November 8th, 2009
Image via Wikipedia
Another sign that intelligence and an education are becoming a liability in our society.
A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.
Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.
But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
He said: “This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average. (Source-ananova.com)
In a job that at times requires the ability to make reasoned and informed decisions on matters of life and death, do we really want only those of average intelligence?
Society | 
4 Comments »
January 4th, 2009
If that last post doesn’t make you wonder if George Orwell only erred in the year he selected for his title, read on…
THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.
The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.
The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.
Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.
Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned.
A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he “believes” that it is “proportionate” and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime — defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years. (Source-The Times Online)
If any of my readers would like advice on securing your computer and/or home network against unwanted intrusion or wiping your hard drive to military specifications, let me know in the comments. Without knowing what resources the governemt currently employ I can’t guarantee absolute security, but I’m willing to bet too many of you are making it far too easy for the government to snoop on your personal computer.
Any trace of even deleted porn, warez or pirated music and movies can be detected by means available to anyone, let alone the government. Even if you think you have nothing to hide, even if you seriously think this will help the police nab criminals or terrorists, you should still be concerned over the rapid loss of our rights to privacy. Soon they’ll be asking, nicely I’m sure, that everyone wear transponding devices (”we can make it look just like fashion jewellery!”) so that the government can know where you are and what you’re doing 24/7. What better way to make sure those rotten criminals and terrorists don’t bother you anymore.
Government, International, Society | 13 Comments »
March 17th, 2008
Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain’s most senior police forensics expert.Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.’If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,’ said Pugh. ‘You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won’t. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.’
Pugh admitted that the deeply controversial suggestion raised issues of parental consent, potential stigmatisation and the role of teachers in identifying future offenders, but said society needed an open, mature discussion on how best to tackle crime before it took place. There are currently 4.5 million genetic samples on the UK database – the largest in Europe – but police believe more are required to reduce crime further. ‘The number of unsolved crimes says we are not sampling enough of the right people,’ Pugh told The Observer. However, he said the notion of universal sampling – everyone being forced to give their genetic samples to the database – is currently prohibited by cost and logistics.
A recent report from the think-tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) called for children to be targeted between the ages of five and 12 with cognitive behavioural therapy, parenting programmes and intensive support. Prevention should start young, it said, because prolific offenders typically began offending between the ages of 10 and 13. Julia Margo, author of the report, entitled ‘Make me a Criminal’, said: ‘You can carry out a risk factor analysis where you look at the characteristics of an individual child aged five to seven and identify risk factors that make it more likely that they would become an offender.’ However, she said that placing young children on a database risked stigmatising them by identifying them in a ‘negative’ way.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, denounced any plan to target youngsters. ‘Whichever bright spark at Acpo thought this one up should go back to the business of policing or the pastime of science fiction novels,’ she said. ‘The British public is highly respectful of the police and open even to eccentric debate, but playing politics with our innocent kids is a step too far.’
Last week it emerged that the number of 10 to 18-year-olds placed on the DNA database after being arrested will have reached around 1.5 million this time next year. Since 2004 police have had the power to take DNA samples from anyone over the age of 10 who is arrested, regardless of whether they are later charged, convicted, or found to be innocent. (Source)
One has to wonder if children who refuse to believe in gods or otherwise think for themselves will be suspect.
Government, In the News, International, Laws | 1 Comment »
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ffddfe92-3f5a-4d23-813a-d25b52d261ec)
Feedback