Fingerprint File

A worried email about the Smoky Drinky Bar this morning served to concentrate my thoughts on matters of privacy therein. The author, who will remain nameless, expressed a concern that if video recordings of the bar should be made public, their identity might become known to Tobacco Control in their country, and they might well suffer unpleasant consequences. He (or perhaps she) wanted an assurance that in no circumstances would his/her face ever appear in a YouTube video of it.

And I feel able to give that assurance. I have so far recorded very little of the Smoky Drinky Bar, for use primarily in advertising it. And I have now decided that I will not record any more. And should, for some reason, I feel it necessary to record, I will only do so with the participants prior permission (which is what I have anyway done).

For I now think that for the purposes of the quite separate Smoky Drinky Blog, on which I keep YouTube videos, I will only be wanting to record and publish one-to-one interviews with people who are fully aware that this is happening. And I won’t be doing any one-to-one interviews in the Smoky Drinky Bar: I’ll almost certainly do them all on Skype, which is more suitable for the purpose.

However, while I won’t be recording the Smoky Drinky Bar, other participants are perfectly able to do so. And so I wish to place the same embargo on them: please do not record or publish any of the transactions inside the Smoky Drinky Bar. It should remain a place where people feel able to speak freely (although of course the NSA and GCHQ and KGB will probably have recordings of the entire proceedings to date, and into the foreseeable future).

Personally, I’m completely indifferent to whether anything happens to me here in the UK. Maybe one day I’ll be bundled into a van, and taken somewhere for hours of excruciating interrogation, prior to being put up against a wall and shot. But my view is that, at the age of nearly 70, I’ve pretty much lived my life already, and I have very little to lose. So I don’t really care what the fuckers do.

But other people may not have the same outlook, and their wishes for privacy need to be respected.

The matter of privacy goes further than recording and publishing videos. A lot of people use nicknames or handles, and then quite often reveal their true identities in spoken conversation. But if someone’s name is subsequently made public, this provides an even easier way to identify them and find them.

The same applies with addresses and occupations and other personal information.

So I would ask participants in the Smoky Drinky Bar to not ask too many questions of each other, and be understanding when some people show a certain reticence in answering certain kinds of questions.

And if some participants wish to keep their faces darkened or concealed, that also should be accepted.

I think that I personally will adopt the practice of always referring to people by whatever name they originally used for themselves, before they gave their real name. Thus although I believe I know the true name of Nisakiman, I will not use it. Same with Legiron and several others.

All this might seem a little bit cloak-and-dagger. But we all recognise, I hope, that we are living in extraordinary times, and that our enemies in Tobacco Control are a very, very nasty bunch of people indeed. They demonstrate this almost daily. If nothing else, they wish to control us. And controlling people may easily extend to imprisoning or murdering them.

These people have a lot to lose. At the moment they may well be in control (as they want to be), but one day I think they’re going to lose control. And when that happens, we are likely to find out just how nasty they are.

And here’s the Rolling Stones’ entirely apposite Fingerprint File. I’m not generally much of a fan of the later post-Brian-Jones Stones’ music. But this one is an exception.

 

P.S. It’s been pointed out to me that I have been myself guilty of several of the improprieties which I’m now condemning. In my defence, I can only plead that it has only been today that I have given these matters any serious thought. I rather suspect that I shall have to give it more thought in the future.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Fingerprint File

  1. garyk30 says:

    I would like to ask folks if they work in advertising.

    I need advice on how to present maths in a way that does not turn folks off or confuse them.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think quite a few math teachers would like the same advice.

    • Rhys says:

      I only worked in advertising for three weeks, Gary, but my specialty in writing and editing for half a century has been making the complicated comprehensible – tech stuff, ancient maths, medieval astrology, philosophy, how to fix your computer, and other stuff people consider a wee bit too arcane. I’m in and out of hospital again, but Frank can give you my e-mail if you want to chat.

  2. RdM says:

    Hmm, while thinking about Gary’s question…
    And applauding your concerns about privacy and peace of mind in security of same…

    I found it hard to get in to that Stones track…

    I really like this one, although the video quality is terrible…
    How we feel about your blog, the SmokyDrinkyBar, life in general… worth living!

    Cheers!!

