But, if he ever started to ask his followers to test boundaries of lawfulness, to “challenge authority,” our hackles should quickly rise.

None of this means Trump isn’t worth taking seriously. To the contrary: Where Trump is succeeding in his demagogic appeals, he’s also illuminating shadowy corners of the American public. And we have to take a hard look at how this is happening. Demagogues, like nightshade, have always flourished in dark places of extreme economic or social distress. The 1920s were the last great era of American demagoguery, when Huey Long and the Detroit “radio priest” Father Coughlin rallied millions of terrified Americans against elites. It’s been no surprise that the 2010s, a time of similar distress, have fostered divisive figures from Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck to Trump.

The lesson here is that today’s restless, upset public needs reassurance—and vigorous economic policy that addresses their concerns. But we also need the media to exercise some discretion. In today’s fragmented, 24-7 echo chamber, where 500,000 nightly viewers qualify you as a pundit and one persistent blogger can take over a news cycle, the media has more responsibility for steering the ship of state toward calmer waters. Trump—as quasi-demagogue—is a creation largely of the media. The real conspiracy isn’t Trump’s mania du jour; it’s hundreds of news editors, assignment editors, reporters, and bloggers who he’s playing like fiddles.

More broadly, though, history shows that the only real antidote to demagogues is an alert, vigilant civic culture. The ancient Athenians, exhausted by a series of vicious demagogues, passed a law exiling anyone who “proposed a measure contrary to democratic principles.” We probably don’t need to go so far, though some watching Trump today doubtless wouldn’t mind moving him to Canada. America, after all, is the land of the civic mores the visiting Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville chronicled and admired. And we almost always eventually turn on demagogues. The stars of Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, and David Duke all rose for a time, but, when they fell, they crashed hard.

We can never be complacent about our constitutionalism, and the Trump phenomenon bears careful watching, lest the little fires he’s clearly capable of starting spread into a larger conflagration. But, in general, Americans have shown they’ve got what it takes to nip even quasi-demagogues in the bud. Take note of Palin and Beck’s recent fates: Under heavy fire from the public for their own excesses (a persecution complex in Palin’s case, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in Beck’s), they both are retreating to the sidelines.

We’re early in Trump’s political career, so I offer these judgments cautiously, but my suspicion is that Trump, too, will burn out, like a hot fuse on a cold rocket. This may already have started. When President Obama took the stage last week in his stunner of a press conference to take on Trump’s birther attacks, he declared, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.” A hilarious tweet I received shortly after said that carnival barkers were protesting that the comparison with Trump was giving them a bad name. And, of course, the president easily made Trump look both inane and irrelevant when the coverage of Osama bin Laden’s death interrupted “The Celebrity Apprentice.”

There’s also a final thing Trump himself should remember, before he goes farther down what is likely a dead-end road to demagoguery: History remembers Joseph Welch’s famous question to McCarthy—“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”—as well as it remembers McCarthy himself. Trump has shown he doesn’t take criticism well, sending an angry retort to Vanity Fair and appearing openly thin-skinned after jokes were made at his expense at the White House Correspondents Dinner. He will likely realize soon, if he hasn’t already, that his brand, not to mention his ego, will not sustain the sort of historical thrashing that will inevitably follow any further pf demagogic aspirations. Indeed, in the end, The Donald’s self-love might just be his own best friend.

Michael Signer is Managing Principal of Madison Law & Strategy Group, PLLC and an adjunct professor at Virginia Tech. He was a 2009 candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia and chairs the New Dominion Project, a Virginia political action committee.

Follow @tnr on Twitter.

By Adam Levin

By now almost everyone I know (and millions of people I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting yet) has read or heard about Sony’s announcement last week that its PlayStation network was hacked and that the Personal identifying Information (PII) of potentially 77 million individuals worldwide has been compromised.

Then, earlier this week, Sony notified us that there’d been a second breach. This one involved the accounts of 25 million members of Sony Online Entertainment, which hosts the popular online game EverQuest, among other diversions. That means that the PII of more than 100 million Sony customers is now twisting in the wind. And now, a law firm in Canada has filed a class action lawsuit against Sony for more than $1 billion in damages on behalf of nearly one million Canadians.

It is a reasonable assumption that many minors inhabited both of these Sony networks. The stolen PII included names, dates of birth, email addresses, physical addresses, user IDs and passwords and at least some credit card information. Further, children or their parents might unwittingly give up additional information (or expose their computer to malware that would turn their home network into a broadcast vehicle for their financial account numbers and passwords) to a “phisher” pretending to be a legitimate Sony representative following up on the breach. Were they to give up their Social Security number, for example, someone could do quite a bit of damage, especially given children have no reason to check credit information for many years to come. Perhaps the fact that the breach was so large, and involved kids, explains why in a week that saw mile-wide deadly and horrific tornados, a US president publicly releasing his birth certificate, and precious metals prices reaching all-time highs, the PlayStation breach made the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

[Related article: As Breach Worsens, Sony Leaders Say They Knew of Security Problems]

Here’s why: While, the compromise of children’s identities isn’t new, it certainly is a big story when it happens. It has been estimated that more than 400,000 such incidents occur each year and that number has been growing for some very good reasons. First and foremost, however vigilant most adults may be about their own identities, rarely do parents think about monitoring their children’s status. A thief thereby gains something very important—precious time before any discovery of the felony occurs. Secondly, a child is very likely to have a dormant Social Security number, which presents a clear field for account creation and manipulation. Again, should the perpetrator of a phishing attack succeed in obtaining a SSN, the damage he could do setting up new, fraudulent credit accounts could go undetected for years.

Frankly, I’m not surprised that Sony was hacked. Major data breaches, many of which have been the subject of several of these columns, are occurring about once a week these days. Surely one cannot reasonably believe that Sony—or for that matter its competitors, Microsoft and Nintendo—could be immune.

To say that Sony’s response to this breach has been understated is itself a huge understatement. In a press release that the company sent out this past weekend, almost two weeks after the breach happened, they outlined the steps they were taking to deal with their “oops” moment (I am being gentle here), and then tried to make amends in a manner befitting a clueless corporate monolith (ok, forget gentility). They’d like to welcome their users back to the network with the following:

“All existing PlayStation Network customers will be provided with 30 days free membership in the PlayStation Plus premium service. Current members of PlayStation Plus will receive 30 days free service.

Music Unlimited powered by Qriocity subscribers (in countries where the service is available) will receive 30 days free service.”

They are also offering some unspecified, free downloads, in addition to some yet-to-be named freebies. Be still my heart! Thirty days of access to Playstation Plus and all you had to do was open the doors of your home, your office and your life to identity thieves. What a great deal! And, in case their customers are actually concerned about the integrity of their identities, Sony was kind enough to provide a few self-help tips on protecting yourself and a short list of government and credit reporting agencies to whom you can turn in the event of a personal compromise.

Hacking the System

I have always believed that all of the gaming networks, and other kids’ sites that have an e-commerce component, are the most vulnerable repositories of any large caches of PII, for a few very simple reasons. It is undeniable that although the universe of avid gamers and the galaxy of talented hackers aren’t congruent, there is a rather substantial overlap. Many of our children are light years beyond our technological prowess. Smart kids have been responsible for some of the most famous hacks of history, involving compromises of both government and industry computer networks, many of which were “innocent” pranks—done for thrills rather than financial gain or more nefarious purposes.

Remember when, a decade ago, the recording industry announced the development of the “copy-proof” music CD? The idea was to prevent the uploading of music on a physical disk to one of the file-sharing sites like Napster or Kazaa where the music could be freely traded (and traded for free). A good friend of mine who had a large company that distributed physical CDs informed me that within a few days the elaborate and very expensive protection system was defeated by kids around the country using only a felt tip pen!

More importantly, youthful online gamers often exist in a culture that seems to make hacking more socially acceptable, perhaps even socially esteemed. There is a “cheat site” for virtually every popular game—just Google the name of the game followed by the word “cheat” and you’ll see what I mean. Sure, this kind of cheating is victimless and really doesn’t constitute any type of crime, but it’s worth considering why little Johnny, who gets straight A’s in school and would never cheat on his math test, probably has no problem using the cheat sites or even contributing to them.

The worst unintended consequence of this culture seems to be the false sense of anonymity and invincibility kids tend to feel when they’re online. They don’t cheat in school because there’d be consequences if they got caught. But I sense that many kids feel that cyber-hacks, regardless of their severity, occur in an online vacuum and are free of real-world consequences. To take it one step further—because of this assumption, young people tend to be more cavalier about the sensitive information they share publicly.

If you think about it, the Sony breach merely underscores something obvious. The gaming networks and similar sites are delicious targets for the “because I can” crowd. Although the hackers themselves may not be trying to open a phony bank account with your child’s newly acquired PII, there are others, most likely older and much more venal, who would love to get their paws on that data for just such a purpose.

Beyond this, there is another type of currency available uniquely on the gaming networks—access to the accounts and special permissions related to a gamer’s skill, highest play level and acquired “spoils of war”—all of which have value on the Internet black market. That’s right, the youngest hackers are probably stealing identities because they are looking to make General in Halo Reach without having to do all the work themselves to rise through the ranks. (For those of you who are older than 15, Halo Reach is a video game in which players earn military-style ranks for successfully completing missions and shooting stuff.)

Regardless of the motivation, it is harmful on several levels that this information is now airborne. And as all readers of this column must know by now, once the data is airborne—it’s out there!

Sad reality check—we need to be as careful with our kids’ PII as we are with our own. Limit the amount of data your child makes available to anyone online. In fact, an effective countermeasure may be to fudge the data a bit. Does the gaming network really need to know any child’s street address (frankly, do they really need to know yours)? From the moment your child is born and assigned a Social Security number, you’d best monitor it, perhaps not every minute but certainly at least once or twice a year. And you should be sure to instruct them to pass it along to no one (employers aside). Bottom line—don’t allow your child’s zeal for vanquishing extra-terrestrial invaders, terrorists or street thugs alienate them from the benefits of a sound financial beginning as they come of age.

Adam Levin is the chairman and cofounder of Credit.com and Identity Theft 911. His experience as former director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs gives him unique insight into consumer privacy, legislation and financial advocacy. He is a nationally recognized expert on identity theft and credit.

This post originally appeared at Credit.com.

For the latest gadget news, visit SAI: Tools. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

As a former correspondent for the Observer in Washington, and a Liberal, I may be qualified to say that Heather Mallick talks codswallop when she says that our Conservative government verges on being Stalinist as it seeks to "hunt down" its enemies – presumably including me (Comment, 4 May). That sort of overripe Bushite rhetoric may apply to the quest for al-Qaida, but not to Canada, where – Heather Mallick excepted – we still tend to cross the road to get to the centre line.

Raymond Heard

Toronto

• So the Canadian prime minister (40% of the vote, 53% of the seats) is "George W Bush, minus the warmth and intellect". He may not have Mr Bush's innocent charm, but even his detractors acknowledge his considerable intellect. There is much to dislike about Stephen Harper (eg incompetent weapons procurement and "spend-but-don't-tax" fiscal management, disregard for science and the environment, control freakish anti-democratic tendencies, prison-building enthusiasm, slavish support for Israel, etc) without resorting to exaggeration.

