• Traffic wars: who will win the battle for city streets? | Road transport | The Guardian

    Radical new plans to reduce traffic and limit our dependence on cars have sparked bitter conflict. As legal challenges escalate, will Britain’s great traffic experiment be shut down before we have time to see the benefits?

    by Niamh McIntyre

    On an overcast Saturday afternoon in December, a convoy of 30 cars, led by a red Chevrolet pickup truck, set off from the car park of an east-London Asda with hazard lights flashing. The motorists, who formed a “festive motorcade”, wore Santa hats as they made their way slowly through the borough of Hackney before coming to a halt outside the town hall a couple of hours later.

    They had gathered to register their outrage at being the victims, as they saw it, of a grand experiment that has been taking place on England’s roads since the start of the pandemic. As the national lockdown eased last summer, swathes of Hackney, stretching from Hoxton’s dense council estates at the borough’s western border with Islington to the edge of the River Lea marshland near Stratford in the east, had been closed to through traffic.

    Locals found their usual routes were shut off with little warning. Danielle Ventura Presas, one of the protesters, told me that she now struggled to get her disabled cousin to day care while also dropping off her two children at school on time. As we rolled through Clapton, another campaigner got out of her car and slowed the convoy to a walking pace, leading chants of “reopen our side roads!” on a megaphone.

    The road closures formed part of a wider scheme to tackle London’s growing congestion problems. Between 2009 and 2019, miles driven on its residential streets increased by 70%, in part due to the rise of Uber, online delivery services and GPS technology. Air pollution, meanwhile, plays a role in the premature deaths of nearly 10,000 Londoners each year. When the pandemic arrived, this trend was briefly interrupted: the roads fell quiet, and the novelty of car-free streets encouraged more people to go out on their bikes. In May 2020, the government tried to capitalise on the bike boom by announcing the biggest ever investment in “active travel” – walking, cycling or scooting. The short-term aim of the fund was to make it easier for people to get around without using public transport. The broader vision – reducing reliance on the private car – was more radical.

    In London, the Streetspace plan unveiled by mayor Sadiq Khan and Transport for London (TfL), demanded “an urgent and swift response” to the crisis. The strategy funnelled money from the government’s new active-travel fund to London’s boroughs for low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) and other projects to encourage walking and cycling, such as temporary cycle lanes and timed road closures outside schools. By the end of last year, there were about 100 in London, where they have been most widely adopted, but they are now being rolled out in Manchester, Birmingham and other cities.

    LTNs block motor traffic from sidestreets with physical barriers such as planters or bollards, or with number plate recognition cameras at their boundaries which local authorities use to issue fines to drivers entering the zone. Residents inside LTNs can still drive to their home, but they may have to take a longer way round. The theory is that by reducing the amount of road space for cars, people will find other ways to make short journeys. (In London, almost half of car journeys are less than 2 miles.) That means more walking and cycling, which ultimately means less pollution, less congestion, quieter, safer streets and healthier citizens.

    Critics of LTNs say closing sidestreets increases congestion elsewhere, but early monitoring of new LTNs in Hackney and Lambeth found that traffic on main roads hardly increased at all. Data from established LTNs in Walthamstow showed the opposite, although transport academic Rachel Aldred suggests that it is hard to draw conclusions about the specific impacts of these schemes as traffic in the area was rising more generally at the time.

    Enthusiasm for LTNs brought about a rare consensus between the Conservative government and the Labour mayor of London, as well as Greens and pro-cycling groups. But an opposition also sprang up, bringing together an equally unlikely alliance of anti-gentrification activists, professional drivers, Labour and Conservative backbenchers, local councils, motoring lobbyists and a raft of new grassroots campaigners who shared their outrage on neighbourhood Facebook groups. On social media, each side conjured up its own vision of life in low-traffic neighbourhoods: one a utopia of families cycling happily together on quiet streets, with children wobbling out in front; the other a nightmare of permanently congested roads, with emergency vehicles snared in the gridlock.

    The protesters in the Hackney motorcade stressed that they had only brought their cars in order to respect social distancing and allow disabled people to participate. But the exuberant procession of cars, with their horns honking and engines revving, seemed to suggest something bolder: motorists reasserting their right to take up space on urban streets.

    Several cars in the motorcade had cabbage leaves lodged under windscreen wipers or taped to their doors, a reference to one of the most bitter exchanges in the conflict. Over the summer, Hackney’s cabinet member for transport, the Liverpudlian Jon Burke, had become a hate figure for opponents of LTNs after he responded to tweets which called for him to “go home” by tweeting: “If it wasn’t for immigrants, ‘born n bred’ Londoners would still be eating cabbage with every meal.”

    For anti-LTN campaigners, who sometimes caricature cycling advocates as a privileged elite, this was incendiary provocation. “What he’s having a go at is the white working class,” said Niall Crowley, one of the organisers of the protest. “That’s really incensed people.” In September, Burke received a handwritten death threat, and at the start of this year, he announced he would resign as a Hackney councillor in order to stand in his home city’s mayoral race. A newsletter issued by the Hackney protesters proclaimed his departure their victory.

    After the UK’s first lockdown ended in July, the traffic soon returned and talk of the government’s promised “cycling revolution” faded, while some objectors continued to vandalise its remnants. In Hackney, the new street signs were spray painted, and someone cut the cables on an expensive new traffic enforcement camera. In Ealing, bollards were removed one night and the holes they left behind filled in with concrete. Meanwhile, opponents of the mayor’s walking and cycling plans have pursued numerous legal challenges to the new policies.

    Burke told me LTNs were just one part of a complete reimagining of the borough’s public spaces for a low-carbon future. “We’re introducing huge amounts of cycle storage, the largest electric vehicle charging programme in the country, and we’re massively improving the quality of our public realm with the largest tree planting programme in Europe. I get emails from people saying ‘you’re the most hated man in Hackney’,” he said. “And I want to have a dialogue with those people, but I’m not going to tell them there’s a solution to the problems we face that allows them to continue driving to the same extent they were previously.”

    The next few months will be decisive, as councils push for temporary schemes to become permanent, and objectors fight for the right to drive wherever they need to go. London’s great traffic experiment hangs in the balance.

