Category: featured

Featured content

The Dangerous World of Gay Cures – Patrick Strudwick

1 Comment

Tonight, Europa Hotel played host to the annual Belfast Pride Amnesty International lecture, as part of Pride Week. I was at the event and, for those of you unlucky to miss it, I thought I’d take some notes and write up the meat of the discussion, and my two pennies on the issues raised. It’s also the first time in a while that I’ve thought back to my own difficult period, one I rarely talk about from when I was around 14 and 15, where I was involved briefly online with such a ‘cure’ support network.

Please note that, whilst I tried my best to note what was said, I cannot guarantee any of my quotes of Patrick are entirely verbatim. I hope, however, that I caught the gist of it!

A bit of background; Patrick Strudwick is an award-winning journalist, a significant amount of his accolades coming as a result of his exposé on psychotherapists. Amongst others, he has written for Gay Times, as well as the Guardian, Times, Independent and others. It was whilst working for the Independent that he published “The Ex-Gay Files: The Bizarre World of Gay-to-Straight Conversion” which is where this lecture basically takes off from. Thanks to his efforts, the British Medical Association condemned attempts by psychotherapists to change anyone’s sexual orientation, as well as raising flags that instances of NHS paying for these treatments on the taxpayer should be investigated.
His work centred around two “stings” on prominent psychotherapists Paul Miller and Lesley Pilkington, resulting in wide-spread criticism of these and similar psychotherapists, and has prompted conversations within government on whether “gay cure” therapy is valid, and whether it should be allowed at all. It has also seen him under some criticism for his role in so-called ‘entrapment’, and has even been accused by the Church of England, in their newsletter, of being a Nazi!

After a brief introduction, Patrick got right to it, describing how exactly this all came to be. It was a simple situation, he found out about a conference being held in London on the subject of reparative therapy, and talked with his editor about going along undercover to see what was said. He described being “astounded by the ‘hate’ on display”, noting with a little emotion how the sight of a young man being ‘treated’ in front of a live audience is not an experience he will ever forget. Having had some experience, once upon a time during my own troubled days as a young teen, with an email group called People Can Change, I can only imagine how that went, and sympathise with the young man. As Patrick noted himself, LGBT people are not “broken” or defective – the LGBT community has been through so much but is so strong and filled with such nice people, scarred sure, but so special.

He took it upon himself to dig a bit deeper, and asked one therapist, a Dr. Paul Miller, if the good doc could offer him some help with his own ‘same sex attraction’, as well as asking him about other therapists that might help (to which he was also pointed to Lesley Pilkington). Both separately agreed to treat him, and he began treatments in parallel, undercover. Lesley will come later, but Paul was who he talked about initially.

Dr Paul Miller is, by the way, Iris Robinson’s ‘lovely psychiatrist‘. With Paul living in Belfast and Patrick in London it was decided to do the sessions via Skype. Patrick describes the general process;

“They started what I call a “wound hunt”, a cause for the homosexuality. All the usual causes, was I bullied? Nope. Was I abused? No. I was lucky, I grew up in quite a liberal family, one quite modern on views on gender roles. Paul was a bit at a loss. Finally, Paul discovered my father was a physicist and since I am quite an artistic person, he decided that we didn’t bond properly because of the contrast with my Dad’s analytical approach to things, and as a result I had ‘sexualised’ the desire for the bonding.”

Miller described the attraction to men as cannibalistic – basically that “you have sex with a person who has something that you want”, in this case, male attributes, male affirmation and bonding. The idea is very common among the cure lobby (I can attest this was the case from my experience), but I would generally describe it now in my opinion as a pseudoscience. Interestingly, Patrick discussed that, during their sessions, Paul Miller admitted that he still masturbates over gay porn, despite assuring Patrick that he was himself cured using these methods. His other advice to Patrick was to get regular ‘male massages’, in an attempt to get ‘healthy’ male contact (I don’t quite understand how getting massages from a hot guy is somehow healthy male contact, as I wasn’t aware this was a common hetero-guy thing!), as well as being naked in front of a mirror, touching himself and affirming himself of his own masculinity. When done via Skype, it’s all a little creepy really.