David Richinger

Zürich

• A Diary item (22 April) said I threatened to walk off the platform during a debate on drugs, "when an audience member pointed out that his brother had been for many years an ardent campaigner for the legalisation of cannabis". The story doesn't make sense, and is not true, as one phone call could easily have established. I did in fact begin to walk off the platform, but because of a crassly patronising remark from a fellow member of the panel and because of what seemed to me to be the ludicrously unbalanced nature of the whole event.

Peter Hitchens

London

• In his review of The Information by James Gleick (Review, 30 April), Ian Pindar says: "Nobody called their newspaper the Telephone." Oh yes they did – the Smethwick Telephone.

Sam Davies

Liverpool

• It didn't take much to get Wills and Kate off the front page, did it (US gets its man, 3 May)?

Bob Epton

Brigg, North Lincolnshire

After initial elation, disillusion has set in at Fox News: O'Reilly is angry that Obama, not waterboarding, is getting all the credit

The euphoria surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden is quickly fading as Fox news hosts realise that it may not be the game-changer they wished for.

Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly, a longtime advocate of harsh interrogation methods, is growing increasingly frustrated with the Obama administration's reluctance to acknowledge what he has decided was the vital role that "coerced interrogation" played in locating Osama bin Laden (view clip). Even worse, he believes this reluctance stems from the left's inability to separate ideology from truth, so he vows to "stick to the facts" to make his case for the need to use techniques like waterboarding and other so-called enhanced interrogation measures.

Last night, on the [O'Reilly] Factor, we told you the truth that coerced interrogation – most likely, waterboarding – gave the CIA the first clue that led to Osama bin Laden's death. That is the truth. Yet, many on the left in America will not acknowledge it.

He was alluding to an argument he had the previous evening with left-leaning commentator Alan Colmes, who pointed out that even former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that the courier source was not waterboarded or subjected to harsh treatment. The exact text of Rumsfeld's statement, according to Newsmax.tv, was as follows:

"The United States department of defence did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantánamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding."

But O'Reilly insisted that he was unprepared to accept any secondhand account of what the former defence secretary may or may not have said, and would question Rumsfeld himself before deciding what to believe. Before talking to Rumsfeld, O'Reilly pointed out that even CIA chief Leon Panetta has said that some valuable information may have been derived using harsh interrogation methods, but Panetta also upset the beleaguered host by adding that the question remains open as to whether or not those approaches were necessary. O'Reilly cut Panetta some slack, however, as he understands that he has to pander to his boss.

Because Mr Panetta works for President Obama, he has to say that. He has to hedge a bit. We don't know exactly how much information we might have got, could have, maybe, had we not dunked the guys in the water, the three guys. OK, I understand the game. I understand Mr Panetta's position, but again the truth is that enhanced interrogation does lead to life-saving information, despite what has been said!

To prove this "truth" that O'Reilly is already sure of, he interviewed Donald Rumsfeld and asked him to explain what he meant when he said that harsh treatment and waterboarding did not lead to beneficial information. Rumsfeld did his best to clarify his position by saying that his remarks had been taken out of context and that all he meant was that no one had been waterboarded at Guantánamo Bay, and that the three people who had been waterboarded (elsewhere presumably) were waterboarded by the CIA and not the military.

Although this response doesn't seem to shed much light on his prior statement, or offer unequivocal proof that waterboarding and so on works, it seemed to suffice for O'Reilly. Rumsfeld took a little detour, then, to make the much-debated point that waterboarding was not torture anyway, but O'Reilly, who was apparently satisfied that the truth had now been established, soon ended the segment.

Sean Hannity

Sean Hannity is growing increasingly disenchanted with the Obama administration for their reluctance to release Bin Laden's death pictures and their seeming inability to get their story straight (view clip). He discusses these issues with political commentator and former marine, Colonel Oliver North.

Look, I don't know how much, I don't care … we got Bin Laden – that, to me, is important. But they did say he was hiding behind a woman. They did say he was reaching for weapons. They did say they were being fired upon. All these things now have shifted and changed and I'm having a hard time understanding.

The colonel understood Hannity's frustration but explained that there are a "lot of filters" between the people who carry out these operations and the people who end up talking about them And as someone who has actually participated in these sorts of missions, North was able to sympathise with those involved. The Navy Seals were naturally more focused on getting their man and getting out alive than making an accurate transcription of the events as they unfolded in order to satisfy the relentless demands of the 24-hour news cycle. He also made the point that in these high-pressure situations, different people see things differently, which might account for some of the subsequent confusion over details. Hannity didn't seem inclined to disagree with a Marine over this and turned to the photo dilemma instead.

We're looking at these photos that Reuters had tonight. Yes, they're gruesome. We warned children not to watch them. A lot of blood, it's gory. I know he was shot in the head, but the rationale is what bothers me the most, Colonel, and the rationale seems to be that by releasing this photo, we will incite people that already hate us – and we put a bullet in the guy's brain. I think they already hate us!

Once again, North surprised Hannity by taking the administration's part in the argument. He explained that while the administration has a penchant for political correctness, they were wise to try to avoid inflaming al-Qaida extremists by flaunting gruesome pictures of their slain leader. Also, he didn't think it wise to release anything to the public that could possibly some day be used as evidence against one of the Navy Seals in an international criminal court. Hannity took his point, but still insisted that the world needed to see those photos and that the administration had gone overboard with their hyper-sensitivity. 

When you look at the burial on a warship, where they say he's not a Muslim but he gets, you know, Islamic custom – buried within 24 hours – dumped at sea after his body is washed; he's put in a shroud; 45-minute funeral, translated into Arabic … seems overboard to me.

These politically correct gestures seemed overboard to North also, and finally the two men found some common ground.

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck had exhausted his celebratory mood over the death of Bin Laden by Wednesday, probably after overdoing it earlier in the week with marching bands and cookie parties (view clip and transcript). He didn't want to hear any more about death photos or about what he termed President Obama's "victory lap" of Ground Zero. Not for the first time, Beck felt himself to be the lone voice of reason, who recognised that there are far more important things to be talking about, such as America having lost her way in the world and, by now, most of her friends.

He went through a list of countries like Germany, France, Saudi Arabia and Israel that he feels were once our friends, but have now fallen into the undecided camp, at best. Japan would probably still be our friend, but since the nuclear thing, there's really nothing left of them. Brazil looks at us like a client. Canada can probably still be counted on, particularly now that they have elected a conservative government, but they're not exactly known for their "fighting prowess". Even England, with whom we have enjoyed such a "special relationship" in the past, may be reconsidering us.

England: things have been a little strained, you know, since we sent the bust of Winston Churchill back and gave the queen an iPod of his best speeches, but they're basically toast. They're still our ally, but, I mean, anybody who watched the royal wedding of – I don't know, Kate and Leopold – they were, they were walking down and somebody on TV said that could be the next king, and I thought, "yes, if there is another king."

Worst of all, the only person who can make the public aware of our impending doom is being slowly driven off the airwaves.

Last night, during a contentious interview with Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell wondered if Saddam Hussein “was the same threat to New Yorkers that Osama bin Laden was.” With the obvious answer being, “No,” Rice had to come up with something. Similar to President Bush’s “You forgot Poland” line during the 2004 presidential debate, Rice said the threat from, and thus invasion of, Iraq was justified by the coalition Bush put together. O’Donnell noted that the so-called “coalition of the willing” didn’t exactly represent the full support of the international community, but in the fog of the interview’s back and forth, Rice just started adding countries that weren’t even part of the coalition:

RICE: So the Georgians who went there and the Japanese who went there and others –

O’DONNELL: Actually had soldiers firing weapons on the ground?

RICE: This was not part of the coalition. The people who — the British and the Australians and the Poles and all of those who — the Canadians, all of those who were ultimately in Iraq, these were not part of the coalition?

Watch it, starting at 5:22:

This must be news to the Canadians. While Canada did participate in reconstruction projects after the war began, the Canadian government led by Liberal Party Prime Minister Jean Chrétien did not support the decision to invade. But seeing that Dr. Rice has never made a mistake in her life, perhaps it’s the facts that are wrong in this case.

Filed under: EV/Plug-in, Mitsubishi, North America

Continue reading Mitsubishi Heavy to jointly develop, test electric transit bus in Canada

Mitsubishi Heavy to jointly develop, test electric transit bus in Canada originally appeared on Autoblog Green on Fri, 06 May 2011 17:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The Fast Company reader's essential source for breaking news and innovation from around the web--updated all day.

Facebook Pays Users To Watch Ads

Facebook will be shelling out 10-cent virtual credits for watching certain advertisements, which can be redeemed on many of the social network's most popular programs, such as FarmVille and Causes. Even if Facebook payments are low, they might inadvertently trick users into believing they actually like the ads, with a psychological phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance."

Video Games Honored At Smithsonian

Take that, Roger Ebert! Video games are now officially art, and will be showcased at the Smithsonian's "The Art of Video Games," March 16 through September 30, 2012--three months before the world ends. Blasts from the past, like The Secret of Monkey Island will live along side perennial greats SimCity and Super Mario Brothers.

Ultra-Thin, Bendable Phone

Researchers at Queen's University in Canada have developed a paper-like phone with bending gestures. Now PR and government folks won't have to buy cargo pants to have enough pockets for all their phones. [youtube Rl-qygUEE2c]

Mom, Put Down The Facebook

Thought getting kids to drop Facebook and go play outside was the problem? Maybe parents are really the ones with the problem, as this new playful PSA by Gerry Graf shows social-networking addicted moms ignoring their children. [youtube x4VgObInXHA]

Sources: All Things D, CnNet, BusinessInsider, Adweek

[Image: Flickr user d3stiny_sm4sher]

Some oil fields never die. In fact, some just get better with age.

Alberta's Duvernay shale may just be the best example yet.
 
It all has to do with the "shale revolution,” and how it's dramatically altering the energy landscape.
 
To be sure, large volumes of natural gas are being found in the least likely of places: Quebec, Michigan, even countries like Poland and Latvia.
 
That’s all well and good -- the world is finally cueing into the fact that cheap abundant natural gas will drive the global economy for decades to come.
 
Alberta has been a latecomer to the shale gas game, but that's about to change in a big way -- thanks to the emergence of the liquids-rich Duvernay play.
 
For weeks, speculation has been building that unknown buyers have been staking out a new shale play in Wild Rose Country, driving land prices at Crown mineral auctions to new heights.  In fact the Alberta government took in $2.6 billion in the fiscal year ended March 31, which was an all-time high (but still far short of liquor, tobacco and video lottery).
 
Since last summer unknown bidders have paid as much as $35,000 a hectare for land (2.5 acres=1 hectare) in an area called Kaybob that normally sells for only a tenth as much. At an Alberta land sale in March unknown buyers put up the ridiculous sum of $107 million for a single parcel near Fox Creek, 260 km northwest of Edmonton, a sure sign that something is afoot in the hinterland.
 