    For many Conservative voters and MPs, the party’s apparent shift from championing the car to promoting bikes is cause for alarm. In May 2020, Boris Johnson, himself a committed cyclist, announced a new “golden age” for cycling, as part of the Conservatives’ broader “green industrial revolution” strategy. This stated aim to reduce transport emissions – which was somewhat undermined earlier this month when Johnson announced his intention to cut taxes on domestic flights – has created an internal schism in a party that has traditionally represented the motorist’s interests. “Motorists did not vote for the Green party in the general election. But that is what we’ve got,” Howard Cox, the founder of the pro-driving campaign FairFuelUK, told me by email.

    As polling shows, people tend to like green policies in theory but less so when they are the ones being inconvenienced by them. Last year, a YouGov study found that the average British person was “an environmentally concerned recycler, who takes their own bag to the supermarket but also likes their meat, and balks at the thought of paying more tax to fund policies for tackling climate change”.

    After Conservative-controlled Kensington and Chelsea council removed a major cycle lane just seven weeks into its trial period, the Daily Mail reported that the prime minister’s transport adviser, Andrew Gilligan, called the council to let it know Johnson had gone “ballistic” at its decision. Gilligan, who worked with Johnson at the Spectator and later served as cycling commissioner during Johnson’s second term as mayor of London, has been instrumental in pushing the Tories to invest record sums in walking and cycling, according to several interviewees working in the transport sector.

    During his stint at City Hall, Gilligan gained a reputation for his “hard-nosed” operating style. “When we agreed, it was great, it was going to move forward very fast, there would be no obstacles in his path,” said Simon Munk, an infrastructure campaigner at the London Cycling Campaign. “But when you disagree with him and you become one of those obstacles, it’s quite a full-on experience.” Gilligan has shown the same single-mindedness at No 10. In May, when the Department for Transport invited all councils to bid for a fund to create temporary walking and cycling schemes, one of the conditions of the first wave of funding was that schemes had to be in place within 12 weeks.

    “The problem we’ve ended up with is because boroughs have been encouraged by the government to introduce them at such speed,” said Caroline Pidgeon, a Liberal Democrat member of the London assembly and a longstanding member of its transport committee. “People feel it’s being done to them rather than feeling like they’ve been brought along.”

    A government spokesperson said: “We want to ensure people have more opportunities to choose cycling and walking for their day-to-day journeys, as part of our wider plans to boost active travel – benefitting both the nation’s health and the environment. That’s why we have committed a significant £175m to create safe spaces for cycling and walking as surveys and independent polls show strong public support for high-quality schemes.”

    Among the many dissenters to the introduction of LTNs across the country are 14 Tory MPs, who signed a letter in November to the transport secretary Grant Shapps, calling on the government to “stop the uncalled-for war on the motorist” and withdraw “the blockades and dedicated cycle lanes eating into our town and city roads”. The spectre of the “war on the motorist”, in which the longsuffering driver is constantly thwarted in his efforts to get around, while being made to pay more and more for the privilege of doing so, has been with us since at least the 60s, despite having little basis in fact.

    In 2011, the coalition government declared an end to the conflict, promising to quell “Whitehall’s addiction to micromanagement”. Unsurprisingly, that wasn’t the end of the story. Earlier this year, a Telegraph editorial called on Conservatives to once again take a stand against Sadiq’s Khan’s war on cars.

    The MPs’ letter was organised by the campaign group FairFuelUK, which works with mostly Conservative politicians in an all-party parliamentary group, arranging meetings with motoring campaigners and planning political actions. “Backbench Tories have told me they’re uncomfortable with the government’s focus on the privileged cycling few,” said Cox. “The prime minister and his Lycra-clad advisers are out of touch with economic reality and majority opinion.”

    Niall Crowley, the Hackney roads protester who will stand as a candidate in council byelections in Hoxton East and Shoreditch, agrees. Frustrations about low-traffic neighbourhoods, he told me, are really about the fact that people resent top-down decision-making and feel excluded from local democratic processes. “Everything I read, it’s ‘we’re doing this and you have to get used to it’. If you’re going to treat residents as a problem to be managed or nudged, then what kind of democracy is that?”

    In September, a group of black cab drivers and their supporters gathered outside City Hall in London to accuse mayor Sadiq Khan of “destroying London”. A campaigner gave a speech on the concourse outside the mayor’s office, grimly predicting that the black cab’s days were numbered if road closures were not reversed. “This is the endgame,” he told the crowd.

    During the summer, TfL had barred taxis and other private vehicles from Bishopsgate, an ancient road that takes its name from the defensive wall built by the Romans around the city. The road runs past Liverpool Street station and into the financial district; cars, cabs, buses and cyclists compete for space. Cab drivers were also angry about TfL’s decision to exclude them from some central London bus lanes, which they can ordinarily use to drive around the city more quickly. They also protested about about losing access to other main roads under restrictions that allow only buses, cyclists and emergency vehicles to pass through.

    Although taxi drivers have been the vanguard of the resistance to Khan’s active travel plans, Steve McNamara, the chair of the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association, said cabbies were not always opposed to new cycle lanes. “It’s much less stressful for them if they’re driving their cab and the cyclist is in a nice segregated lane next to them,” he said. “But what we don’t support are these ones that are banged in with very little planning, that look like they’ve been designed on the back of a fag packet.”

    In interviews, McNamara repeatedly returns to a theme that cyclists are a privileged minority making life more difficult for working-class drivers in the suburbs. “If you can afford to live centrally, and you’ve got a well-paid job in the city or central London, it’s great for you to be able to ride to work,” McNamara said. “But equally if you live in the suburbs, as most Londoners do, and you have to get the bus to work, or you’re driving a lorry, it’s not so good.”

    Some of London’s suburban boroughs, which are less well served by public transport and have higher rates of car ownership, have embraced new cycling and walking schemes, and received £30m from City Hall to become flagship “mini-Hollands”. But others remain resistant: in Barnet, councillor Roberto Weeden-Sanz said the Conservative group would take a stand against the “war on drivers” by refusing to implement LTNs. Barnet has a proud history of opposing traffic reforms: in 2003, the council’s environment committee chair Brian Coleman ordered the removal of 1,000 speed humps in the borough. A triumphant Telegraph column compared Coleman to Winston Churchill and Field Marshal Montgomery.

    There is no evidence that LTNs disproportionately benefit the better-off. A new study has shown that, contrary to one of the most common objections, road closures have not shifted traffic from wealthier areas into more deprived ones. Polling in London has repeatedly shown that more people support LTNs than oppose them. Burke, the former Hackney councillor whose comment about cabbage enraged his opponents, believes that car reduction advocates shouldn’t be afraid of arguments over class. “What I’m not willing to do, as someone who comes from a working-class background, is cede an inch of ground to people who have tried to make this a class issue,” he told me. “Seventy percent of the households in Hackney don’t own cars, so why should cars own 100% of the roads? LTNs are an exercise in redistribution.”