It gets worse, after Patrick told him in a later session that his experiences with the mirror and masseuse were causing him to become aroused, he was told to “close your eyes and focus as I talk to you… ” whereupon Paul began to describe Patrick ‘s body, all the reasons it is attractive, as well as asking how Patrick feels about what he is saying. I mean, I get in context what Paul is doing fits with his idea of the treatment, but if it were some guy adding you on Skype, MSN or whatever and complimenting your body, talking about whether that gets you aroused…

Patrick lodges a complaint to the GMC; they commissioned a consultant psychiatrist who somehow concluded that conversion therapy is no better or worse than any form of therapy, as the evidence is just as good for it as other common therapies. Fortunately, Paul is now heavily sanctioned by his body – he how has to have a supervisor in all his sessions!

“Was I a difficult birth? I thought all births were!” – Patrick Strudwick

As I said, in parallel to Paul Miller, he was being seen, this time in person, by Lesley Pilkington; again, a wound hunt, was he bullied, abused, this time a bit more insidious; “I think it will be there,” she said. “It will likely be a family member” and that it will have been “repressed”. Very dangerous words from Lesley, reminiscent of stuff I’ve read about false memory syndrome. She prayed to God to ‘bring the memories to the surface’, as well as asking increasingly bizarre questions, any freemasonry in the family (apparently there is a correlation!!!), was he a difficult birth? (Patrick joked – ‘I thought all births were!’). Lesley instructed Patrick to pray every time he had a sexualised feeling about another man, again Patrick joked with the audience – “I don’t have time!” – which got some laughs.

Where the Lesley case got interesting was what I brushed on briefly earlier. She let it slip about her NHS connections, basically a means by which she got her patients to get referred to her by the NHS, thus leading to free treatment for them by her (oh yeah, I haven’t mentioned yet – they charge!). Regardless, after more complaints made, a hearing was scheduled and cancelled, citing apparent panel difficulties; apparently you can’t have people who are too religious nor “too pro-gay”. Patrick noted how silly this position was, comparing it to how if it was a race discussion you’d not try to avoid using people who were ‘too black’, in fact you’d definitely encourage them to be on such a panel!
The story was somehow leaked, despite anonymity involved, and claims were made of witness intimidation by parties close to Patrick. The Daily Mail reported on the “expert defence witness being intimidated”, despite the fact that in the proceedings, no witnesses had been lodged by the defence at all! Even during the ordeal, Lesley made claims that she could “still feel the need from [Patrick] to be cured”. Top tip – she lost, and was struck off from her professional body – her appeal failed this year!

Patrick commented on some of the other good changes on this front in the last while, such as Core Issues – in April Mike Davidson lost his professional standing after the radio show by William Crawley. In London, an advert series on buses was banned from showing their ex-gay posters. Adam Chambers – prominent in the organisation Exodus International – admitted recently that conversion therapy “doesn’t work in 99% of cases”. In fact, this resulted in a public spat on Facebook with Joseph Nicolosi, who stated words to the effect of “I never said I could cure someone; the attractions will persist in some manner for the remainder of their life”. A commonly cited researcher, Dr. Robert Spitzer (see? I was involved with these jokers!), apologises to the gay community for saying his research led people to believe same sex attraction was a condition to be cured, admitting that the work was flawed (which is clear from the get go, it was not initially peer-reviewed, and when it eventually got published, two-thirds of the reviews were critical of the paper). This makes it all the more ridiculous that organisations still cite his work! Bans and restrictions are happening for this kind of treatment these days – USA, Holland, age bans and health care coverage bans. Even the Omagh Council supporting marriage equality!