This is Montney country, yes. But the sheer scale of the bids was enough to turn heads and set tongues wagging in the high skyscrapers of downtown Calgary. All that money for deeper rights down to the Devonian -- it could only be the Duvernay.
 
The Duvernay is noteworthy because it's the source rock for the original Leduc oil discovery in 1947. It's also a high-quality source rock for most of the crown jewel oil discoveries in Alberta over the decades, from the Swan Hills to the Keg River reefs.

It's the same rock that built an industry... a gift that keeps giving to this day.
 
The Duvernay is a spot-on, perfect example of a well-known play that could never be developed without the technologies we have today: the dynamic duo of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

On April 19, Trilogy Energy Corp. (TSX-TET), along with partners Celtic Exploration Ltd. (TSX-CLT) and Yoho Resources Inc. (TSX-YO) announced test results from their second Duvernay joint venture well.
 
The results were quite strong -- 7.5 million cubic feet per day of gas.  More important, the well yielded 75 barrels of liquid condensates and 56-degree API oil for every million cubic feet of gas, for some 1,250 barrels of oil equivalent per day.
 
If the crew at Canadian brokerage firm Peters & Co. was disappointed with the cost of the well -- $17.5 million including the fracs -- it was clearly impressed with the production numbers, especially the liquids content which amounts to more than 500 barrels a day alone (Do the match by multiplying by $100 a barrel). Peters thinks there are cost savings to be realized with full scale development, which is usually the case with these early stage plays.
 
In some ways, it could be the most important well drilled in Western Canada since the first Leduc discovery well in 1947. That's because the liquids, which are priced on an oil equivalent basis, are more than enough to make up for the relatively weak gas price.
 
Wellington West Capital Markets reports that the addition of those liquids effectively pushes the realized gas price up to $8 per mcf equivalent (mcfe), which is not bad at all, especially in the current market.
 
These are the kinds of numbers that draw attention of major players.

So it was hardly a surprise that Encana Corp. (TSX-ECA) came out the very next day and revealed itself as the mystery buyer of all those Duvernay rights, spending $300 million on land acquisition in the first quarter alone.
 
For a company like Encana -- North America's second-largest gas producer, the shift into liquids is a no-brainer after the haircut they took in the first quarter. As one of the most gas-levered companies on the planet, they have to do something.
 
And one look at the company's first quarter results tells the story: it barely broke even in the first three months of the year (thanks to effective hedging) compared to a $1.5 billion profit in the same period a year ago.

They're basically giving the gas away for free.
 
Encana CEO Randy Eresman practically said so much at the company's annual meeting in Calgary last week when he suggested the company could give away the gas and still make money on the liquids.
 
In that sense Duvernay is manna from heaven, and some serious good fortune for a trouble gas sector.
 
Plus, Alberta has a ready-made market for those liquids, which are used to dilute bitumen and heavy oil and make it flow through pipelines like the Keystone XL to the U.S. Those liquids have been in short supply in recent years, and there was even talk of importing them from offshore for use in the oil sands.

As I said, Encana shelled out $300 million on land acquisition, just in the first quarter.

It’s a big number considering there are only two published drill holes into the Duvernay – and neither one belongs to Encana.

The Duvernay is the hot new stealth play in western Canada.

Yes, it’s early stage, but Encana’s big purchase shows they believe it will be a highly profitable play – so profitable in fact, the big dog of Canadian gas could become a take-over target itself.  As I mentioned, the Duvernay is the “source rock” where much of the oil in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin was formed – and then migrated upwards into the pools and traps that have been the discovered since the first Leduc well in Alberta in 1947.

Ironically, Encana quoted Trilogy’s test numbers as a benchmark of success even though it hasn’t drilled a single horizontal well into the play. In fact, it only has one vertical penetration to date, which it described as “encouraging.” Assuming of course, a company like Encana has enough clout to create “the economies of scale” needed to drive down costs. Indeed, it has shown it has plenty of muscle, even in a weak gas price environment, to do just that.

On a conference call to discuss its disappointing first quarter results, company officials raved that the Duvernay has the potential to be a “top quartile” shale play in North America.

Confidence or cockiness? Given Encana’s reputation as a low cost producer that has become a victim of its own success by unlocking tens of trillions of cubic feet of reserves, we’re going to say both. Let’s face it, they ARE a big part of the reason there’s so much gas around these days.

But what happens next is an investor’s dream. This could be a HUGE new play, like the Horn River in remote northeast B.C., but on a larger scale.

Except Duvernay isn’t northeast B.C.  In the Duvernay area, we’re talking about good roads capable of carrying good crews and equipment to work each day. You can even get a good cup of coffee on the way there, and drive back home at night – no camps with extended absences from family. It’s a virtuous circle.

So here's the full tally:

• The Duvernay has an abundant and highly profitable natural gas liquids, to the point where Encana says it can give the regular dry gas away for free and still make money.

• There is lots of infrastructure in the area – pipelines, gas processing centres, and so forth.

• Several junior and intermediate producers already own dozens of sections each of Duvernay rights that haven’t been priced into their stocks yet (this is exactly what happened in the Cardium play in late 2009 and Alberta Bakken plays in mid-late 2010).

So which companies/stocks will likely benefit the most from the emerging Duvernay play?

Companies like Trilogy have been playing Kaybob and another area called Simonette for almost two decades. Almost by accident, it’s now the largest Duvernay land holder after Encana.

Trilogy is either going to become a big fish in a small pond or its going to get swallowed fast. Ditto for Celtic and Yoho, which might as well hang out the for sale sign and get it over with.

Other junior companies that could be ripe for the picking include Donnybrook Energy (DEI-TSXv) and Cequence Energy (CQE-TSX).  Both juniors own more than three dozen net sections near where Encana bought a large acreage position for the Duvernay – Donnybrook is on both sides of Encana’s new package – Simonette to the west and BigStone to the east.

Even Encana has been rumored to be a takeover target for a super major like Shell, and its shares must look pretty cheap right at $30 or so, especially if it’s sitting on another Marcellus or Eagleford. Unlike Exxon, Shell has been sitting on the shale gas sidelines and it could be looking to make a move. Taking out Encana would probably be a $40-billion bite and undoubtedly one of the biggest corporate deals in Canadian history (hypothetically speaking, of course).

But it’s not just producers that stand to gain from a big shale discovery in Alberta. Considering this first well cost nearly $18 million to drill and complete, it’s a trickle down economy with all the attendant drilling, completion and transportation stocks having nowhere to go but up.

Even if producers can get the all-in well cost down to $15 million or even $10 million, all your favorite drilling stocks, Precision Drilling Corp. (TSX-PD), Trinidad Drilling (TSX-TDG), and Ensign Energy Services (TSX-TSI), are going to reap the benefits of this next drilling boom.

Along with all your pressure pumpers and frack masters, the Calfracs (TSX-CFW) and Flints (TSX-FES) of the world, whose pumper trucks are the key to making unconventional gas a viable proposition.

And unlike Quebec or New York, even the politicos will get on board this train.

Given that the Alberta government had the scare of its life when its ill-conceived royalty changes just about scared every rig out of the province three years ago, it isn’t eager to make the same mistake twice. The bean counters in Edmonton are probably toasting their good luck about the Duvernay now, because this is the kind of tide that raises all boats, including theirs.

The Duvernay is the gift that keeps on giving.  Only now, it’s going to be giving directly to investor’s wallets.

By. Keith Schaefer

Keith Schaefer is the editor of the Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin. He has just released a free guide on the Fracking industry which shows investors how to profit from the technological developments in the industry and which companies present the best opportunities for investors. Click here for your free guide.

My mother used to joke that giving birth to me put her into shock. I never got many details.  Just that she had lost a lot of blood and they had to call in a second doctor to stabilize the situation.  She strongly disliked the obstetrician who panicked while delivering me, characterizing him as cavalier and condescending.  After viewing the new documentary, No Woman, No Cry, I realized that my mother had survived an “obstetric hemorrhage.”

The director of No Woman, No Cry, Christy Turlington Burns, experienced a similar situation as my mother.  It pushed her to take a look at why 1,000 women around the globe die daily due to complications from pregnancy or childbirth, particularly as 90 percent of those deaths are preventable.

Most immediately recognizable as a top fashion model, Turlington Burns took on the mantle of activist back in the early 1990s with her efforts toward rebuilding war torn El Salvador, the homeland of her mother. She worked on the ground with the Salvadoran American Humanitarian Foundation.  In 1997, when her father died of lung cancer, she became pro-active in smoking prevention.  She connected with CARE, as their Advocate for Maternal Health. This experience motivated her to embark on getting a Masters in Public Health at Columbia University.

Turlington Burns was involved in the film’s production for two years.  She observed four different women and their pregnancies in Tanzania, Bangladesh, Guatemala, and the United States.  The anecdotal threads are anchored by her gentle voice over.  She begins the story with home footage of her pregnancy.  Through the choice of her narratives, Turlington Burns lays out her points while exploring basic facts about maternal mortality. 

Reproductive health problems are the top cause of death for women ages 15-19 in the developing world, with approximately 70,000 young women dying because their bodies are not yet ready for childbearing.  Over 200 million women who want to plan their families don’t have access to modern birth control.  This option would reduce the amount of maternal deaths due to unsafe abortion by 82 percent.

At the Paley Center in New York City, I attended a screening of the documentary, followed by a panel discussion with Turlington Burns and experts Dr. Suellen Miller and Ann M. Starrs. Turlington Burns explained, “It’s a global tragedy, and I wanted to show that.”  She continued, “I constantly marvel at the power and strength of women.”

Maternal health is considered a benchmark of how a country’s health care measures up.  Turlington Burns cannily juxtaposes an American segment, to echo the issues that are at the root of problems in developing countries.  For those previously unaware of the American stats, they may be shocked to learn that the United States comes in 50th on the scale of how well a country provides its citizens with maternal health care.  It has dropped from a previous ranking of 41st, trailing Canada and a host of European countries. Race and economics are a primary factor:

•    African-American women are three to four times as likely to die from pregnancy related causes as white women.
•    The maternal mortality ratio for Native American and Native Alaskan women is four times higher than the 2010 national goal set 
      by the government.
•    Women living in low-income areas across the country are twice as likely to suffer a maternal death as women in affluent areas.

Superficially, it’s easy to believe that the obstacles facing women in other nations are dramatically different than those in America.  Yes, a van ride to a hospital in Tanzania costs $30, more than a family’s monthly wages.  However, Jennie Joseph, LM, CPM, midwife and Executive Director of The Birth Place, which operates in Florida near Orlando, pointed out in her onscreen interview, “There’s no real access for disenfranchised women.”  On the expenditures needed for pre-natal care she said, “This is an upside down system.  Health care is anything but free.”