    But statistics have not dispelled a popular narrative that car reduction measures are unwanted policies imposed by the “metropolitan elite” on the poor. McNamara is eager to frame car reduction measures as a class war. “And let’s be honest – the working classes are losing badly,” he said.

    McNamara is playing on familiar stereotypes. In the 2010s, the folk figure of the hipster had three essential characteristics: a beard, a love of artisan coffee and a fixed-gear bike. The urban cyclist does not cause gentrification, but he becomes a powerful symbol of it. He is able to adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing urban environment in a way that established working-class communities are not. He is also visible in a way that the structural causes of the housing crisis are not. As such he – and his bike – have become a focus for anger about inequality and displacement.

    In his study of cycling culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, the geographer John Stehlin did not find a causal link between bike lanes and gentrification. But he argued that initiatives to make streets more livable, while often motivated by progressive ideals, also became useful marketing tools for developers of high-end housing.

    However, Mohammad Rakib, a community activist in the borough of Tower Hamlets, which borders Hackney to the south and has the highest poverty rates in London, believes LTNs play a more active role in attracting middle-class newcomers to deprived areas and squeezing out the long-term working-class residents. “These policies are more about social cleansing than they are about reducing pollution,” Rakib told me.

    Rakib sometimes makes memes depicting cyclists as “urban colonialists”, combining cycling helmets with the imagery of empire. His point that the users of bike lanes do not reflect the diversity of areas like Tower Hamlets, however, is undeniably true. In 2019, according to TfL research, 85% of cyclists on TfL’s cycle routes were white.

    “These areas and communities have waited generations for this level of investment,” he said. “Now that money has been made available, it is not being spent as the community have been asking for it to be spent. LTNs suit a certain class of people who are by no stretch the majority within these areas.”

    Cycling hasn’t always been seen as the preserve of the metropolitan elite. In the mid-20th century, the bicycle was a primary mode of transport for the working class, while the motorcar remained unaffordable to most. In his celebratory 1949 work Leisure (Homage to Jacques-Louis David), the French artist Fernand Léger depicted a gang of workers taking a trip out of the city on their bikes – a vision of the labour-saving potential of the humble bicycle. That same year, 37% of all journeys in Britain were cycled, according to Carlton Reid’s book Bike Boom. From that peak, the figure has fallen to about 2% today.

    The mid-20th century is a “what if?” moment, where one possible future was blotted out by the ascendancy of the car. In the 1930s, the government planned to vastly expand a national network of cycle routes as well as create a new system of motorways. Both were delayed by the war, and in the end government prioritised the motorways. From the 50s onwards, car ownership became an aspiration of the middle classes and a symbol of a new age of affluence. By the 60s, Britain had become a “car-owning democracy”, in the words of Simon Digby, the MP for Dorset west at the time.

    As cars became more common, so did congestion and pollution. In response, in the 60s transport minister Ernest Marples introduced a raft of new driving restrictions, including yellow lines and parking wardens. Marples said in 1964 that an enraged motorist had once thrown one of his new parking meters through his drawing room window. “I am accused of declaring war on the motorist,” he said in a 1963 speech to the Passenger Transport Association. “That is a complete travesty of the truth.”

    During the 70s, concerns about the environmental impacts of the car grew, particularly around emissions from leaded petrol. By the time Margaret Thatcher announced that her government would oversee “the largest road building programme since the Romans” in 1989, a growing ecological movement responded with a series of militant actions, among them a protest camp on the site of the planned M3 expansion at Twyford Down in Hampshire. Almost a year later, the camp was evicted and the motorway was built.

    Out of this anti-roads scene came a group called Reclaim the Streets, which crashed into public consciousness in May 1995 with a daring piece of street theatre. At a busy traffic intersection in Camden in north London, two cars driven by activists collided. Their drivers got out and began to argue. The argument escalated until both drivers took out sledgehammers and smashed up the cars, creating a DIY barricade and allowing other members of the group to set up a sound system and a children’s play area, turning the busy high street into a carnival. The group, which was immersed in 90s rave culture and the movement against the 1994 Criminal Justice Act, went on to hold dozens of similar events all over the UK.

    “A year after we were being branded as terrorists, Islington council organised a very similar party to the one we’d hosted,” said one former activist Roger Geffen. “This idea that you should close city streets to motor vehicles and open them up to people – it was already starting to go mainstream.” When I asked Chris Knight, a former Reclaim the Streets activist, about the group’s philosophy, he said: “It was quite simple: kill the car! A car just captures so much: private ownership, privatised space, isolation, egocentrism, deafness to the world around you. ‘Kill the car’ was just beautiful.”

    This group of anarchists and radicals wanted to take back space from cars and promote walking, cycling and public transport for everyday use – the same ideas that would resurface 25 years later among the policies of a Conservative government. Geffen, now director of policy at advocacy group Cycling UK, exemplifies the way car reduction policies have gone from a fringe belief to the mainstream: his march through the institutions took him from illicit raves and squatting to Buckingham Palace, where he received an MBE for services to cycling in 2015. “It’s been an interesting trajectory,” he said.

    On a September evening between lockdowns, I watched a cricket match happening in the middle of Rye Lane, a narrow high street in Peckham, south-east London, which used to be choked with traffic until it was closed to cars by Southwark council in July. A makeshift wicket was set up outside a local institution, Khan’s Bargains, and people spilling out of bars jostled for a chance to bowl. It was exactly the sort of creative use of public space that Reclaim the Streets wanted to inspire, and a rare moment of genuine collective joy.

    Will we look back on the past year as another “what if” moment, a bold but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to reduce the car’s domination of our roads and cities? By the winter of 2020, more than 30 councils across the country had withdrawn or scaled back new traffic-reduction schemes in the face of opposition. Some of these projects were only ever intended to be temporary, but TfL and the boroughs had stated their ambition for new bike lanes and LTNs to become permanent if the data showed they were working effectively.

    In December, a few days after Kensington and Chelsea council announced it would scrap a new cycle route along Kensington High Street, a group of Extinction Rebellion activists and cycling campaigners gathered in an attempt to stop the removal of the lane. Wearing hi-vis jackets and carrying placards, a small group of protesters climbed on to construction vans and prevented the workers from pulling out the bollards separating cyclists from the traffic on the busy east-west road. Donnachadh McCarthy, the founder of the Stop Killing Cyclists campaign, told me the group had held protests here before to commemorate cyclists killed in the surrounding area – 15 people have been seriously injured while walking or biking along the high street itself in the past three years – but this was the first time his group had used such militant tactics.