Patrick took some time to go onto the really dangerous world of gay cures, with such troubling practices as corrective rape, and religious exorcism. He highlighted that, whilst things are getting much better here, places like Malaysia have recently announced funding for curative methods of correction of SSA, with such statements as ‘curb this negative phenomenon’, or sending 50+ boys to gay cure camp to learn masculinity. In many cases, the choice is ‘jail or treatment’.
In South Africa, a 13-year-old girl was correctively raped for being out. Similarly in Jamaica – women who were repeatedly followed from village to village. This is absolutely abhorrent, and only made worse when a (of course male) US judge make stupid statements such as this, about allowing lesbians in the military – ‘giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream’. I mean, holy crazy-judges, Batman! That’s just mental!
How about at-home exorcism; kits and guides to how to ‘pray the gay away’?

So what keeps Patrick going? Meeting the victims, seeing the damage it has done, seeing self-harm scars, ‘psychological torture’ of those who have been through this. Powerful stuff.

His closing statement; We will never escape prejudice if the idea of choice still exists. That leaves us no better than a criminal who chooses to commit a crime.

The following is my notes on the Q&A session, again I tried my best to be accurate, paraphrasing but preserving what I can, and to see who asked, but I’m afraid I don’t know everyone who spoke!

William Crawley: “A freedom question – don’t they [the therapists] have the right to try, for those who aren’t happy being gay?”
Patrick Strudwick: “No, because it doesn’t work, and because it harms. It is right to help, but not with trying to turn them! For people struggling with accepting their orientation, you can work throught that issue, but not with the idea of a cure. If someone went to a doctor because they were black, saying they were unhappy being black and wanted skin bleaching treatments it would be clearly morally wrong to do so. They should follow the Hippocratic oath; and given that majority of those going through it are left psychologically worse off, it isn’t in the best interests of the patient. Conversion therapy breaks the entire process of good psychotherapy, as the therapist is imposing their values onto the patient. It’s worth noting that Joseph Nicolosi claims not to be religious but in fact is, and the majority, if not all, of this therapy is religious in nature.”

William Crawley:  “What effect has it had on you personally?”
Patrick Strudwick: “This isn’t about ‘me’, but I thought due to my liberal upbringing I would be impervious. But my enquiring nature means the ideas got in, and the messages started to ‘whir around his head’. Caught me off guard. I think to myself ‘Imagine the effect on someone extremely vulnerable?'”

William Crawley: “There are claims often made that this is entrapment?”
Patrick Strudwick: “No, don’t misunderstand. ‘To lure someone into doing something they wouldn’t otherwise do’ is entrapment. It was very clear that, for these therapists, this is what they WOULD always do. The GMC reports of 1 in 6 therapists on their books that have tried or considered trying some form of this therapy. Given that, their reluctance to pursue the case might be a matter of ‘if we axe this guy, where does it end?'”

John O’ Doherty: “Were you ever asked to give money?”
Patrick Strudwick: “They don’t do it for free, I had to pay for it. When I first ‘hooked up’ with Paul Miller, the cost was quoted as approximately £150 per hour. When I told him I was an aspiring psychology student, his rate became £30 per hour. It’s a business, less so in UK, but in the US, it is very much about money. Consider particularly the African states, often offering up “the gays” as a scapegoat results in a very attractive proposition for governments and communities.”

Theresa Cullen: “Although its important to talk about third-world cases, we can’t ignore that things like corrective rape are happening closer to home.”
Patrick Strudwick: “High sexualisation of lesbians has happened amongst straight men due largely to porn, where the girls are typically joined by a man later – it gives the notion that lesbians are just ‘waiting for a man to come along and cure them of it’. We should also note the supply-demand loop they create; they claim that gays are unhappy and need treatment, making gays unhappy due to the homophobia in society!”

Unknown: “It isn’t us that need the help here, so how do we shift the focus onto them needing help?”
Patrick Strudwick: “Pathologising them is perhaps unhelpful, the important thing is to keep a positive campaign, saying we aren’t broken, and that all hate is wrong.
William Crawley: “I find it is important to personalise the issue, it’s easy to be homophobic about an abstract concept, but once you have a gay child, friends etc., well we can see what the studies show.”