Many economically disadvantaged American women are getting their care through hospital emergency rooms.  There, they are often victims of judgments emanating from a core lack of understanding about why they can’t get prenatal services.  With two American women dying each day from pregnancy related problems, you have to question access and equality.  A pervasive tone of condescension from some of the doctors permeates all four stories.  It may be culture specific, but it’s there.

The mother-to-be in Tanzania, who consistently invokes the “will of Allah” as an explanation for events, replies with resignation to the question posed to her about how she is faring. “It’s okay.  I haven’t died, so I’m alive,” she says wearily.  While learning about the woman in Bangladesh who has finally conceived her second child, and is relieved that her husband won’t leave her for a more fertile mate, we find out that there are 14 local words for a woman who can’t bear children. 

In Guatemala, a woman suffering from the aftermath of a failed abortion refuses to admit it — because the stigma is so great. Abortion is illegal in Guatemala, except to save a woman’s life. Procedures under unhygienic conditions lead to 65,000 unsafe abortions performed each year.  These factors are contextualized in the film by Dr. Linda Valencia, who directs Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s support for programs in Guatemala.

Since barriers in the United States — not unlike those in foreign countries, exist — Turlington Burns has created a multi-pronged approach to bring awareness to this national and global crisis.  She has founded and put into play Every Mother Counts, a platform to link a grassroots mobilizations campaign with the steps of “engagement, education, and advocacy.”  Using a social media strategy to get eyeballs and action on several levels, the documentary is being rolled out on Oprah Winfrey’s new network OWN on May 7, 2011, with repeats the following day. People are being encouraged to host screening parties.  Starbucks will be selling a CD entitled “Every Mother Counts,” with tracks by “mom artists” including Rosanne Cash, Ani DiFranco, Jennifer Lopez, and Toshi Reagon.  It will be available through the end of 2011.  Starbucks will donate $8.00 of the selling price to CARE, a partner with Every Mother Counts. 

When I spoke to Turlington Burns at the Paley Center, she told me that she was headed down to Washington, D.C. to be a speaker at the Capitol Hill briefing on the Maternal Health Accountability Act (H.R. 894) sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).  The goal of the bill is to help set up “maternal mortality review committees” in each state, and to help “eliminate disparities in maternal health outcomes.”

Amnesty International will also be testifying. I wrote an article last year about their March 2010 report, Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA. They have since released a 2011 update to their previous findings. Based on new evaluations by the Maternal Child Health Bureau, it shows that in America “low-income women face substantial barriers to obtaining medical care during pregnancy,” extending beyond finances to include transportation and a lack of professionals in their area.  Asking the public to get pro-active on maternal mortality through a Mother’s Day card action to legislators, Amnesty International is supplying cards free, which will then be distributed to members of Congress.

Throughout the world, maternal obligation is seen as tantamount.  In some locales, that may come at the expense of maternal death.  It is time to go beyond the lip service paid to mothers for a life-long role that is exalted, but so often poorly supported.  Turlington Burns’ clear-eyed documentary is a step toward bringing recognition and tangible action to the struggles of women worldwide.

Photo courtesy of Every Mother Counts

Election victories for Canadian students

While Nick Clegg faces a hammering of electoral blows today, there's better news from Canada where student activism has reached new heights. Six fresh-faced college students have won seats in the federal government, including one who becomes the country's youngest-ever MP.

Jubilant 19-year-old college student Pierre-Luc Dusseault is the youngest of six students to be reeling from this week's discovery they would be swapping classes for a $157,000 post and a four-year governmental term.

All are politically active campus members of the New Democratic Party (NDP), with four from Montreal's McGill University – potentially a new hotbed of student activism. Political sciences student Mylene Freeman, 22, romped to victory with 8,000 votes more than her rival - and admitted the news hadn't quite sunk in.

Her co-victor Charmaine Borg, 20, a second-year student of political science and Latin American studies at McGill said:

"I think the biggest challenge right now is proving to people that a 20-year-old can do a good job and that youth actually can have power and create change."

Cribsheet wishes these young Turks well. Just one glance at their youthful smiles leaves us wishing our beleaguered politicians could ever look so fresh-faced.

Education news from the Guardian

US university snubs 'anti-Israel' playwright Tony Kushner.

Rock star's son Charlie Gilmour pleads guilty at Kingston crown court to a charge of violent disorder during the student fees protest.

Fielding writes about the return of Hard Times bringing Victorian charity back to the classroom. Beware the malign benevolence of the patronising classes, he warns.

Following the launch of our Children's Manifesto this week, it's now over to the kids to nominate their schools. We want to hear about which schools in the country measure up to the manifesto's pledges, so it's time to send us your votes. Please send your nominations by email to school.i'd.like@guardian.co.uk.

On the Higher Education Network

Today at 1pm an international panel of women leaders in higher education will be debating how to close the gender gap at the top of HE. Put your questions and ideas to the panel here.

Education news from around the web

A deputy head in Wales has been sacked for carrying a pupil into a classroom, reports the Telegraph.

Cambridge admits more state school numbers, but only 16 successful UK applicants are black.

Continuing this week's house of commons debates on sex education, the BBC reports that many parents are opposed to children being taught about sex.

Lecturers at Strathclyde are protesting today against cuts that could result in more than 100 job losses.

@NHSManchester tweets today that there's a mumps outbreak at Manchester university. Students are being advised to check their vaccination status.

Fiona Millar blogs hopefully about a new era of parental consultation in Camden:

"Instead of just caving in to the new Tory Lib Dem agenda and to particular parent groups, which appears to be the case in other London boroughs, Camden is attempting to start a conversation with all its parents, schools and governors to find out what sort of education system they want to see in the future."

And the Economist reports that England faces a tough ride on reforming schools admissions rules.

Education event

The Reader organisation is holding a Reading for Wellbeing conference in Merseyside on Tuesday, 17 May. Star turns will be Pulitzer prizewinning author Marilynne Robinson and reading expert Professor Maryanne Wolf. The conference will bring GPs, librarians, teachers, psychiatrists and other health professionals, care home workers and probation officers together for lectures and discussion groups about the benefits of reading in groups. Reader director Jane Davies says:

"Our work is based on creating relationships between people and literature, and we're leading a revolution to change the reading habits of the nation."

Keep up with the latest developments at #readingforwellbeing.

Education seminars from Guardian Professional

Getting the best education for children in care

The Guardian's one-day seminar in association with Tact (the UK's largest fostering and adoption charity) will provide an overview of the UK education system and strategies for dealing with the challenges faced by looked-after children and their carers.

26 May, London.

Making the most of media opportunities to enhance your school's profile

Whether it's sharing good news or handling a crisis, headteachers and school management teams need to be able to handle the media in all of its forms. This one-day seminar in association with the NAHT is essential for new and aspiring heads as well as established school leaders who wish to update their knowledge. It includes a session on social media.

13 June, Birmingham and 20 September, London.

Distinctiveness and branding in higher education

Higher education institutions will struggle in the marketplace unless they stand out from competitors and make sense to stakeholders. The Guardian's half-day seminar in partnership with the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education will explore what it takes to develop and maintain a distinctive brand that attracts students, staff and funders. Participants will hear from experts, examine case studies and have the opportunity to network with peers.

28 June, London.

Find us on the Guardian website

EducationGuardian.co.uk

All today's EducationGuardian stories

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

EducationGuardian on Twitter

Judy Friedberg on Twitter

Jeevan Vasagar on Twitter

Jessica Shepherd on Twitter

Claire Phipps on Twitter

EducationGuardian on Facebook

EducationGuardian resources

The Guardian University Guide 2011

The Guardian Postgraduate Guide 2011

School league tables

The world's top 100 universities

Updating table of university fee announcements for 2012

From Guardian Professional

The Higher Education Network for university professionals

Free online classroom resources on the Teacher Network

Job vacancies in education

More about Cribsheet

Sign up to get Cribsheet as a daily email

To advertise in the Cribsheet email, contact Sunita Gordon on 0203 353 2447 or email sunita.gordon@guardian.co.uk

Subscribe to get Cribsheet as an RSS feed

Interested in social policy too? Sign up for Society Daily

read more

Rogers Updates Government Regulatory Government Fee (GRRF) On Price Plans is a post from: iPhone in Canada Blog - Canada's #1 iPhone Resource

Canada drops to 19th out of 100 countries assessed by the world’s most comprehensive monitor of international government accountability.

2011 is turning into the year of the security breach. We can’t go two weeks without an organization revealing that hackers broke in and stole data.  As if things couldn’t get any worse for Sony, breach twice in a span of less than two weeks, users whose data they were supposed to protect are adding insult to injury.  From CBC.ca:

A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in Ontario on behalf of about one million Canadian PlayStation and Qriocity users.   Sony Corp. said Monday that hackers may have taken personal information from more than 100 million user accounts worldwide in recent PlayStation Network breaches.

Sony has acknowledged that the information may include users' names, addresses, birth dates, passwords and billing information.  The Toronto law firm McPhadden Samac Tuovi is proposing the class action suit against Sony Japan, Sony USA, Sony Canada and other Sony entities for breach of privacy.

The lawsuit claims damages in excess of $1 billion, which includes having Sony pay the costs of credit monitoring services and fraud insurance coverage for two years.  The representative plaintiff in the action, which contains allegations that haven't been proven in court, is Natasha Maksimovic, 21, of Mississauga, Ont.  "If you can't trust a huge multinational corporation like Sony to protect your private information, who can you trust?" Maksimovic asked Tuesday in a release.

The statement of claim filed Tuesday says Maksimovic signed up for the PlayStation Network and Qriocity, as required by Sony, to use her PlayStation Portable and Sony E-book reader.  Sony "failed to adequately safeguard certain personal information, financial data and usage data," the statement alleges.

I remember back in the late 1990’s while I was still in university (that’s “college” for my American readers and “uni” for my British ones), I took a course in Law.  It was one of my favorite courses.  The first two days of class were on patent law, the last 2/3 of the class was on the environment and how humanity is ruining it, but the part squeezed in between was on legal liability – civil law. That was one of my favorite sections of my entire time in university (I used to want to be a lawyer in high school but switched to engineering).  Civil law does not deal in guilt or innocence like criminal law, but instead deals with the issue of liability.  Was Sony negligent in this case?

It’s a good question.  Are banks liable for the money they lose when they are held up by bank robbers?  That is a case where they lost customer assets.  Most banks are insured, and I am not a lawyer but the answer to this question is… I don’t know.  Probably not.

Was Sony negligent in this case?  They were allgedly the victims of a sophisticated cyber attack by a group of hackers calling themselves Anonymous.  This is the same group that allegedly conducted DDOS attacks against some financial institutions during the Wikileaks exposure in late 2010 (note: Anonymous originally denied the attack but according to PC Magazine, they may be responsible).  Were Sony’s defenses reasonable or could any ham-and-egger hacker have gotten through?  The literature that I have read indicates that the hackers exploited some obscure(ish) security vulnerabilities in their software.  The question is whether or not Sony should have known about these vulnerabilities and had them patched.