    The following night, after a second protest was dispersed by the police, the council succeeded in removing the bollards. A few weeks later, the route was still busy with cyclists, who now mingled with buses, taxis and high-performance cars. The scars where the bollards used to be were still visible on the asphalt.

    The recent reforms suffered another blow in January, when Mrs Justice Beverley Lang ruled that TfL had acted unlawfully in using emergency measures to introduce changes to road layouts. The judge ruled that the process behind the decision to exclude taxis from Bishopsgate and the overarching Streetspace plan were “seriously flawed” and did not recognise the “special status” of taxi drivers.

    The ruling also found TfL had not sufficiently researched or mitigated the potential adverse impacts of Streetspace projects on taxi passengers with disabilities. Transport for All, a charity advocating for accessible transport, found many disabled people felt “their concerns [about LTNs] have been ignored, creating feelings of anger and frustration”. However, the organisation has pointed out that traffic reduction schemes do not necessarily need to be scrapped, but rather modified with features such as tactile paving and exemptions for disabled drivers.

    TfL points out the ruling did not make any direct findings on the lawfulness of low-traffic neighbourhoods, but with the legality of the Streetspace plan itself in doubt, some councils are worried the judgment could have a wider impact. While most schemes remain in place pending TfL’s appeal, Sutton and Croydon councils have withdrawn LTNs. Sutton council said in a statement: “Some schemes were working well, but we have no choice given the legal judgment.” In June 2021, a separate set of judicial reviews will challenge the future of active travel schemes in the boroughs of Lambeth, Hounslow and Hackney.

    ’I don’t want to be seen as a zealot’: what MPs really think about the climate crisis
    Read more
    With TfL on the back foot in Kensington, cycling advocates have called on the mayor to use his statutory powers to take back control of the high street from the council. At the cyclists’ protest in Kensington in December, the transport historian Christian Wolmar said that the borough’s bike lanes had long been the site of a broader power struggle over the future of the city. As police officers hovered and tried to disperse the protesters, Wolmar recalled the council scrapping cycle lanes in Kensington and Chelsea more than 30 years ago, amid a wider conservative backlash against the leftist policies of the Greater London council, which included an early attempt at a London-wide cycle network. I asked how he felt about having the same arguments 30 years on. “Everything we know about urban planning shows that cities that give themselves to car dominance become less pleasant places to live. Who would want to live in Los Angeles if you could live in Copenhagen, for Christ’s sake?”

    Across Europe, increasingly radical car-free policies have been met with vocal opposition. In Paris, a major pedestrianisation scheme faced a protracted court battle (which the scheme ultimately won), while Berlin’s pop-up bike lanes launched during the pandemic faced a legal challenge from the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party.

    But when I asked Wolmar if he thought the backlash in London could kill the city’s car reduction plans, he was confident it would not. “They’ll win a few battles,” he said, “but they’ll lose the war.”

    This article was amended on 25 March 2021. Mention of a 1939 government cycling plan was corrected; some national cycle routes were in place before the war. According to Kensington and Chelsea council, 15 pedestrians and cyclists were seriously injured, not killed, in a three-year period on Kensington High Street.

    #Verkehr #Großbritannien

  • Uber drivers to launch legal bid to uncover app’s algorithm | Technology | The Guardian

    Mon 20 Jul by Robert Booth Social affairs correspondent - Union wants ride-sharing firm to increase transparency and disclose how data is used

    Minicab drivers will launch a legal bid to uncover secret computer algorithms used by Uber to manage their work in a test case that could increase transparency for millions of gig economy workers across Europe.

    Two UK drivers are demanding to see the huge amounts of data the ride-sharing company collects on them and how this is used to exert management control, including through automated decision-making that invisibly shapes their jobs.

    The case is being brought on Monday by the UK-based App Drivers and Couriers Union in the district court in Amsterdam, where the international headquarters of the $56bn (£44.5bn) ride-hailing firm is located. The union said transparency was essential in checking if Uber was exercising discrimination or unequal treatment between drivers. It will also allow drivers to organise and build collective bargaining power over terms of work and pay in a way that is currently impossible.

    It came at the start of a significant week for Uber’s business model in the UK. On Tuesday, the company begins its supreme court challenge against landmark rulings that the former Uber drivers Yaseen Aslam and James Farrar, founders of the ADCU, should have been treated as workers rather than self-employed contractors and so should have benefited from the minimum wage and paid holidays.

    The number of adults working on online platforms such as Uber and Deliveroo at least once a week doubled between 2016 and 2019 to almost 10% of the adult population, according to a study for the Trades Union Congress.

    The boom in online shopping during the lockdown saw the parcel delivery company DPD create another 6,000 self-employed jobs, which rely on the use of handheld terminals that track time and motion.

    “This is about the distribution of power,” said Anton Ekker, the Amsterdam privacy lawyer leading the case. “It’s about Uber exerting control through data and automated decision-making and how it is blocking access to that.”

    He said: “The app decides millions of times a day who is going to get what ride: who gets the nice rides; who gets the short rides. But this is not just about Uber. The problem is everywhere. Algorithms and data give a lot of control but the people who are subject to it are often no longer aware of it.”

    The claim says Uber uses tags on drivers’ profiles, for example “inappropriate behaviour” or simply “police tag”. Reports relate to “navigation – late arrival / missed ETA” and “professionalism – cancelled on rider, inappropriate behaviour, attitude”. The drivers complain they were not being provided with this data or information on the underlying logic of how it was used. They want to how that processing affects them, including on their driver score.

    The union members Azeem Hanif and Alfie Wellcoat claim Uber has failed to fulfill its obligations in its response to their requests under general data protection regulations (GDPR). They want to see their detailed driver profiles, comments about them made by Uber staff and how more than two dozen categories of data gathered about them are processed, legal papers show.

    “Uber collects large amounts of data that provide a very penetrating picture of, among other things, the use of the Uber driver app, the location and driving behaviour of the driver, communication with customers and the Uber support department,” the claim states.

    It argues that under GDPR regulations, which are similar in the UK and the Netherlands, app workers have the right to access “profiling” data, which includes evaluations of a person’s reliability, behaviour, location or movements.