P.A. MagLochlainn: “Has any connection been shown to the Christian Institute, who have a lot of money, and peddle lies using leaflets and other means?”
Patrick Strudwick: “I don’t know, but there is irrefutable evidence that the American Christian right fund organisations in the UK, they have a fighting fund to fight cases like mine in Europe and internationally. Even some third world pastors have built careers on homophobic rhetoric, because they get the funding that way. Unfortunately, fear pays.”

Unknown: “I feel that, to do a lot of harm, you simply have to be a little intellectually dishonest. Causation vs Correlation [my words] is in a lot of their arguments, particularly about the ideas of experiences that are common to many gays.”
Patrick Strudwick: “Its a way of luring in as a clever trick; questions like “Did you ever feel abandoned?” Well, who hasn’t! “Overbearing mother, distant father?” Again, pick a random person on the street, and they’ll agree! In the same way, horoscopes, cold reading, even religion! If you need something enough, you will find it in what’s said. It’s general enough that something will always apply to everybody. Abuse has been shown to have no effect on sexuality, but admittedly in some cases on, say, your drive for sex. But not sexuality.”

Unknown: “Has any research been done on GPs to guage THEIR prejudices?”
Patrick Strudwick: “Well, I’m not aware, no. GPs tend to not be well trained in psychology issues. I would like to see GPs and even psychologists go through specific LGBT training. Rules need tightened – anyone can currently call themselves a therapist; you don’t have to belong to a body, and even then you can charge for it!”

Fidelma Carolan: “Where do you feel there is a link between legislation and cultural change; will banning the therapy actually stop it?”
Patrick Strudwick: “Well, California has passed this law against performing any such therapy on under-18s. It should not be necessary, psychotherapy should be regulated on this and many other issues, and that would eliminate a lot of the problem.”

Unknown: “What about the ex-gays who say not that you can change, but instead just say you can be abstinent?”
Patrick Strudwick: “As a non-religious person, the idea of abstinence is difficult for me to comprehend. Abstinence means going against your natural instincts. ‘Tolerance of homosexuals but not their practice’ is an awful concept as you are denying many of your own followers real love. It isn’t the role of a therapist to bring someone to such a decision, if someone came to you saying they were being abstinent and wanted to talk about it, sure, help them through the associated issues, but never to recommend it or say that you can help them do it!”
William Crawley: “They see gay is an identity, and say let’s not take on that identity. They say gay does not exist, in the same way as a rapist, you don’t take the identity of a rapist. They view it like an addiction, and say let’s address that. However, some theologians are beginning to come out as pro-gay. I appreciate the off-the-record tradition but it’s happening, even here in Northern Ireland. So don’t talk about sex, talk about love as that is understandable to people, to congregations. It’s easy to dismiss sex, not so easy to dismiss love!”

Unknown: [Recounts a personal story of his religious parents cutting him off upon learning he is due to get married, including discussions with parents around biblical passages] “Gay marriage is not about religion but about love.”
Patrick Strudwick: “Thanks for your story, this is a reminder that it isn’t all ok now, it isn’t easy and fun to be gay. A lot of people go through a hard time. Isn’t it ironic, we are talking about love, and yet many religions reject it! If your god is about love, then what’s the problem? I’m an atheist, but I can’t understand the point of worshipping a god that only accepts certain definitions of love. We must also hold the word gay, as William said, the organisations don’t like the power of that word as they reject the concept, they are terrified of it.”

Gareth Johnston: “It is like a see-saw, and as a tipping point, yes you can take away from the bad side of things, but how do you add to the good side? How do we reinforce the liberal people of faith to influence their churches?”
William Crawley: “Well for a start, and this isn’t a silly point; go to church. In the USA, the statistics show that the more liberal a church, the greater chance of it closing. People (an organisation called Soulforge) actually mobilised to move across the country to the vicinity of the most homophobic church in the USA (next to the Westboro Baptists, at least), and join, and basically infiltrate and change it from within. Even in Northern Ireland, many churches are becoming, off-the-record, much more accepting of gay people. Many priests and leaders have a vested interest in not being public on their true beliefs, and if only they did, they would change the society around it.”