Even if they weren’t patched, was Sony negligent in protecting their customer’s data?  According to the lawsuit, the hackers grabbed the user names, addresses, birth dates, passwords, and billing information.  Some of this data should have been encrypted.  Which set of data?

Microsoft has guidelines around which data needs to be protected by classifying it into three different categories – High Business Impact (HBI), Medium Business Impact (MBI) and Low Business Impact (LBI):

• HBI – Authentication and authorization credentials, government provisioned ID (Social Security or driver’s licenses), financial profiles (credit reports), medical profiles (medical records or biometric information).  HBI must be encrypted while in transit and while stored and not in use.
  
  
• MBI – Personally identifiable information that is not as sensitive as HBI.  Examples are an individual’s race, ethnic origin, political orientation, physical health.  This also includes contact information such as a name, address, email address, fax, etc.  MBI must be encrypted while in transit.  It does not have to be encrypted while stored and not in use. Encryption must be at least 128 bit.
  
  
• LBI – These are typically intended to be widely published information like web pages, public cryptographic keys, and press releases.  LBI does not need to be encrypted.

These are Microsoft’s guidelines and I can’t speak for Sony, but if Sony had something similar then we can use it to analyze the original lawsuit complaint.  According to FoxNews, here’s what Sony lost:

Hackers may have obtained users' names, home addresses, email addresses, birthdates, PlayStation Network usernames and passwords, and answers to password security questions, according to the blog post.

There was no evidence that credit card information had been compromised, but Sony said it "cannot rule out the possibility" that hackers could access such information.

Using the guidelines that Microsoft has, here’s what Sony lost:

• HBI – Playstation Network usernames and passwords.  If credit cards were lost, then it goes here.
• MBI – users’ names, home addresses, email addresses, birthdates, and answers to security questions (debate-able but I place it here).
• LBI – none.

If Sony did not have the HBI above encrypted, then shame on them.  Sensitive information like that needs to be encrypted (according to PC Magazine, credit card companies had not reported any fraudulent charges related to the hack).  However, Sony has not commented either way whether or not the data was encrypted, therefore I withhold my “shame on them” comment.  It seems like a company as big as Sony who has been doing consumer electronics for years would know about this sort of thing.

The problem is that even if Sony had them encrypted, it is not a guaranteed protection against theft.  Earlier this year, hackers hit RSA with a cyber attack and compromised the company’s algorithm and seed that generates random tokens.  If a hacker stole encrypted data, the algorithm for encryption and the seed, then they could easily decrypt the information and steal it.

And that brings us back to the question of whether or not Sony was negligent in this case.  I only can offer my opinion on this matter, I am not a legal expert nor have I have ever been asked to testify in a case like this.  But:

• If Sony had the sensitive information encrypted, and
• Made sure that their software had all the known patches, and
• Practiced proper security policies with their employees,

… then it would be difficult to make the case that they were negligent in protecting their customers’ data.

Mamairis:

Officially called Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, this small constitutional monarchy is nestled between France, Belgium and Germany. Luxembourg’s population of just over a half million reflects diverse cultural influences. German, French and Luxembourgish (which has similarities with both French and German dialects are the country’s official languages. Luxembourg is one of the founding members of the European Union. The capital city (and also the largest), Luxembourg, is home to several institutions and agencies of the European Union.

Passports & Visas

Passports are required to enter and leave Luxembourg. Visas are not required for US citizens for visits of less than 90 days. For longer visits, contact the nearest embassy.

Obtaining a US passport
The US Government Website is where to start.

Visa information
contact: The Consulate General of the Duchy of Luxembourg in New York

American Offices
Provides consular assistance to U.S. citizens
Luxembourg Embassy in the US

Luxembourg Tourist Information

Culture and History
Luxembourg in a Nutshell

Currency in Luxembourg
As part of the European Union, Luxembourg’s currency is the Euro (available in seven notes and eight coins). ATMS are available throughout Luxembourg, especially in more urban areas, and most machines accept debit cards bearing the Cirrus logo. Before you leave, be sure to call your local bank to find out if you can use your card in Luxembourg and if a special international PIN number is required to retrieve cash. All major credit cards are generally accepted for purchases made in Luxembourg. Banks in Luxembourg are typically open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with an hour off for lunch, and most are closed on weekends.

Driving in Luxembourg
For information on laws, speed limits and safety, see Driving in Luxembourg

Electricity in Luxembourg
Luxembourg operates on 220 volts electricity (as opposed to the United States, which uses 110 volts). Outlets take the continental two-round-pin plug (standard throughout Europe).

Emergency Numbers in Luxembourg
Medical emergency: 112
Fire: 44 22 44
Police: 113

Etiquette in Luxembourg
Meeting People: When meeting someone for the first time or upon arrival to a business meeting or social event, shake hands with everyone (men, women and children). Also shake hands when leaving. Good friends often kiss cheeks, one on each side (similar to France).

Body Language: Luxembourgers are friendly but personal space is to be respected. Do not put your hands in your pockets. Don’t chew gum in public.

Dining: Punctuality is essential for most social occasions except evening dinners, for which you should plan to arrive 15 minutes later than what is stated on the invitation. When finished eating, place your knife and fork side by side on the plate. To quietly signify that you are not finished or that you would like more food, cross your knife and fork in the middle of your plate. It is considered impolite to leave food on one’s plate.

Gifts: When invited to someone’s home, always bring a gift — bouquets of flowers (not chrysanthemums), good bottles of liqueur, or chocolates — to the hostess.

In General: Remain aware of Luxembourg’s individuality. Do not compare or lump the Luxembourgers together with the French, Belgians, or Germans.

Public Hours in Luxembourg
The majority of post offices in Luxembourg are open Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with an hour off for lunch. Certain places have extended hours. Banks in Luxembourg are typically open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with an hour off for lunch, and most are closed on weekends.

Safety in Luxembourg
The crime rate in Luxembourg is moderate as compared to other European countries. Travelers should take precautions against petty theft while in Luxembourg, especially in public areas where pickpockets tend to lurk. Luxembourg has many public parks that are safe during the daylight hours, though low-level drug vending has increased in some of the city parks. Tourists should avoid these parks after dark.

Time Zone
Luxembourg is six hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time in the United States. The country is in the Central European Time zone, which is one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time. During Daylight Saving Time, Luxembourg is two hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time.

Tipping in Luxembourg 
A service charge of 15% is added to your food bill at a restaurant.  An additional tip isn’t required, but many people add a Euro or two for good service.

Taxi drivers typically receive a 10% tip; bellhops and doormen, €1.25-€2.50; movie ushers, coat & washroom attendants, €.50-€1.50.

Weather in Luxembourg
With a moderate climate, Luxembourg is a great destination any time of year. However, be prepared for a bit of rain. Traditionally, “in-season” has been defined as anytime from mid-April to mid-October. Peak season is July and August.

Main Sights In Luxembourg

History buffs and sightseers will enjoy Wenzel Walk, which takes you through Luxembourg’s oldest quarters (a UNESCO World Heritage site). Among other sights, you’ll see the Bock Promontory, Castle Bridge (built in 1735 from red sandstone), and the Church of St. Ulric (the city’s oldest church).

Created by Luxembourg-born Edward J. Steichen, “The Family of Man” is a permanent exhibition at the Castle of Clervaux with more than 500 black & white photos by 273 photographs from 68 countries. The theme of this powerful imagery is love and faith. Before its arrival to the Castle, the photos were on display at New York City’s Museum of Modern Art.

A visit to Mullerthal , the little Switzerland of Luxembourg is a real treat

Wine aficionados will enjoy the Grevenmacher Wine and Grape Festival in mid-September.

Schueberfouer is a traveling fun fair that visits the country every year for 3 weeks in the summer.

Getting Around Luxembourg

Luxembourg is home to excellent road, rail and air transportation facilities and services.

Air
Most major international carriers fly to Luxembourg’s airport (Findel International Airport – LUX) is 5km (3.5 miles) northeast of the city (journey time – 20 minutes). To/from the airport: Coaches and buses run regular services to the city. Taxis are also available (it takes approx.10 minutes to get to the city). A new passenger terminal at Luxembourg Airport opened recently.

Boats and Ferries
Car ferries run between the UK and Calais (from which you can drive to Luxembourg. From Calais, the quickest route is to take the highway to Brussels via Lille (A25, then head south through Namur along the E411 to Luxembourg). In total, the journey from London (including the ferry crossing) takes approximately eight hours.

Rail Passes
Benelux Tourrail will get you through Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. This pass allows for unlimited travel for any five days within a one-month period throughout the year.

InterRail is for European residents only, and offers unlimited first- or second-class travel in up to 30 European countries. Discounts are available for travelers under 26 years of age, and children’s tickets are reduced by about 50%. Available from Rail Europe.

Eurailpass is available to non-European residents (the passes cannot be sold to residents of Europe, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia or the Russian Federation) and is good for unlimited first-class train travel in 17 European countries. Depending on the type of pass, it is valid for 15 days, 21 days, one month, two months or three months. The Eurailpass Saver ticket offers discounts for two or more people traveling together. The Eurailpass Youth ticket is available to those aged under 26 and offers unlimited second-class train travel. The Eurailpass Flexi allows either 10 or 15 travel days within a two-month period. The Eurail Selectpass is valid in three, four or five bordering countries and allows five, six, eight or 10 travel days (or 15 for five countries) in a two-month period. The Eurail Regional Pass allows four to ten travel days in a two-month period in one of nine regions (usually two or more countries). Children receive a 50% discount. All of the above is available from The Eurail Group (website: www.eurail.com).

There are plans to introduce trams in the capital city of Luxembourg and light-rail lines in nearby areas within the next few years.

Car Rental in Luxembourg
Several major car rental companies have stations at Findel International Airport. Car rental prices can be high,but fuel prices are lower than in most other EU countries. As is the case in any EU country, you’ll need a valid passport, driving license & international credit card to rent a car in Luxembourg. The road network has been significantly expanded and improved in recent years. There are now 147 km of motorways connecting the capital (Luxembourg) to adjacent countries.

Taxis
Taxis are quite expensive in Luxembourg. The standard fare is 0.80 Euros per km, but expect to pay a 10 percent surcharge at night, and a 25 percent surcharge on Sundays. Asking a taxi to wait for you will cost EUR0.21 per minute.
Taxis can be booked by telephone or hailed from a stand outside public buildings such as train stations.

Health

Personal Medications
No permit is required to carry medication in your luggage. However, you should pack your medication in its original containers and/or have your doctor’s prescription with you. Customs officials will have to be satisfied that you are not importing more than would be necessary for your personal use, taking into account the drug type and length of stay (for no more than three months).

Lodging in Luxembourg

Luxembourg offers every type of lodging from couch-surfing, to hostels and agritourism , to 5-Star resorts. Check here to find a hotel that will meet your needs.