    A spokesperson for Uber said: “Our privacy team works hard to provide any requested personal data that individuals are entitled to. We will give explanations when we cannot provide certain data, such as when it doesn’t exist or disclosing it would infringe on the rights of another person under GDPR. Under the law, individuals have the right to escalate their concerns by contacting Uber’s data protection officer or their national data protection authority for additional review.”

    #Uber #Gewerkschaft #Großbritannien #informationelle_Selbstbestimmung #Arneitnehmerrechte

  • Trump soll Assange Begnadigung angeboten haben | DW | 19.02.2020

    Trump soll Assange Begnadigung angeboten haben | DW | 19.02.2020

    Menschenrechtler und Mediziner verweisen auf den kritischen Zustand, in dem sich Wikileaks-Gründer Assange in der Haft befindet. Derweil werden Informationen über einen Deal bekannt, den die USA angeboten haben sollen. Trump soll Assange Begnadigung angeboten haben | DW | 19.02.2020 #USA #Großbritannien #US-Präsident #DonaldTrump #Wikileaks #JulianAssange #London #Anhörung


    · Delivery worker assaulted in Nottingham after he intervened to prevent an altercation between another delivery worker and two pedestrians on Monday 6 January.

    · The assault comes days after the murder of UberEats and Deliveroo rider Takieddine Boudhane, fatally stabbed in Finsbury Park, north London on Friday.

    · Mr. Boudhane’s death has led to renewed calls for better rights and protections for delivery drivers, who assume high risk for poverty pay at a time IWGB members report a rise in assaults.

    · Delivery workers are routinely denied sick pay and holiday pay, meaning many cannot afford to take time off work following accidents or assaults.

    08 January: The incident took place at approximately 20.00 on Upper Parliament Street in Nottingham. The injured party, whose last name is withheld for his safety, intervened in an altercation between two pedestrians and another delivery rider. Ibraheem witnessed one of the pedestrians kicking his colleague’s moped. Concerned for the driver’s safety, who was physically struck, Ibraheem tried to diffuse the situation and advised the other driver to leave the area. Once he did so, the pedestrians began directing racist abuse towards Ibraheem, calling him a “dirty brown bastard” and telling him to “go back to his country” before police attended the scene.

    Ibraheem says: “It’s hard to express how it feels being told to go back to your country in the very city where you were born and bred. The other driver was hit and I was spat at for trying to help him. Delivery riders are being targeted and intimidated a lot, we’re in danger every day we go to work. I’ve got no entitlement to sick pay or holiday pay, so I’m going back out in the streets to work tonight because I can’t afford to stay home. I got no support from Deliveroo, only other drivers and the IWGB. Deliveroo just suggested I work outside my own city, somewhere I don’t know, which could be even more dangerous. We deserve better than that.”

    Alex Marshall, courier and IWGB Couriers & Logistics Branch Chair, says: "We were appalled to learn of the murder of Takieddine Boudhane. His loved ones are in our thoughts and we send solidarity to everyone affected by his death, which has shaken the courier community. To hear just days later that one of our members in Nottingham has been physically assaulted and subjected to racist abuse at work has been devastating. Delivery workers are putting their lives on the line for poverty pay and BAME workers are among those most at risk.

    The IWGB has seen a worrying rise in reports like this and in the event of an accident or assault at work, companies take no accountability. That is the gig economy culture. If these worker’s rights were respected by the companies they work for the picture would look very different and perhaps lives would be saved.”

    Notes to Editors

    The IWGB is the leading union for so-called “gig economy” workers. In November 2018 it organised the first UK nation-wide strike of Uber drivers, when drivers in London, Birmingham and Nottingham turned off their app in protest to unfair deactivations and low pay.

    In December 2018, the IWGB has defeated Uber at the Court of Appeal, in a landmark decision over the employment rights of its drivers. The Court of Appeal upheld the previous decisions by the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal, which ruled that Uber had unlawfully classified Uber drivers as independent contractors rather than workers, denying them basic rights such as a guaranteed minimum wage and holiday pay. However, the ruling only applies to Uber minicab drivers, not UberEats delivery workers.

    The IWGB has also taken legal action against other gig economy companies such as Deliveroo, CitySprint and TDL. These include worker recognition cases and claims for backdated holiday pay worth over £1 million.



    #Großbritannien #Nottingham #Rassismus #Arbeit #Gigworking #disruption #Kriminalität

  • Deliveroo driver murder: Calls for more protection for delivery workers after deadly London stabbing | The Independent

    4 days ago - by Eleanor Busby - ‘More members of public are treating delivery drivers with utter contempt,’ union says

    The fatal stabbing of a man in London has prompted calls for better protection for delivery drivers.

    The 30-year-old victim – who is believed to have worked as a delivery rider for UberEats and Deliveroo – was found in the Finsbury Park area on Friday night after reports of a knife attack.

    The Metropolitan Police said the incident appears to have occurred as a result of an isolated traffic altercation.

    But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and delivery drivers have called for greater protection from attacks following the death of the delivery driver from Algeria.

    Speaking from the scene of the knife attack on Saturday, Mr Corbyn, whose Islington North constituency includes Finsbury Park, said: “There are a lot of people working as delivery drivers, they must have better conditions of employment and employers must take more responsibility for their safety too.”

    “Police cuts have meant fewer officers on the streets and this raises issues of safety in the community in general,” he added. “Delivery drivers do a great job in London all of the time. Yet they are vulnerable.”

    Alex Marshall, chair of the couriers and logistics branch of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), said the union had noticed a rise in delivery drivers facing abuse when out on the road.

    He told The Independent: “More members of the public are treating delivery drivers with utter contempt. The companies they work for treat them awfully.

    “If the companies, who are supposed to be the ones looking after them, are treating riders with a lack of respect then it sets an example to so many other people to treat them in exactly the same way.”

    Mr Marshall believes employers could do more to improve the safety of drivers – such as providing onboard cameras and cars rather than bikes – and the police could provide more support.

    “When it comes to keeping them safe, a lot of the time the police are nowhere to be seen,” he added.

    Some of the delivery drivers gathered at the scene of the fatal stabbing criticised the companies they worked for and the police for not doing enough to protect them from attacks.

    Deliveroo and Uber driver Zakaria Gherabi, who knew the victim as “Taki”, said he has been attacked on multiple occasions while working as a delivery driver and says he no longer feels safe.

    In October last year, Mr Gherabi said an attacker punched him in the eye and dislocated his socket. “My attackers are still on the streets. The police do nothing. It happens. Nobody is going to save you. The company does not care, we are self-employed, but the food we are carrying is insured,” he said.