 

With that, the session was over, and it was only left to Patrick to sum up his thoughts on his message:

“The more people hear it, the happier I am.” – Patrick Strudwick

 

In closing this write-up, I’d just like to say that I found the entire discussion very interesting, whilst being very familiar with a lot of what was said, from my experience and from media coverage. It was great to hear it directly from the man involved, and I think that he has done a huge service to the LGBT community as well as the psychology community – because in my mind, ditching such dead weight associates can only be a good thing for their organisations!

Peace, out!
Matt 

PS: If you liked this write-up, please share it on Facebook using the buttons below, and please consider liking the blog using the button to your right, which will give you feed notifications when any other articles are posted. Thanks!

I now officially have too many video games

No Comments
Star Ruler - The game in question, the cover grabbed me cos I'm a sucker for these kind of games!

I did something that finally made me realise I think I have too many games 😛 No “I told you so” please James!

So, I was in town, buying a present for my dad’s birthday, and also killing time because I had an appointment at Specsavers to go to. So, I call into Game, see if there are any bargains, and for the first time in a LONG time in Game, I look at their PC collection, paltry though it is. And I see an interesting looking space game – a soft spot of mine is space games in general.

The game in question, the cover grabbed me cos I'm a sucker

I barcode scan it with Google Goggles, to get reviews and price comparisons; no better online prices than £9.99 which is the Game price… and the reviews are average, 6 – 8 out of 10, so I decide to take a chance on it. I go home, and start playing Baldur’s Gate II again, without even opening it. “Aha!” you might be thinking. You might think that the fact I didn’t open the game immediately and try it as the sign I’m talking about. No. That is a bad sign 😛 but it isn’t what I’m talking about.

What I’m talking about is, the next morning when I go into uni, I have one of those weird brain moments where, for no reason, you think of something suddenly. And my sudden thought, “Hey, see that game I bought yesterday? Isn’t that one I bought on Steam a while back?”

Yup. Right there. There it is. “Star Ruler”

Aw crap. It was even installed, like I'd planned to give it a try sometime soon.
Aw crap. It was even installed, like I'd planned to give it a try sometime soon.

So, the good thing is I have the receipt, and haven’t broken the seal, so I can and will return it; I want my £10 back! However, it highlights a problem I’ve been having with Steam for a while now. I feel less like a gamer now, and more a game collector. Like stamps. Only for me it’s games, and the collector book is Steam. Take a look at this shit: http://steamcompanion.com/calculator/id/gyaku_zuki. 158 Steam games with a total value of $1746.43. Now, granted, most of my games were not at the price that calculator uses. Between free games, Indie Bundles, 75+% off deals on Steam, my real ‘spent’ total would be a lot less. But that is 158 games!!! And I assure you, a good half of those I have probably never played through!

I need to stop responding to these Steam sales 😛

Categories: featured games

Tags: , ,

Stupidest Cardinal in the world?

No Comments

Hoo boy. I’ve reached a threshold of sorts about these religious nutbags.

Cardinal Keith Michael Patrick O’Brien. You. Are. Not. Worthy. Of. RESPECT. And I will give you NONE. Deciding to take himself to the Sunday Telegraph to bash at gay marriage, this idiot basically trolled the entire country.

I’m working off the PinkNews articles on this issue, and I’m going to discuss his spewings in the order presented in those articles.

Cardinal O’Brien writes: “On the surface, the question of same-sex marriage may seem to be an innocuous one. Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing same-sex couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections. When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman. Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.”