Public Holidays in Luxembourg

New Year’s Day 1 January
Carnival February
Good Friday
Easter Monday
May Day 1 May
Ascension Day
Whit Monday 1st Monday in June
National Day 23 June
Assumption Day 15 August
Luxembourg City Fete 31 August
All Saints Day 1 November
All Souls Day 2 November
Christmas Day 25 December
St. Stephen’s Day 26 December

Telephones in Luxembourg

Public phone booths are conveniently located in Luxembourg. Coin-operated phones are quickly being replaced with ones that accept only credit cards and telecards, available at most newsstands, post offices, and major train stations.

Dialing Procedures
When calling Luxembourg from abroad, dial the local international access code, then 352 for the country code, followed by the number. When calling Luxembourg from the United States, the international access code is 011. Please note that there are no area codes in Luxembourg. However, phone numbers range from five to nine digits.

Useful Country Codes
USA and Canada 1
UK 44

Returning to the US

Customs,VAT & Duty Free
When you return to the U.S., you’ll need to declare everything you are bringing back that you did not take with you. If you are traveling by air or sea, you may be asked to fill out a Customs Declaration Form provided by the airline or cruise ship. Keep your sales slips. Try to pack the things you’ll need to declare separately. Read the signs in the Customs area; they contain helpful information about how to clear Customs.
For complete information on Customs, look at the U.S. Government Customs Website

Value Added Tax (VAT or IVA) Refund Information
If you are a U.S. or Canadian resident, you may qualify for a personal exemption which allows you to bring goods of a certain value into the country without paying customs duties, excise taxes, or Value Added Tax. You can be reimbursed for the VAT you pay on large purchases throughout your trip. Save your receipts from large purchases and be sure to visit the VAT office at the airport for refund forms and information.

Duty-Free Items
U.S. and Canadian citizens may bring goods into or from France and the rest of the European Union up to a certain value before having to pay custom duties, excise taxes, or VAT (Value-Added Tax). You should keep the following in mind:

U.S. and Canadian citizens aged 15 and over and traveling by air or sea may bring articles totaling 430 Euros (approx.$545) into France duty and tax-free. Land and inland waterway travelers can bring duty-free goods worth 300 Euros (approx. $380) in their personal luggage

Individuals over 17 may also purchase and import certain duty-free items from France up to a certain limit. This includes tobacco and alcoholic beverages, motor fuel, and medications. Fragrances, coffee, and tea may now be imported into the EU with no restriction on amounts, as long as the value does not exceed the monetary limits listed above. Limits for other items are (be sure to check and make sure these limits are still the same before you leave):

Cigarettes: 200 units
Cigarillos: 100 units (max. 3 grams each)
Cigars: 50 units
Still wines: 4 liters
Beer: 16 liters
Spirits over 22 degrees volume: 1 liter
Fortified wines, 22 degrees volume or less: 2 liters
Medications: Varies according to traveler’s health requirements
Motor fuel: Quantities equal to that found in a normal full fuel tank, or in an emergency can, not exceeding 10 liters.

Duty and tax exemptions are strictly individual. You cannot apply them to a group. Items worth more than the maximum exempt amount will be subject to duties and taxes.

You can bring personal items such as guitars or bicycles to France and not be charged any taxes or fees as long as the items are clearly for personal use. You may not sell or dispose of these while in France. All personal items declared to customs upon entry into France must be transported back with you.

Related posts:

1. The Netherlands Tourist Information
2. Liechtenstein Tourist Information
3. Belgium Tourist Information

While nobody expected it, Canada just had one of its most paradigm-shifting elections in years, with a result which has probably changed the political landscape for good.

The election was called a mere two-and-a-half years after the most recent one (in contrast to the maximum term length of five years) for the same reason many Australians are paranoid: the instability associated with minority government in a nation which doesn't yet know how to deal with them. 

To be fair, Canadians should be able to by now – their parliament largely follows the Anglospheric two-and-a-half party system, except in their case it's two-and-two-halves (due to the presence of the Bloc Quebecois, of whom more later) meaning it's less likely that a single party can command more than 50 per cent of the vote. 

Nevertheless, the minority Conservative government under Alberta neo-con Stephen Harper was recently forced to an election by the chief opposition party, the Liberals. At the outset, it seemed like it would be just another election which would probably allow Harper to gain a majority. That happened, but the election was a real game-changer.

I mentioned before that the Canadian parliament was a two-and-two-half party system.  One of those 'halves' is the Bloc Quebecois, the parliamentary wing of the Quebec sovereignty movement. As it is defined by what it sees as a national liberation movement rather than traditional philosophical bases for political parties such as liberalism, neo-conservatism or social democracy its policies can change depending on a combination of the desires of the voting base and the style of the leader.  

Quebec, as arguably the most progressive province (a distinction many British Columbians would contest) and almost certainly the province with the greatest socialist tradition, reinforced by Pierre Trudeau's Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, certainly has a voting base capable of making the BQ the most relevant party in the areas it campaigns in. 

The other 'half' is the New Democratic Party, and it is the NDP which concerns us today.

You may have noticed by the fact that the chief opposition party I mentioned was the Liberal party, but unlike in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, the labour movement never really had a parliamentary wing. The NDP are the party which represents social democratic thinking – the eventual modern conclusion of the labour movement, the form it takes in advanced democracies such as those found in northern Europe, and a form which is more relevant to the entirety of society – in Canada today. 

They grew from a localised west-coast party to become perhaps Canada's equivalent of the Greens in Australia – a party with areas of regional strength (British Columbia for the NDP, Victoria and Tasmania for the Greens) but which represents socially progressive views all over the nation. Canada, by the way, also has a Green party, which won its first seat in the House of Commons this election, but the NDP are probably the closer analogue for now.

The status quo, however, changed significantly this election. It appears that the 'left' in Canada, tired of getting its teeth kicked in by the Conservatives and tired of being unable to mount an effective opposition – due in part to the failings of classical liberal theory to be relevant to the modern world, but also due heavily to the sheer lack of charisma of party leader Michel Ignatieff – decided to do the unthinkable fear of parties across the Anglosphere and abandon the moderate, spineless 'centre-left' party for one which might struggle more to gain power in the short term but would surely do more in power when it comes to them.

In the short space – barely more than a month – between an election being called and the Canadian people going to the polls, the Liberals haemorrhaged votes heavily. A good deal of them went to the Conservative party, true – but even more of them went to the New Democratic Party. The NDP's leader, the charismatic Jack Layton (he of the best political moustache the Western world has seen in years) doubled down on a relentless national campaign, and the opinion polls became self-fulfilling prophecies. 

The NDP began to gain on the Liberals, suggesting to more voters that the NDP were a viable chance to win seats instead of simply splitting the vote (Canada, remember, is one of only three first-world nations to still use the anachronistic first-past-the-post system so vote-splitting between parties with similar platforms or platforms perceived by the public to be similar is a genuine concern). 

As the NDP began to lead the Liberals in opinion polls, even long-time Liberal voters switched simply because they were the best option to keep the Conservatives out of power. Voters also began to abandon the Bloc Quebecois for the NDP; as mentioned, Quebec tends to have one of the most consistently progressive voter bases in the country, and seeing the NDP votes as the best device to build an efficient nationwide opposition to the Conservatives, along with the perception that in a more economically vulnerable, post-Global Financial Crisis Canada, Quebecois sovereignty was a luxury neither Quebec nor the rest of Canada could afford.

The tactic didn't entirely pay off. The Conservatives, as mentioned, managed to gain their desired majority. And in Ontario, the second-largest province, the competition remained split largely between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the NDP only making any real inroads in the Toronto area. But Canada now has a real opposition. The NDP now hold more than two and a half times the number of seats the Liberals do, and while it has reduced the Bloc Quebecois to a mere rump in the process it now forms the official opposition, and in Jack Layton there is finally a leader capable of mounting serious attacks on prime minister Harper from across the House of Commons. 

They will have plenty of options available to them – coalitions, accords, agreements with both or either of the BQ and the Liberals when Canada's next election comes along.

A bad habit born of the cultural cringe it may be for me to try and find an Australian connection with everything, but I wouldn't be of much use as an Australian political analyst if I didn't. On one of the political discussion forums I frequent, there is a Labor member infamous for his desperate and obvious shilling of the party to anyone who will listen. 

His arguments unfortunately leave more than a bit to be desired, falling inevitably into the circular logic of “well yes the Greens have more 'labour' policies than the modern Labor party does on all manner of issues but you shouldn't vote for them because they're not serious contenders for power because nobody votes for them because they're not..." You can see what I'm getting at.  For years the Liberals formed a weak and milquetoast opposition to Harper's brand of Canadian neo-conservatism. 

It was only when the NDP's quiet growth accelerated exponentially that everyone realised that there really was an alternative. In Australia, the process will be different because of the different voting system. 

Preferential voting – which is currently being fought against tooth-and-nail with misinformation and outright lies by the established powers in the UK in its guise as Alternative Voting – has the disadvantage of enshrining a two-party system by transferring everyone's votes in a particular electorate to the two most popular parties, making those two parties appear more popular than they are – the Canadian Liberals would probably have had a longer shelf-life under a PV system because NDP votes would have reinforced their representation through grudging second preferences. But it has the significant advantage of not splitting the vote.  Someone in a swinging seat in Australia can vote Green without the concern that one less vote for Labor would mean that the Coalition would gain that seat.

So consider Canada a suggestion of a possible future for the Australian Greens. Should their share of the vote continue to rise at the pace it is doing, more seats will go the direction of Melbourne at the Federal level or Balmain in the NSW House of Assembly. And unlike the risk in Canada, this growth can be achieved without giving swing seats to the Coalition. Rest assured, once seats begin to change, the Greens' growth in the House of Representatives will be exponential, and a party which carries on the progressive and social democratic legacy of the great 20th century Labor governments can represent the 'left' in Australia.

Simon Burnett is a freelance political journalist

• Read all responses to this article

If we want a law of privacy, what should happen next? There are four possibilities

There are at least four possible "ways forward" for the new law of privacy which has been developed by the courts over the past decade and which has, at least from the point of view of sections of the media, been very controversial. These four possibilities are as follows:

(1) Active steps could be taken to abolish the law of privacy and return to the pre-Human Rights Act position.

(2) The current "judge made" law of privacy could be replaced by a new "statutory tort" of invasion of privacy.

(3) A special "privacy regime" for the media could be established under a statutory regulator.

(4) "Steady as she goes" – the law of privacy could be left to develop in the current way – by the judges on the basis of the Article 8 and Article 10 case law.

Each of these possibilities gives rise to different issues and potential difficulties.

Abolition of the Law of Privacy

The law of privacy has been developed by the judges as part of the common law and the common law can be replaced by statute. A simple one clause Abolition of Privacy Bill: "The tort of misuse of private information is hereby abolished" might be thought to be sufficient.

Unfortunately, things are a bit more complicated than that. The new law of privacy has been developed as a result of duty placed on the courts to act compatibly with convention rights imposed by section 6 of the Human Rights Act. So it would be necessary to amend that section as well – perhaps by the introduction of Lord Wakeham's almost forgotten proposal (which involved excluding the application of section 6 in disputes between two private parties).