    Mr Gherabi added: “I knew the victim. He did not do anything, he was a good guy. He was stabbed to death on these busy streets. The job is not safe. I don’t feel safe doing it.”

    One driver said they felt unsafe “100 per cent” of the time. Another said: “I was attacked here by people with a big machete and now this man has been killed for no reason. The police do nothing.

    “They just come, take a statement and then they go.”

    Gulcin Ozdemir, a Labour councillor in Islington, north London, tweeted: “The lack of protection delivery drivers have where many of them have been physically abused, mugged at knifepoint and feel like easy targets. They shouldn’t be going to work in a constant state of fear.

    “My condolences to the family and Algerian community who are so heartbroken.”

    Detective Chief Inspector Neil John, who is leading the investigation, confirmed the victim’s next of kin have been informed, but that a post-mortem and formal identification have yet to take place.

    DCI John said: “The investigation is at a very early stage. It would appear at this time that an altercation has taken place between the victim, who was riding a motorcycle, and the driver of another vehicle in the vicinity of Lennox Road and Charteris Road, Finsbury Park.“

    He added: “The incident itself appears at this early stage to have been spontaneous and not connected to, or as a result of, anything other than a traffic altercation.

    “Specialist officers are working extremely hard to build a clear picture of what happened and I would encourage anyone who may have seen the incident or has information to come forward.

    “A forensic examination of the scene has been undertaken and I expect the road to reopen very soon.”

    #Großbritannien #London #Rassismus #Arbeit #Gigworking #disruption #Kriminalität

  • Seit Jahren funktioniert die deutsch-britische Militärkooperation g...

    Seit Jahren funktioniert die deutsch-britische Militärkooperation gut. Dennoch haben die Verteidigungsminister beider Länder einen neuen Vertrag namens „Joint Vision Statement“ geschlossen. Grund ist der drohende Brexit. Ein Brückenschlag in Zeiten des Brexit | DW | 05.10.2018 #Leyen #Williamson #Deutschland #Großbritannien #Brexit #NATO #PESCO #Militär #Wester

  • Britische Botschaft in Berlin: Wilhelmstraße seit 15 Jahren gesperrt - Berlin - Tagesspiegel Mobil

    Seit 2003 ist die Verbindungsstraße gesperrt. Alle Jahre wieder wird ihre Öffnung verlangt. Bisher vergeblich. Ob Prinz Harry helfen kann?

    Kleines Jubiläum an der britischen Botschaft: 2018 wird die Wilhelmstraße zwischen Behrenstraße und Unter den Linden 15 Jahre gesperrt sein. Das teilte Frank Steffel (CDU) mit, der erneut die Öffnung für einen besseren Verkehrsfluss forderte.

    „Möglicherweise lässt sich eine Öffnung mit der Hochzeit des Prinzen Harry verbinden. Wenn an jenem Tag im Mai 2018 die Menschen ein letztes Mal im gesperrten Abschnitt vor der Botschaft zusammenkommen, um zu feiern, könnte anschließend eine Wiedereröffnung für den Straßenverkehr erfolgen.“

    Seit Anschlag in Istanbul gesperrt
    Die (ehemalige) Nord-Süd-Verbindungen der City wurde 2003 aufgrund der damaligen Sicherheitsrisiken nach einem Anschlag auf das britische Generalkonsulat in Istanbul gekappt. Seitdem wird immer wieder über eine Öffnung der Straße nachgedacht.

    #Berlin #Mitte #Wihelmstraße #Verkehr #Großbritannien #Botschaft #Besatzung #Alliierte

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg : Ein lebendes Fossil (http://www.zeit.de/politik/au...

    Jacob Rees-Mogg: Ein lebendes Fossil

    Erzreaktionär, reich, überkandidelt: Jacob Rees-Mogg war in Großbritannien politisch eine Randfigur. Nun wird er als möglicher Nachfolger der Premierministerin gehandelt.

    #jacob #rees-mogg #rees #mogg #reesmogg #ausland #fossil #erzreaktionär #großbritannien #randfigur #nachfolger #premierministerin #news #bot #rss

  • Mindestlohn für Uber-Fahrer: Ohrfeige für Uber vor Londoner Arbeitsgericht | heise online

    Man muss es nur wollen ...

    Wer mithilfe des Fahrdienstvermittlers Uber Passagiere befördert, hat in Großbritannien unter Umständen das Recht auf den Mindestlohn und andere finanzielle Vergütungen. Das hat ein Arbeitsgericht entschieden und Ubers Selbstbeschreibung zerpflückt.

    Laut einem Urteil eines Londoner Arbeitsgericht haben Uber-Fahrer das Recht auf Urlaubsgeld, bezahlte Arbeitspausen und die Zahlung des nationalen Mindestlohns. Das berichtet die BBC und ergänzt, dass die Gewerkschaft GMB die Entscheidung als „monumentalen Erfolg“ begrüßt, während Uber in Berufung gehen will. Das Gericht hatte in seiner Urteilsbegründung erklärt, Uber habe mit „Fiktionen, verdrehter Sprache und sogar brandneuer Terminologie“ argumentiert. Die von dem US-Unternehmen vorgebrachte Vorstellung, Uber in London sei ein Mosaik aus 30.000 kleinen Unternehmen, die durch eine gemeinsame Plattform verbunden seien, sei „etwas hirnverbrannt“.

    Das Urteil: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/aslam-and-farrar-v-uber-reasons-20161028.pdf

    #Taxi #Uber #disruption #Großbritannien #Recht #Gericht #Urteil

  • Chris #Hedges Interviews Noam #Chomsky (1/3)

    Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges speaks with Professor Noam Chomsky about working-class resistance during the Industrial Revolution, propaganda, and the historical role played by intellectuals in times of war - June 17, 14


    – chez TRNN avec une trace écrite: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12006


    [I]n the early 19th century, the business world recognized, both in England and the United States, that sufficient freedom had been won so that they could no longer control people just by violence. They had to turn to new means of control. The obvious ones were control of opinions and attitudes. That’s the origins of the massive public relations industry, which is explicitly dedicated to controlling minds and attitudes.