If we’d asked for marriage then, would you have given it to us? So to be honest, if some gays WERE sneaky and did it the way you are trying to imply, good on them. It isn’t like you haven’t used any dirty tricks, or worse, to us LGBT people, no? But that aside, do you honestly think your “warning” that marriage would be demanded matters at all, that “scaremongering” matters? If equal marriage is the RIGHT thing to do, does any amount of scaremongering on either side make a difference? No, it does not. Your argument is invalid.

Moreover, to suggest that SOMEHOW civil partnerships are “harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved” is a profound and unbelievable ARROGANCE that I cannot believe you can even make. You, a dried-up, old, celibate, single priest somehow are telling me that my relationship is somehow harmful, not only spiritually (which was a totally expected statement from a priest) but both physically and mentally. Really? How exactly is my relationship at any more risk of either than a ‘straight’ relationship? I don’t mean offence, but many abusive or manipulative relationships occur in both straight and gay marriage. Shouldn’t you be against ALL relationships? Or is it ok when the relationships create some troubled or untroubled little children for your church to systematically neglect and abuse, sexually? Or did you forget that scandal in favour of a ‘blame the gays’ approach?

Mr O’Brien claims: “Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists. Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense. But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else? In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.”

Damn right. I don’t care. YES. It IS about redefining marriage. So what? Is your marriage so on-the-rocks that the slight ripple that gay marriage being legal will create will doom yours? And about fucking time that EQUALITY be taught in schools. For far too long, schools escape the rules that the rest of us have to abide by, able to turn a blind eye to bullying on grounds of LGBT, and in Northern Ireland, the ability to avoid equality legislation altogether.

Redefine society? Yep. How horrible that society will change for the better. How detestable that society will become more equal. You see, it isn’t about the LEGAL rights. It’s about how it sounds. Straight people get MARRIED, gay people get PARTNERED. How degrading. We’re second-class, with nothing like the respect that is given to the relationship between a man and a woman. If you can’t see that, well the priesthood must not really care for IQ much, does it?

Words get redefined all the time, and just because something has been around a long time does not protect it from being wrong and incorrect. And while we’re on the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, please, quote the full Article, please:

  1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
It does NOT say man + woman. It says men and women, plural, and it praises the family, not a defined parental unit of man + woman. Nothing I hate more than someone intentionally misquoting.

Mr O’Brien writes: “Their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right. There is no doubt that, as a society, we have become blasé about the importance of marriage as a stabilising influence and less inclined to prize it as a worthwhile institution. It has been damaged and undermined over the course of a generation, yet marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father.”

What an old-fashioned fool. Did you emerge from the 12th Century? Marriage is about producing children? What about whether people are suitable parents? What about infertile couples, should we nullify their marriages now?

“This brings us to the one perspective which seems to be completely lost or ignored: the point of view of the child. All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be. Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.”

No, all children deserve to begin with a family that loves them, whatever that family is. Don’t use lies and bullshit studies to try to say that only man + woman can raise well-adjusted children, that viewpoint has long-since been refuted. I mean, have you even used Google? ^_^

Mr O’Brien also appears to suggest that gay marriage may lead to three way marriages: “Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?”

Absolutely. If three people love each other and pledge their fidelity to each other, you honestly think that preventing them from marrying is going to stop them? I’m not advocating for polygamy, but it probably already happens. But for now, that’s for another day. Saying that somehow allowing gay marriage will instantly allow all sorts of other stuff is scaremongering. Fucking hell, look at the fight we’ve had for gay marriage – just imagine having another decades-long fight for polygamy!!!

He also claims that schools will become forced to stock “homosexual fairy stories” in their libraries.

This sounds fantastic. But seriously, what exactly is a ‘homosexual’ fairy story? I don’t know about you, but the biggest fairy story I know, the Bible, is all over the place. Personally, I prefer a story with a happy ending, thanks 😀

He also compares gay marriage to legalising slavery. “No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage. Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that ‘no one will be forced to keep a slave.’ Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?”