However, these steps would, in turn, risk placing the United Kingdom in breach of its positive obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to protect privacy against media intrusion. It would, in turn, lead to adverse findings in Strasbourg and place the United Kingdom under an obligation in international law to re-introduce a law of privacy. In order to escape from this obligation it would be necessary to denounce the Convention and withdraw from the Council of Europe. As adherence to the Convention is a condition of EU membership it would also be necessary to leave the EU. These extreme steps may be popular with certain sections of the media but are unlikely to be practical politics in the foreseeable future and I will not consider them further. Outright abrogation of the law of privacy is not practical.

It is also difficult to see how a new "British Bill of Rights" would assist those who wish to abrogate the law of privacy. There are two points. First, simple repeal of the Human Rights Act would not, of itself, undo the developments in the common law which it inspired. It has been repeatedly emphasised that the basic values of the European Convention are the same of those of the common law. The common law has developed a law of privacy without a Human Rights Act in New Zealand, some Australian states and parts of Canada. It is unlikely to turn back in England without statutory intervention. Second, if the United Kingdom is to act consistently with its obligations under the European Convention Rights any British Bill of Rights could remove rights from the Convention: in the jargon, it cannot be "Convention minus" it must either replicate the Convention or be "Convention plus".

Critics of the new law of privacy sometimes talk of a "recalibration" of the Human Rights Act in favour of the media. This would involve an attempt to give Article 10 priority over Article 8 in media cases. It would, however, be inconsistent with the approach of the Strasbourg court. A statutory amendment which gave actual priority to freedom of expression in certain situations would be incompatible with Convention rights and would be likely to constitute a violation of Article 8 when applied in specific cases. Once again, the only way in which such a "recalibration" could effectively be carried out is if the United Kingdom were to renounce the Convention.

A Statutory Tort

The second possibility is the introduction of a statutory tort – a course favoured by a number of official inquiries bodies in the 1990s and the early 2000s (see the second post in this series) – presents no such practical difficulties. This approach has been taken in a number of different common law jurisdictions. Statutory torts of privacy have been introduced in four provinces of Canada. The Australian Law Commission has recommended the introduction of a statutory cause of action for a serious invasion of privacy containing a non-exhaustive list of the types of invasion which fall within the cause of action. It was suggested that in order to establish liability a claim would have to show:

(a) A reasonable expectation of privacy; and

(b) The act or conduct complained of is highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities (See Australian Law Reform Commission, "For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice", Report 108, May 2008, Recommendations 74-1 and 74-2, p.2584).

The Hong Kong Law Reform Commission proposed the introduction of a tort of invasion of privacy in the following terms:

"any person who, without justification, intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of another or into his private affairs or concerns in circumstances where the latter has a reasonable expectation of privacy should be liable under the law of tort if the intrusion is seriously offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person." (HKLRC Report, Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy, 9 December 2004).

A statutory tort of this form would be unlikely to cause difficulties with Article 8 and the Convention. The United Kingdom's positive obligation would be discharged by its introduction. The Article 8 rights of private parties would be protected by means of civil claims under this tort. The advantages of a new statutory tort are that it would enable clearer boundaries to be defined (although some flexibility would, of course, have to be retained). It would also give the privacy law the democratic legitimacy which the new judge made law of privacy is said to lack. It would, however, not alter the essential rules of the game: the courts would still be required to balance privacy against freedom of expression on the basis of "public interest" considerations.

However, as noted in Part 2, the Home Affairs Select Committee on Culture Media and Sport in its 2010 report, reached the conclusion that "for now" matters relating to privacy should be determined by the common law rather than set out in a statute. This was also the view of the government and – certainly until recently – of a substantial proportion (although not all) of the media. Despite David Cameron's recent comments it seems unlikely that there will be any political will to take this course and it is unlikely that such a tort will be enacted in the near future.

A Statutory Regulator

The third option – the establishment of a statutory regulator – is potentially the most radical. Such a regulator could take a wide variety of forms. The most cautious would simply be to replace the PCC with a statutory body – Ofpress – performing functions similar to those performed by Ofcom in relation to the broadcast media. This may or may not command greater public confidence but would not, of itself, affect the application of the new law of privacy to the press.

More radically, the new body could be given an "exclusive jurisdiction" – subject to appropriate appeal rights – to deal with privacy complaints against the press. It could be given powers to award compensation, order the publication of apologies or corrections and grant injunctions. Such a body could form part of the statutory tribunal system – with members from a list nominated by the media and other groups and a legally qualified chair. Tribunals have more informal procedures than the ordinary courts and less draconian costs regimes. The potential attractions for the media are obvious: less cost and a specialist tribunal. However, there are also obvious disadvantages – it seems likely that more people would be encouraged to make complaints. The "privacy code" imposed by a statutory regulator would have to be complied with – the "naming and shaming" by the PCC would be replaced by effective sanctions.

"Steady as she goes"

The most straightforward approach is, of course, do nothing. In other words, let the judges continue the development of the law of privacy on the basis of Articles 8 and 10. This course has the advantage of requiring no Parliamentary time or difficult drafting. It is nevertheless unsatisfactory because it means that the issues arising will not be the subject of proper public debate. The "democratic deficit" will remain.

Furthermore, the potential developments based on the Strasbourg case law under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are radical in nature. This case law is developing at a rapid pace and, on the basis of the current approach of the English Courts, it will have to be "integrated" into the new law of privacy. Let me give three examples. First, the Court of Human Rights has, consistently, over recent years held that the publication of photographs taken in public places is an interference with Article 8 rights which requires "public interest" justification. Although in Von Hannover v Germany ((2004) 40 EHRR 1) there was an element of harassment, a series of subsequent cases have found violations resulting from the publication of single photographs, often in the context of criminal investigations or charges (see eg Gourgenidze v Georgia Judgment of 17 October 2006). The fact that a photograph has been previously published will not, of itself, justify its republication (Hachette Filipacchi v France Judgment of 14 June 2007). Second, the Court has extended the protection of Article 8 to the mere taking of photographs – without their publication (Reklos v Greece Judgment of 15 January 2009). Third, it is now clear that the positive obligation to protect private life under Article 8 includes an obligation to provide appropriate levels of compensation for "outrageous abuses of press freedom" in publishing private information such that the victim's distress is properly compensated and the press are deterred from future breaches (Armonienė v. Lithuania, Judgment of 25 November 2008).

In the absence of clearly defined domestic statutory rules and on the basis of the current approach to Strasbourg case law, the English Courts will be obliged to "absorb" these developments in the new law of privacy. Whether or not such developments of the law of privacy are thought to be desirable – doubtless there are radical differences of view on this subject – it is disturbing if they become part of domestic law without public debate via Strasbourg.

It is not necessary to adopt Lord Hoffmann's contention that human rights are national in application (in his April 2009 lecture The Universality of Human Rights) to feel disquiet about the abdication of responsibility for a key area of domestic law to judges from 47 different legal traditions, deciding issues which arise in very different contexts from that faced in the English media. Unfortunately, if Parliament will not legislate and the Supreme Court will not take on the responsibility of developing a "domestic human rights law" distinct from that of the Strasbourg court this is the only remaining alternative.

Conclusion

The new law of privacy has come a long way in a short time. Many issues remain unresolved or only partially clear. What is clear is that kissing and telling and "public photography" have become a lot more legally hazardous. The law of privacy is slowly having an impact on the staple fare of the British tabloid reader. We are gradually moving from a position where anything can be published unless it is forbidden to the opposite – a position where nothing about an identifiable individual can be published unless it can be justified. Under the influence of human rights case law from Strasbourg we are moving slowly but inescapably towards the stricter privacy protection of French or Italian law.

I made similar observations to those in the last paragraph in a lecture in 2009. Paul Dacre quoted them in his 2009 "Society of Editors" lecture and said that they "should chill us all". Chilling or not, they are I believe accurate. Furthermore, such developments are not out of line with the views of the majority of the public which approves of clear rules being imposed on the media in relation to the publication of private information (see the 2010 Reuters report, "Privacy Probity and the Public Interest", discussed by us here).

The alternatives are stark. Assuming that the United Kingdom remains party to the European Convention on Human Rights, the only alternative to abdicating responsibility for the development of privacy law to the Strasbourg judges is for the press and Parliament finally to accept that privacy is a proper subject for legislation. A statutory tort of privacy would enable parliament, after due public debate, to give guidance to the courts on how the balance between privacy and expression should be resolved. A statutory regulator would have the legitimacy and the powers which the PCC lacks and would serve the interest of both public and media by providing quick and effective resolution of complaints. The public, through its democratic institutions, needs to act to provide proper and effective protection for both privacy and freedom of expression. This is, I believe, the only principled "way ahead" for the new law of privacy.

Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of Matrix Chambers and of the Inforrm Committee. He is also a founding editor of the UKSC Blog.

read more

If the British public vote against AV, it is to punish a party that has betrayed its principles, and undermined the idea of coalition

"There is no alternative" is the last refuge of a political scoundrel.

The abiding defence of 10 years of Thatcherism has now become the kneejerk response of the Liberal Democrats to attacks on their decision to join a coalition with the Tories. The almost certain resounding no to the alternative vote shows clearly that the voters think otherwise.

The Lib Dems have no one to blame for this result but themselves. Last year they attracted the largest number of votes for their party since its creation, with the promise of a new politics. But in the end they settled for a squalid little deal stitched up behind closed doors.

They have shredded the hopes of the centre left for a new progressive majority based on a more open, less tribal alliance of parties and political groups, along with their electoral promises.

They now claim they must stick with this unpopular government, not to save their political skins, but to prove that "coalition politics" can work. But there is a world of difference between their idea of coalition and the idea that was beginning to win over the broader left last year. Indeed, they have simply reinforced all the fears that have made the majority of ordinary British people traditionally hostile to coalitions. The national coalitions of the early 20s and 30s, with their wage-cutting and unemployment to defend the interests of the well-off, have left a legacy of deep suspicion of the policies of such governments.

But the Lib Dems have also undermined the democratic argument: that a reformed electoral system would extend representation beyond the declining numbers of the two tribes which have dominated postwar governments, and re-engage disillusioned voters with the political process. Instead of an end to the revolving door of Tory and Labour governments, what the Lib Dems offer is continuation of the revolving door with a permanent place in government for themselves. Just behave, they tell Labour, and don't move to the left (the biggest crime in the book of the political establishment), and we might even agree to a coalition with you next time.

There are still many on the right of the Labour party and some on the left of the Tory party to whom this is equally attractive. A largely Oxbridge (and significantly public school) elite able to shuffle power among themselves, untrammelled by the constraints of manifestos or mandates made irrelevant by permanent opportunist coalitions of the "centre". In the old adage: whoever you vote for, you still get the government.

Quite rightly those on the progressive left – and it seems a large proportion of the electorate – see this as a democratic abomination.

The sad thing is that there were alternatives last May that could truly have broken the mould in the way the Lib Dems claimed they wanted, and were the instruments for.