    The first—it partly was government. The first government commission was the British Ministry of Information. This is long before Orwell—he didn’t have to invent it. So the Ministry of Information had as its goal to control the minds of the people of the world, but particularly the minds of American intellectuals, for a very good reason: they knew that if they can delude American intellectuals into supporting British policy, they could be very effective in imposing that on the population of the United States. The British, of course, were desperate to get the Americans into the war with a pacifist population. Woodrow Wilson won the 1916 election with the slogan “Peace without Victory”. And they had to drive a pacifist population into a population that bitterly hated all things German, wanted to tear the Germans apart. The Boston Symphony Orchestra couldn’t play Beethoven. You know. And they succeeded.

    Wilson set up a counterpart to the Ministry of Information called the Committee on Public Information. You know, again, you can guess what it was. And they’ve at least felt, probably correctly, that they had succeeded in carrying out this massive change of opinion on the part of the population and driving the pacifist population into, you know, warmongering fanatics.

    And the people on the commission learned a lesson. One of them was Edward Bernays, who went on to found—the main guru of the public relations industry. Another one was Walter Lippman, who was the leading progressive intellectual of the 20th century. And they both drew the same lessons, and said so.

    The lessons were that we have what Lippmann called a “new art” in democracy, “manufacturing consent”. That’s where Ed Herman and I took the phrase from. For Bernays it was “engineering of consent”. The conception was that the intelligent minority, who of course is us, have to make sure that we can run the affairs of public affairs, affairs of state, the economy, and so on. We’re the only ones capable of doing it, of course. And we have to be—I’m quoting—"free of the trampling and the roar of the bewildered herd", the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders”—the general public. They have a role. Their role is to be “spectators”, not participants. And every couple of years they’re permitted to choose among one of the “responsible men”, us.

    And the John Dewey circle took the same view. Dewey changed his mind a couple of years later, to his credit, but at that time, Dewey and his circle were writing that—speaking of the First World War, that this was the first war in history that was not organized and manipulated by the military and the political figures and so on, but rather it was carefully planned by rational calculation of “the intelligent men of the community”, namely us, and we thought it through carefully and decided that this is the reasonable thing to do, for all kind of benevolent reasons.

    And they were very proud of themselves.

    There were people who disagreed. Like, Randolph Bourne disagreed. He was kicked out. He couldn’t write in the Deweyite journals. He wasn’t killed, you know, but he was just excluded.

    And if you take a look around the world, it was pretty much the same. The intellectuals on all sides were passionately dedicated to the national cause—all sides, Germans, British, everywhere.

    There were a few, a fringe of dissenters, like Bertrand Russell, who was in jail; Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, in jail; Randolph Bourne, marginalized; Eugene Debs, in jail for daring to question the magnificence of the war. In fact, Wilson hated him with such passion that when he finally declared an amnesty, Debs was left out, you know, had to wait for Warren Harding to release him. And he was the leading labor figure in the country. He was a candidate for president, Socialist Party, and so on.

    But the lesson that came out is we believe you can and of course ought to control the public, and if we can’t do it by force, we’ll do it by manufacturing consent, by engineering of consent. Out of that comes the huge public relations industry, massive industry dedicated to this.

    Incidentally, it’s also dedicated to undermining markets, a fact that’s rarely noticed but is quite obvious. Business hates markets. They don’t want to—and you can see it very clearly. Markets, if you take an economics course, are based on rational, informed consumers making rational choices. Turn on the television set and look at the first ad you see. It’s trying to create uninformed consumers making irrational choices. That’s the whole point of the huge advertising industry. But also to try to control and manipulate thought. And it takes various forms in different institutions. The media do it one way, the academic institutions do it another way, and the educational system is a crucial part of it.

    This is not a new observation. There’s actually an interesting essay by—Orwell’s, which is not very well known because it wasn’t published. It’s the introduction to Animal Farm. In the introduction, he addresses himself to the people of England and he says, you shouldn’t feel too self-righteous reading this satire of the totalitarian enemy, because in free England, ideas can be suppressed without the use of force. And he doesn’t say much about it. He actually has two sentences. He says one reason is the press “is owned by wealthy men” who have every reason not to want certain ideas to be expressed.

    But the second reason, and the more important one in my view, is a good education, so that if you’ve gone to all the good schools, you know, Oxford, Cambridge, and so on, you have instilled into you the understanding that there are certain things it wouldn’t do to say—and I don’t think he went far enough: wouldn’t do to think. And that’s very broad among the educated classes. That’s why overwhelmingly they tend to support state power and state violence, and maybe with some qualifications, like, say, Obama is regarded as a critic of the invasion of Iraq. Why? Because he thought it was a strategic blunder. That puts him on the same moral level as some Nazi general who thought that the second front was a strategic blunder—you should knock off England first. That’s called criticism.


    #media #histoire #Geschichte #institution
    #USA #England #Angleterre
    #Grande-Bretagne #Great_Britain #Großbritannien
    #Allemagne #Germany #Deutschland

    #contrôle #Kontrolle
    #résistance #Widerstand
    #working_class #ouvriers #Arbeiterklasse
    #éducation #Bildung

    • Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (2/3)



      Like a lot of people, I’ve written a lot about media and intellectual propaganda, but there’s another question which isn’t studied much: how effective is it? And that’s—when you brought up the polls, it’s a striking illustration. The propaganda is—you can see from the poll results that the propaganda has only limited effectiveness. I mean, it can drive a population into terror and fear and war hysteria, like before the Iraq invasion or 1917 and so on, but over time, public attitudes remain quite different. In fact, studies even of what’s called the right-wing, you know, people who say, get the government off my back, that kind of sector, they turn out to be kind of social democratic. They want more spending on health, more spending on education, more spending on, say, women with dependent children, but not welfare, no spending on welfare, because Reagan, who was an extreme racist, succeeded in demonizing the notion of welfare. So in people’s minds welfare means a rich black woman driving in her limousine to the welfare office to steal your money. Well, nobody wants that. But they want what welfare does.

      Foreign aid is an interesting case. There’s an enormous propaganda against foreign aid, ’cause we’re giving everything to the undeserving people out there. You take a look at public attitudes. A lot of opposition to foreign aid. Very high. On the other hand, when you ask people, how much do we give in foreign aid? Way beyond what we give. When you ask what we should give in foreign aid, far above what we give.

      And this runs across the board. Take, say taxes. There’ve been studies of attitudes towards taxes for 40 years. Overwhelmingly the population says taxes are much too low for the rich and the corporate sector. You’ve got to raise it. What happens? Well, the opposite.


