Ben Goldacre has published the "missing chapter" from his excellent book Bad Science on his BadScience blog (Matthias Rath - steal this chapter).  He was unable to include it in the book because Rath mounted a legal action against Goldacre and The Guardian.  Thankfully Rath lost, and the truth can be told.  And it's appalling.

Goldacre's published this chapter under a Creative Commons licence.

As we move further into 2009, and with no sign that Phorm's vile deep packet inspection technology will be introduced by British Telecom, one wonders if Phorm may be having cash flow worries.  Phorm appeared to have entered a new PR offensive, and have held a new "Town Hall Meeting" to spread their misinformation.

As usual, the BBC report (Phorm eyes launch after hard year) doesn't really challenge Phorm's claims over anonymity, and gives Kent Ertegrul a hugely useful opportunity to give more media puffery for his company (which don't forget is a rebranded spyware outfit known as 121media).

Among all the hullaballoo surrounding the nefarious activities of Google Streets, The Register has the answer: (El Reg Street View snappers caught on camera):

The Open Rights Group reports (Data retention endangers democracy):

European legislation that came into force today requires internet service providers to retain details of user's emails, net phone calls and other web traffic. This requirement, imposed on all all EU states, is a serious erosion of our fundamental human right to privacy. 

Brand Republic give space to the IPA's legal director Marina Palomba, who fails to comprehend the technical aspects of Phorm's intrusive deep packet inspection system for delivery of targeted advertising (IPA blasts privacy campaigners for anti-competitive threat to Phorm).  The article quotes her as saying:

The IPA's legal director, Marina Palomba, said that if the major companies were to take this action, it would be anti-competitive.

Not content with a blog, Team Grumpy have now set up a website.  Team Grumpy is the nom de plume of the two-up team time trial team featuring Grumpy Bob and "Grumpy" Art Vanderlay - the website will include reviews of Team Grumpy's events and of cycling equipment.

The Team Grumpy website can be found at http://teamgrumpy.org - the blog will continue operation.

Light Rain;  Temp: 8°C;  Wind: SW 9mph;  Hum: 95%;  Press: 1016mB;  Vis: Good
Stony '11.4'  F5u/10 course description

The BBC website rather gloomily predicted light showers this morning - rather fortunately after a brief shower just after 7am, the morning was fine, with some sunny spells, which was nice.  I warmed up by riding over to Stony Stratford.  At that time of day the traffic was pretty light, and it was quite pleasant, despite riding on the main MK grid roads.  I signed on as number 8 and had a quick spin up and down the opening mile or so of the course.  By the time I started, i was feeling a little chilly, so I was quite pleased to get started.  Unfortunately, the tough outward leg which climbs up through Beachampton to Nash was made a little harder still by a nagging headwind, and as I approached Beachampton I had a feeling of regret that I'd even started!  I was, however, motivated by the presence 1 minute behind me of the 2-up pairing of Leigh and Wayne - despite their being on road bikes rather than time trial bikes, I was concerned they might catch me.

On the climb to Nash I was finding that my rear wheel was spinning slightly on the damp tarmac when I  was making out of the saddle efforts.  This was a little worrying given the speed I was likely to be making on the return leg descent.  I always pass through Nash quite tired from the climbs and find it quite difficult to pick up the pace on the relatively level section to the turn, and today was no exception.  But once round the turn, I felt really much better, topping 40mph in 55x11 at times on the descents.  The final section between Beachampton and Stony was a little wind-assisted, which was rather nice, and I roared past the finish timekeeper in 28:22, which isn't a bad time for such a tough course at this point of the season.

As a child, I can remember my parents illustrating the lack of freedom within states such as the USSR by pointing out that the citizens of such countries were not accorded the freedom to move and travel at will within the borders.  Little did they (or I) know that such restrictions would be proposed by a UK Government. The new proposals are, of course, a consequence of the much pushed and overstated terrorist threat.  This time the measures are held within Contest 2 legislation, which The Guardian's Henry Porter has picked up on (Planning a day trip to the Isle of Wight?) :

 At what stage, I wonder, will those who say the loss of liberty isn't happening concede that it is? Maybe if they examine page 113 of the Contest 2 (pdf) counter-terrorism document, which Jason Lewis of the Mail on Sunday pointed out means that anyone boarding a ferry to the Isle of Wight, flying between British cities or travelling to Northern Ireland will have to provide their name, date of birth and address.

The Guardian reports on UK proposals for EU-wide vehicle surveillance (Big Brother is watching: surveillance box to track drivers is backed - dated 31/3/09, so presumably not an April Fool!):

The government is backing a project to install a "communication box" in new cars to track the whereabouts of drivers anywhere in Europe, the Guardian can reveal.

It appears that the James Randi Educational Foundation have had their YouTube account suspended - no reason is known. The JREF are an outstanding bulwark against the rise of paranormal and supernatural ideas in society, internationally.  The blog and forum at the JREF website make for excellent reading.  I cannot for the life of me see why this decision can have be made.  The JREF's mission, as quoted from their website:

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

This mission statement seems eminently reasonable to me.  You can write letters in protest, though I guess it would help if we knew why the JREF's account had been suspended.  Perhaps the JREF trod on too many toes -from what I've read, YouTube tend to react quickly to takedown requests, but can be persuaded to reverse their decision, as in the case of David Colquhoun's video work.

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Cn_gjevik 480x295]