  3. buckothemoose says:

    “please do not record or publish any of the transactions inside the Smoky Drinky Bar”

    Not a problem

    I always took great pains to keep my real identity a secret when I was blogging. There are a lot of random nutters out there and although the chances of one of them hunting you down because they don’t like your views (and being close enough to do so) are remote, I always though it was worth the extra effort to cover my ass.
    As I’m not blogging any more though, It doesn’t matter that much to me, as the things I do on social media with my real name, are not likely to attract much attention

  4. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    It seems possible but not probable that the very nasty TobCon dictators would target individual smokers through technical surveillance. The generous charitable souls of public health eugenics merely aim to guide and assist we wayward smokers, of which we should all be fully aware and grateful, after at least a decade benefiting from such good works.

    Their “beef” is not with smokers, it is against the behemoth of Big Tobacco. Increasing bans and rising taxation is proven to help smokers be healthier. Everyone knows that!

    TobCons will never need to violate the privacy of individual smokers, because we are not truly individuals, we are a target group for public health initiatives. Why invade individual privacy, with potential punishment, when a growing body of petty regulation is
    deployed against smokers essentially everywhere already, supported by huge numbers of empowered yet self appointed anti smoking vigilantes.

    • RdM says:

      Hey Mark, I really like your smart acerbic commentary there! ;=})

      • Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

        Ha thanks RdM. Unsure if my profound sarcasm came through – let us use the full force of the law against any ANTZ tobacco control fanatics, same as the extensive coercive regulations they have introduced over our freely chosen lifestyle decisions! 😑

        • RdM says:

          Unsure if my profound sarcasm came through
          Oh yes it did;- perhaps my response was unclear.

          – let us use the full force of the law against any ANTZ tobacco control fanatics, same as the extensive coercive regulations they have introduced over our freely chosen lifestyle decisions!

          Yes, I think (with background preparation) the Adverstising Standards Authoriity & the Commerce Commission could be invoked over the false claims in the negative advertising (for Quitline & NRT) on the medico porn plastered packets, the obvious lies therein.

          And further I think fraudulent claims and statements from TC expert advisors to Government should be criminalised, at least like perjury, especially in submissions to Select Committees. All TC claims should be subjected to independent review.

          Hopefully in time and with enough publicity a Royal Commission Inquiry might set up.

          In NZ not long ago a water filter company was convicted and fined heavily for claiming that tap water “could cause cancer, birth defects and miscarriages and was dangerous to people’s health”.

          I think the claims about ETS or “secondhand smoke” have created even more irrational fear and loathing and social division than that! … I’d like to see those people similarly convicted and fined or at the least stripped of any Government (taxpayer) funding!

          While it’s quite clear that ‘Big Pharma’ is funding the anti-tobacco lobby (cabal, cartel) and so at one remove it’s a corporate war for the nicotine market, at a deeper remove there’s the whole totalitarian ideology riding on the back of it, whether originating in a communistic influence campaign, or a global elite technocratic eugenic society push.

          &or etc. (brain-fade, must go finish cooking dinner! ;=})

    • beobrigitte says:

      TobCons will never need to violate the privacy of individual smokers, because we are not truly individuals, we are a target group for public health initiatives.
      Mark, I have seen some individual anti-smokers (I do suspect they have self-esteem/confidence issues) getting carried away.

      Their “beef” is not with smokers, it is against the behemoth of Big Tobacco. Increasing bans and rising taxation is proven to help smokers be healthier. Everyone knows that!
      Young smokers are generally very healthy. And the old ones cost the state money and we are being told, they live longer nowadays. That’s why pension age has increased sharply.
      Therefore, the baby-boomers, born and raised when smoking also boomed, live longer?

  5. Emily says:

    I will definitely promise not make any recordings of appear.in – I hadn’t figured out yet how to do a screen recording with sound anyway. If I want to interview anyone for the Smoking Section I will make an appointment with them on Skype. I’ll stop taking screenshots as well.

  6. dear frank, sorry to admit been using a computer now for almost ten years now,and i still dont know how to record a conversation if i even wanted to.and i dont have a camera thingie to make video calls either. actually i prefer it that way.and i fully agree tc is a very nasty bunch.they are not principaled in any way.
    Also, i have noticed people are being told smoking is way down percentage wise. dont believe it for a moment,as i see it people simply lie and say whatever the would-be kontrollers want to hear and do as they wish anyhow. i have always conceded that it is a matter of fate as to when or even if i someday might contract cancer.there is no absolute proof of causation. also i talk to nisakiman from time to time. he is a very nice person, as are you.as always your humble freind raymond t. barfoot

  7. garyk30 says:

    I seriously doubt thatTC is paying any attention to the smoky drinky bar.

    Consider, there are about 10 million smokers in the U.K. and perhaps 10 are regular visitors to the bar.

    That is one in a million and hardly worth worrying about.

    There is considerable room for visitor ship growth.

    • smokingscot says:

      There’s a guy in NZ and a woman in Australia who stated on their Linked in profile that they monitor pro smoking blogs.

      That’s gospel and I have reason to believe there’s one in the UK as well.

      These are the paid up flunkies. Then there are the “trolls” and I have a deep suspicion of individuals like that health nut from Germany we had a few years back.

      They may not give two hoots about most of us, but they sure do go to great lengths to try to track down bloggers.

      http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=Frank_Davis

      http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=Dick_Puddlecote

      (feel free to use their search facility to look at what they say about many people they’ve profiled).

      Bear in mind they describe us as “pro-smoking bloggers” and can easily allocate funds to monitor us because we are the enemy (to them).

      Myself, well at some point I will get me a computer that’s got a camera and I’ll be quite comfortable with the handle I use and am known by when popping in for a blather, Though mine’ll be a good strong mug of coffee.

  8. garyk30 says:

    In case anyone is curious, 99.9999% of the smokers in the U.K. have not visited the smokey drinky bar.

    As said, there is a lot of room for visitor growth.

  9. Lisboeta says:

    This really set me back on my heels. Has smoking/drinking/chatting become an activity to be conducted pseudonymously nowadays? Thinking on it some more, I can see a few reasons for not getting caught smoking: SO, family, friends, colleagues, who either are not aware, or think you’ve given up? Or perhaps the continuing indulgence getting inadvertently leaked to health providers? (Incidentally, my doctor and dentist no longer give me the spiel about giving up smoking: at my age, I’m entitled to please myself!) Perhaps the risk factor is the chatting, when a few choice comments might be directed against the expletive-Controllers?

    Anyway, I’m off to pick up my week’s supply of cigs from the local tobacconist. Up to now, although the packs here carry the Awful Warnings, they do still have the brand livery and are in plain view on shelves.

    • Rose says:

      I think it’s a sign of the deep distrust we have in authority now.
      As law abiding, respectable members of the community who understood the rules, we never expected to have our lives so dreadfully altered in so many devious, unfair and vindictive ways for such a trivial thing as smoking cigarettes.

      I still can’t quite believe it happened.

      .

    • beobrigitte says:

      This really set me back on my heels. Has smoking/drinking/chatting become an activity to be conducted pseudonymously nowadays? Thinking on it some more, I can see a few reasons for not getting caught smoking: SO, family, friends, colleagues, who either are not aware, or think you’ve given up? Or perhaps the continuing indulgence getting inadvertently leaked to health providers?
      I don’t think friends, family, colleagues matter. I see it a bit like facebook which every potential employer checks (and can see!), even though your profile is set to private. I understand that Frank’s place can only harbour a set amount of guests and therefore once that number is reached, the doors will be closed to non-members.

      Tobacco control and nasty strikes are nothing new, so I do understand people who do not wish their identity revealed.

      I think it’s a sign of the deep distrust we have in authority now.
      As law abiding, respectable members of the community who understood the rules, we never expected to have our lives so dreadfully altered in so many devious, unfair and vindictive ways for such a trivial thing as smoking cigarettes.

      Good point, Rose. The public was not asked if it wanted a smoking ban. Authority WE vote for does what the lobbyists tell it to do. We may as well vote for a lobby group.

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        Smoking bans have historically never been a public mandate. Recall the history of the imposition of smoking bans in California. In 1994 California Proposition 188 sought to ban smoking but was overwhelmingly rejected by voters. the NO vote was 6,004,876 (70.7%) and the YES vote was 2,490,156 (29.3%). https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_188,_Ban_on_Smoking_in_Public_(1994)

        After that loss, the tobacco control cult deemphasized referenda and prioritized bans based on alleged health risks that are imposed with minimal public input.

  10. Clicky says:

  11. beobrigitte says:

    All this might seem a little bit cloak-and-dagger. But we all recognise, I hope, that we are living in extraordinary times, and that our enemies in Tobacco Control are a very, very nasty bunch of people indeed. They demonstrate this almost daily. If nothing else, they wish to control us.
    And we have to be aware that in some countries anti-smokers give a good impression of how what a self esteem malnourished person can come up with when they feel they finally have a say.
    I have kept a list of what one anti-smoker posted (under a pseudonym, of course!) a few years back in “Rauchernews”. And the threats made.

    I won’t be recording in the bar, either. Screenshot has been deleted.

  12. beobrigitte says:

    Apollyion, Frank, so sorry!!! My phone battery gave in, had 1% left and had to curb my relaxing evening at the bar!

  13. Pingback: Silence | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s