      #effectiveness #efficacité #Effizienz

    • Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (3/3)


      #ows #occupy


      Well, I think it’s a little misleading to call it a movement. Occupy was a tactic, in fact a brilliant tactic. I mean, if I’d been asked a couple of months earlier whether they should take over public places, I would have said it’s crazy. But it worked extremely well, and it lit a spark which went all over the place. Hundreds and hundreds of places in the country, there were Occupy events. It was all over the world. I mean, I gave talks in Sydney, Australia, to the Occupy movement there. But it was a tactic, a very effective tactic. Changed public discourse, not policy. It brought issues to the forefront.I think my own feeling is its most important contribution was just to break through the atomization of the society. I mean, it’s a very atomized society. There’s all sorts of efforts to separate people from one another, as if the ideal social unit is, you know, you and your TV set.

      HEDGES: You know, Hannah Arendt raises atomization as one of the key components of totalitarianism.

      CHOMSKY: Exactly. And the Occupy actions broke that down for a large part of the population. People could recognize that we can get together and do things for ourselves, we can have a common kitchen, we can have a place for public discourse, we can form our ideas and do something. Now, that’s an important attack on the core of the means by which the public is controlled. So you’re not just an individual trying to maximize your consumption, but there are other concerns in life, and you can do something about them. If those attitudes and associations and bonds can be sustained and move in other directions, that’ll be important.

      But going back to Occupy, it’s a tactic. Tactics have a kind of a half-life. You can’t keep doing them, and certainly you can’t keep occupying public places for very long. And was very successful, but it was not in itself a movement. The question is: what happens to the people who were involved in it? Do they go on and develop, do they move into communities, pick up community issues? Do they organize?

      Take, say, this business of, say, worker-owned industry. Right here in Massachusetts, not far from here, there was something similar. One of the multinationals decided to close down a fairly profitable small plant, which was producing aerospace equipment. High-skilled workers and so on, but it wasn’t profitable enough, so they were going to close it down. The union wanted to buy it. Company refused—usual class reasons, I think. If the Occupy efforts had been available at the time, they could have provided the public support for it.


      Well, you know, a reconstituted auto industry could have turned in that direction under worker and community control. I don’t think these things are out of sight. And, incidentally, they even have so-called conservative support, because they’re within a broader what’s called capitalist framework (it’s not really capitalist). And those are directions that should be pressed.

      Right now, for example, the Steelworkers union is trying to establish some kind of relations with Mondragon, the huge worker-owned conglomerate in the Basque country in Spain, which is very successful, in fact, and includes industry, manufacturing, banks, hospitals, living quarters. It’s very broad. It’s not impossible that that can be brought here, and it’s potentially radical. It’s creating the basis for quite a different society.


      #Militarisierung #Aufrüstung

      #war_crime #Iraq


      Go back to the #Nuremberg judgments. I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, but in Nuremberg aggression was defined as “the supreme international crime,” differing from other war crimes in that it includes, it encompasses all of the evil that follows. Well, the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq is a textbook case of aggression. By the standards of Nuremberg, they’d all be hanged. And one of the things it did, one of the crimes was to ignite a Sunni-Shiite conflict which hadn’t been going on. I mean, there was, you know, various kinds of tensions, but Iraqis didn’t believe there could ever be a conflict. They were intermarried, they lived in the same places, and so on. But the invasion set it off. Took off on its own. By now it’s inflaming the whole region. Now we’re at the point where Sunni jihadi forces are actually marching on Baghdad.

      HEDGES: And the Iraqi army is collapsing.

      CHOMSKY: The Iraqi army’s just giving away their arms. There obviously is a lot of collaboration going on.And all of this is a U.S. crime if we believe in the validity of the judgments against the Nazis.

      And it’s kind of interesting. Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor, a U.S. justice, at the tribunal, addressed the tribunal, and he pointed out, as he put it, that we’re giving these defendants a “poisoned chalice”, and if we ever sip from it, we have to be treated the same way, or else the whole thing is a farce and we should recognize this as just victor’s justice.


  • L’article d’un historien dans le SZ qui met en rage au moment les allemands aux réseaux de plus en regardant les contrats de la coopération entre les alliés de l’ouest et l’Allemagne de l’Ouest et ses services secrets pendant les années cinquantes jusqu’au soixante-dix : ils sont encore la base pour la coopération actuelle.

    (a.m.a pas surprenant du tout, ces contrats et leurs exécution)

    Historiker Foschepoth : « Die NSA darf alles machen » - Politik


    Gelten diese Bestimmungen auch in anderen Nato-Staaten?

    Nein. Das Zusatzabkommen haben die drei Westmächte nur mit der Bundesrepublik geschlossen. In diesem Sonderrecht spiegeln sich nach wie vor Sieger- und Besatzungsrecht wider. Der Clou sind allerdings die Grundgesetzänderung, das G-10-Gesetz und die dazu abgeschlossene geheime Verwaltungsvereinbarung von 1968. Scheinbar großherzig gaben die Alliierten die Überwachung an die Deutschen ab, die nun Dienstleister in Sachen Überwachung für die drei Westmächte wurden. Eine völkerrechtlich verbindliche geheime Zusatznote vom 27. Mai 1968 berechtigte die Alliierten außerdem, im Falle einer unmittelbaren Bedrohung ihrer Streitkräfte auch weiterhin eigene Überwachungsmaßnahmen durchzuführen. Es war der Bluff des Jahres 1968. Truppenstatut, Verwaltungsvereinbarung und geheime Note überdauerten auch die Wiedervereinigung, sie gelten bis zum heutigen Tage weiter.

    Was heißt das für uns heute?

    Vieles deutet darauf hin, dass es sogar noch viel schlimmer geworden ist. Die Vernetzung zwischen den Diensten ist enger, die technischen und finanziellen Möglichkeiten wurden immer gewaltiger. Gemessen an dem Umfang der Überwachung, haben wir heute nach Ansicht der Geheimdienste offenbar eine x-mal größere Bedrohungslage als zu Zeiten des Kalten Krieges.

    Welche Grenzen hat ein westalliierter Geheimdienst wie die NSA in Deutschland?

    Im Prinzip keine. Die NSA darf in Deutschland alles machen. Nicht nur aufgrund der Rechtslage, sondern vor allem aufgrund der intensiven Zusammenarbeit der Dienste, die schließlich immer gewollt war und in welchen Ausmaßen auch immer politisch hingenommen wurde.


    #Allemagne #RFA #États_Unis #Royaume_Uni
    #Germany #GFR #USA #UK
    #Deutschland #BRD #Vereinigtes_Königreich #Großbritannien

    #deutsch #allemand #german