If the Lib Dems really were a left-of-centre party as they claimed, they could have formed a coalition with all the other left-of-centre parties – the Scots and Welsh nationalists, and the Green – which would have provided a majority in the Commons. That would have been the really bold move to create a new politics – a coalition of principle, of parties that actually share a broad set of progressive values.

It could have been made just for 18 months or two years, to deal with the economic crisis based on a Keynesian approach, rather than the reversion to neoliberalism and cuts under the current government; and to pass a programme of constitutional reform – AV for the Commons to provide a working executive and strict PR for the Lords, to widen representation in the role of legislative scrutiny.

They could have offered a "supply" agreement for a minority Tory government, with transparency over the process of supporting or opposing Tory measures; or a coalition with the Tories for a limited period to weather the economic storm. Or even form a minority coalition with Labour and dare the minor parties to bring it down.

There were alternatives. But all of them demanded courage and imagination. When it came to it, they allowed themselves to be bullied by the Tory press and the City into restoring the status quo. We must have stable government and appease the markets above all else, was the mantra.

The brave radicals of the pre-election beauty contest turned into besuited political mannequins. They have rightly been treated with contempt by the electorate for their spineless lack of radicalism.

Sound and fury signifying nothing. In the end, nothing mattered to voters at these elections other than punishing those who would inveigle their way into power with false promises.

The AV result will no doubt be a setback – to Labour as much as the other progressive parties. But the slow crawl to a political realignment won't stop. As Canada has just shown, and Germany recently in state elections, small parties can vault mainstream political formations which fail to advance the interests and aspirations of the people they claim to represent. The process of change will just take longer and be messier than it could have been.

There is an interesting coda. Opposition within Labour also helped to sink the possibility of a rainbow coalition last May. As tentative talks began with Labour, various New Labour figures popped up to question the "legitimacy" of such a coalition, as if a Commons majority was not enough in a parliamentary democracy. The calculation seems to have been that Labour would immediately move to a leadership election in which their favoured candidate would win and save the party from itself, and hold ready for a Lib-Lab coalition in due course.

How ironic, that if they had held their nerve and formed a Lib-Lab coalition, David Miliband would now not just be the Labour leader, but the Labour prime minister.

Josette Rosenzweig Issasi, 14, outwitted the combined smarts of Mexican and Canadian officials, who seemed bent on keeping her in Mexico.Josette Rosenzweig Issasi overcame numerous obstacles the Canadian government had thrown in her way.

Looking for help with your immigration paperwork? Watch out for people falsely claiming to be “Immigration Consultants.”

The government of Canada has recently begun cracking down on scammers targeting potential immigrants.

According to Citizenship…

Labour tribalists, who John Kampfner describes (Comment, 3 May) as preparing to gloat at the defeat of AV, should look at the result of Canada's election (Comment, 4 May) and reconsider their position even now. With just 39% of the vote, Stephen Harper's Conservatives scooped 54% of the seats in the Ottawa House of Commons, because the left-liberal vote split between the New Democratic Party winning 31% and the Liberals winning 19%. It's reasonable to believe AV would have denied Harper a majority. Turnout, though slightly improved, at 61% would still shame most mature democracies. It is probably no coincidence that it is equally low in the UK and the US, which continue to use first past the post. Canadians, like Britons in 1983, 1987 and 1992, are saddled with a Conservative government a clear-cut majority of the electorate voted against.

Tom Brown

London

• Yesterday I received some leaflets from my MP (Conservative Claire Perry) asking me to vote No to AV: it is "complex, obscure and unfair", and "the government will have to spend millions of pounds explaining to voters" how it works. In a separate envelope from her, I am asked to rank each of two lists of national and local concerns "from 1-5 in order of importance". Judging whether schools are more important than jobs, or the NHS more than the police, may be matters beyond the mind of a humble voter such as me, but Ms Perry has apparently already decided I lack such comparative skills and would presumably ignore me if I was to reply. Parliamentarians who patronise the electorate undermine democracy. What better reason to vote Yes?

Mike Pitts

Marlborough, Wiltshire

• Nick Clegg has repeated the Yes campaign's claim that only the Conservatives and BNP oppose AV. Here in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist party, the Greens, and Ulster Unionist party all back a No vote. AV would be a tremendous step backward for Westminster. It's not a fair election system and would rig the electoral system against smaller parties. AV is an obscure, expensive and unwanted system.

Tom Elliott Leader, UUP, Brian Wilson MLA Leader, Northern Ireland Green party, Peter Robinson MLA First minister of Northern Ireland

• I was one of those Labour members who was undecided. Then I got a leaflet urging me to "Vote Conservative and No to AV". Now I've made my decision.

Allan Buckley

Greystoke, Cumbria

• Support in your columns for a Yes vote is very impressive. However, I fear the only endorsements that would make a difference at this stage would be William and Kate's.

Anthony Garrett

Falkland, Fife

Harper_sinking_on_melting_ice_editorial_cartoon.jpg

Earlier this week, Canadians flocked to the polls for the fourth time in 7 years. This time around, the election was triggered when the minority government led by Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper was found in contempt of parliament in March for failing to release information related to the costs of proposed crime legislation and the purchase of stealth fighter jets.

From the moment the election was announced, Harper derided it as ‘unnecessary’, and ‘unwanted’ even though public polling clearly indicated widespread displeasure with his handling of the economy, public programming including programs for women, the environment, and for proroguing parliament twice. After the 2008 election, when voter turnout was the lowest in Canadian history (59% overall, and a dismal youth turnout of 37%), people wondered if this so-called ‘unwanted’ election would fail to motivate voters to the polls.

While pundits and pollsters made their best guesses leading up to election day, no one correctly anticipated the outcome. With just under 40% of the vote, the Conservatives finally won the majority they have coveted since ascending in 2006. The New Democratic Party (NDP) won 102 seats and formed the official opposition for the first time in history. The Liberal Party was reduced to a mere 34 seats, and the Bloc Quebecois lost 90% of its seats to end up with 4. On the positive side, Green Party candidate Elizabeth May won her party’s first seat in North American history.

Of the 14 closest ridings that Conservatives won seats, the combined margin of victory in all those ridings was 6,201 votes. That means the real difference between a Harper minority and majority was just over 6,000 votes. While 5.8 million people voted for Stephen Harper, another 9 million – the ‘real majority’ – voted for change. But, with his new majority, Harper no longer has to worry about impediments to his extreme ideology; he can ram his anti-science, pro-polluter agenda down the throats of the Canadian public. That spells trouble for Canada's environment, and it's especially bad news for the global climate.

<!--break-->

Despite the news headlines of Harper’s ‘victory,’ sixty percent of Canadians still don't support his economic policy. Harper will likely table the same budget that he presented before the election. It focused on the economy and jobs - and no, I don't mean green jobs. Instead, Harper continues to promote and prioritize policies that hold Canada back from a prosperous clean energy future.

The Harper budget proposes to slash funding for clean energy programs and efficiency incentives – all significant job-creation vehicles that happen to protect rather than harm the global climate system.

The Conservatives have yet to introduce climate legislation to meet science-based international commitments to rapidly curtail global warming pollution. Harper’s position isn’t expected to improve over his last 5 years of inaction and obstruction, during which he failed to put in place any meaningful policy to meet his own weak pollution reduction targets (that aren’t even science-based). These policies made Canada a laughing stock in Copenhagen and Cancun. Now, with four years of unchecked Harper power, we’ll likely see more of Harper’s embarrassing stonewalling at international climate change summits including this fall in Durban.

What else have we to look forward to?  Will the government continue to muzzle scientists, who are required to seek ‘pre-approval’ before speaking with journalists?  

Will Harper even end the wasteful stream of $1.4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to incredibly profitable oil and gas companies? Will he even continue to pay lip service by calling for a gradual phase-out of a small portion of these polluter subsidies? 

The world’s scientists have cautioned that climate disruption won’t wait four more years for a real Canadian action plan to materialize – if it does then – so we must act now, with or without Harper.

Even though we have our work cut out for us, this election caused a noticeable shift in Canadian politics, one that not only felt inspiring during the run-up to the election, but also one that produced a tangible outcome. The feeling that I have is like nothing I've ever experienced, and I know I’m not the only one who feels it.

A movement was born over the past few weeks, when Canadian youth woke up and engaged in politics. They are organizing. 

In my free time outside work obligations, I am one of those organizers. Some friends and I recently staged an action outside of a Harper press conference in Victoria. We criticized Harper’s campaign for failing to mention the issues that really mattered to young people – including climate and the environment.

Because of recent pressure on the Conservatives for kicking a student out of a rally and attempting to nix a special ballot on a university campus, a group of us were invited in (with no media present) to speak with the Prime Minister. In typical Harper fashion, we were allowed to ask 2 questions, the first about post-secondary education, the second about Canada’s horrible reputation for climate change inaction.

Demonstrating how out of touch he is with the most pressing challenge facing humanity, Mr. Harper seemed unfamiliar about the upcoming UN climate talks in Durban, and when he talked about Canada’s representative at the most recent climate talks, he referred to “Minister Prentice” (wrong guy, it was John Baird). At that moment, I worried for the future of my country.  

And I'm not alone. Many people fear what a Conservative majority will mean for the issues that many Canadians care about: banning dangerous tanker traffic on the west coast, ending dirty energy subsidies, and creating binding legislation for global warming pollution reductions. We are faced with an uncertain future, while scientists continue to alert us that there is no time to waste. 

We must work together to hold this government accountable. We need to work together for our First Nations communities that are suffering environmental anguish, for the accountability and oversight necessary to rein in the dirty tar sands boom, and for investment in a renewable energy future. We must demand a clean future, and a world that is safe for our children. 

Over the coming months and years, we must be vigilant, and work with an urgency and sense of purpose. We don't have time to wait for a new government to respond to the environmental crisis. We must respond now.

We must lead now. To the 'real majority' of Canadians out there, are you ready?

By Scott Boyd

Now that the uncertainty that comes with the constant threat of defeat of the previous minority government has been set aside for at least the next four to five years, the Canadian dollar is quickly establishing itself as a top choice for investors. Canada has had a succession of minority governments over the past seven years. Yet with the emergence of a Conservative majority government following Monday’s federal election, investors are expected to once again turn to Canada and the Canadian dollar as choice investment opportunities.

Known as the “loonie” for the waterfowl depicted on the back of the one dollar coin, the Canadian currency is expected to gain from strong fundamentals and the stability of a government that no longer faces the constant threat of being tossed out of office by a collection of the opposition parties. This new political landscape, together with Canada’s reputation of

• London, Ontario on Sunday May 8, 2011
  
• Toronto, Ontario on Monday May 9, 2011
  
• Ottawa, Ontario on Tuesday May 10, 2011
  
• Nashville, Tennessee on Thursday May 12, 2011

Filed under: In The News, Health & Safety: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Health & Safety: Big Kids, Health & Safety: Tweens

Twenty-seven percent of children linger too long on government waiting lists for necessary surgeries. Credit: Getty Images

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments