Jason Lewis Watch... part 94

Well, it's Sunday and, as predicted, the Daily Mail has published yet another story on its RSS feed by Jason Lewis telling us how our privacy is under threat. This is getting predictable. In fact, clicking on Mr Lewis' name shows a long series of sometimes scantily supported stories. 'A spokesman' could be anyone (or no one), for example.

Yes, the idea of Big Brother expanding its reach into the lives of innocent people is something that needs checking, but I keep thinking maybe it would be a good idea to extend my reach into the Daily Mail by calling and asking to speak to Mr Lewis, just to make sure he's real. If he exists, I have a few questions...

The suspense...

Well it's Saturday afternoon. The Grand National has been run, and the football played. However, there's still one thrill left. What will be the scaremongering national security story posted to the Daily Mail's RSS feed later tonight by by Jason Lewis? I can't wait!

Daily Mail in story burial shocker... part 2

You have to laugh. The Mail has again posted a curiously fact-free scare story about the state apparently watching us all. However, once again, it pulled it from its feed just hours later.

The last time I noticed them doing this, it was a Sunday and the story had exactly 29 comments - just like this one. Coincidence can be a right swine, can't it? I can't wait for the next one to happen!

Daily Mail in story burial shocker

Here's an interesting thing if you're a bit bored. The Daily Mail's web site reported on Sunday that the bright green Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras installed by the Highways Agency to monitor journey times have been linked into "a police database", according to an unnamed Agency official.

However, the Highways Agency page detailing its camera types claims that "The data is anonymised and transmitted to the [National Traffic Control Centre] at least every 5 minutes. Once this has been matched to a record from an adjacent camera or a defined period has lapsed the data is deleted. The only information being retained being the average journey time for that section at that time. No one has access to the full number plate data." So, it's anonymous and used only for the purposes of measuring traffic flow. Am I the only one to think that something doesn't add up here?

However, at the time of writing, this story hasn't been reported anywhere else that I can find, and has been removed from the Daily Mail's RSS feed. But if, as the Mail reported, "Thousands of CCTV cameras across the country have also been converted to read numberplates – as have mobile cameras. Police helicopters can spot plates from the air and officers have live access to London’s Congestion Charge cameras," then there's a major scandal brewing here. It's a huge worry for the vast majority of us law-abiding people to be spied on wholesale, and 29 predictably indignant Mail readers have already left comments on the story.

So, is this story, by Jason Lewis, mere speculation? After all, it contains little hard factual content. Who was this official who seems to have spilt the beans, for instance? What would the Association of Chief Police Officers be doing with $32 million of "government cash" for the project? Is the newspaper simply stirring the pot or is the Highways Agency saying one thing while allowing its ANPL cameras to secretly be used for something quite different?

I think we should be told.

Sticking in the boot...

The Daily Mail: it just can't allow anyone their moment in the sun, can it? There always has to be a nasty, pointless little dig. Take the story about Rachel Riley, about to take over from Carol Vorderman on Countdown.

The main online headline is "Rachel Riley's Countdown to 'the coolest maths job in the world'. It's a feel good story of what can happen if you work hard and do your best, have a great personality and are universally liked. But look at the sidebar on the right of the page and there's different slant on the story:

"Countdown girl says it's the coolest job in the world... not surprising when you're getting £100k and still living with your parents. Rachel Riley is just 22."

So what if she's getting £100k for doing sums on telly. That's her job. So what if she's 22 and living at home? Those are her circumstances. Why is the Daily Mail trying to get its readership to think less of her remarkable achievement? Go to a newsagent on any given day. You'll discover that this is the Daily Mail's job. It's a nasty, selfish, mean-minded job.