Keeping a slave = demeaning a person to the extent that, unpaid, you have them serve your every whim. If you keep a slave, you are a terrible, terrible human being. How exactly is allowing gay people to marry in any way equal to ordering another person around, with no hope of freedom? I mean, what a lie. It’s total FUD.

 

It’s people like this that get me angry at religion. You wonder why there are so many people without faith, when you are so out of touch and nausea-inducing?  As my friend Adam said, it’s almost the perfect pro-gay strategy. I’m not sure we need to even say anything, as people like that just look like absolute fools to, I hope, the majority of logical-thinking people. Go back under your rock. Get out of my life, let me live equally and stop thrusting your religion, your sexuality, down my throat. Sound familiar?

Apple App Store – Walled garden, or pit of snakes; the security flaws

No Comments

Some might be familiar with the name Charlie Miller. He is a well-known software security expert, most known for his work with Apple products of late. His previous accomplishments include the hack of the Intel MacBook line smart batteries, which were all protected by the same two passwords and could be accessed by software (Good one Apple – create a situation where some internet script kid could disable my battery remotely…). This time around, he turned his eye to Apple’s prized feature – the App Store.

Whatever you think of the walled garden approach they adopt, there is no doubt that the App Store is a commercial success (for Apple – unfortunately for the devs, it’s mostly a gambling exercise where a few make millions, the rest lose their shirt). It works well for the consumer, as Apple personally go through each submitted app, making sure it meets the standard they expect. Apparently, that inspection is supposed to cover security. However, Charlie Miller has put a chink in that assertion, by releasing an app which is capable of receiving remote commands and putting those commands into effect on your device. What’s more important, is that this app, called InstaStock and designed as a simple stock ticker, got right through the fabled verification process without a hitch.

The roots of the flaw are based on how Apple enforce code-signing, and Apple’s desire to speed up the phone browser in competition with other devices. A technique used in all sorts of software and security, code-signing in basic terms relies on Apple wrapping the software with a code, and any software without this code is refused. That is similarly why you can’t just download some app straight onto your iPhone – it isn’t signed and therefore the phone won’t run it without a jailbreak. However, by manipulating the access given to javascript commands in the browser, and Apple’s addition of a special exception (allowing the browser to run unsigned code in an area of the memory) opened a hole. Whilst Apple had protected that exception with other methods, blocking untrusted websites from using it, Miller found a way around that:

“Apple runs all these checks to make sure only the browser can use the exception,” he says. “But in this one weird little corner case, it’s possible. And then you don’t have to worry about code-signing any more at all.”

Miller has already promised that he won’t reveal more detail about the bug until his talk next week in order to give Apple more time to fix the flaw, planning to discuss the flaw in detail at the SysCan conference in Taiwan next week.
Using the flaw, he got the aforementioned app placed into the store, and demonstrated that it could connect to a remote machine to download instruction and execute them at will. Functions such as photos, contacts, sound, vibration and other iOS functions are accessible, according to Forbes.

“Now you could have a program in the App Store like Angry Birds that can run new code on your phone that Apple never had a chance to check,” says Miller. “With this bug, you can’t be assured of anything you download from the App Store behaving nicely.”

Whilst many will point out that Android already has this kind of malicious application, Google do not purport to guarantee the safety of their Market – they encourage you to be vigilant, and use a permissions-check system to tell you exactly what services and functions a program requires. Apple, on the other hand, present a model where worries over safety can be ignored as they have checked everything and it all just works.

”Android has been like the Wild West,” says Miller. “And this bug basically reduces the security of iOS to that of Android.”

Worse, when the deception was all pointed out to Apple, instead of a response of “whoa, dude, thanks. We’ll get this patched right up. Cheers for the heads-up”, instead the app was pulled (no big deal obviously) and then Miller was struck from the developer programme – Miller announced the news on Twitter this afternoon, saying “OMG, Apple just kicked me out of the iOS Developer program. That’s so rude!” But as Apple notes in its letter to Miller (posted below), he violated sections 3.2 and 6.1 of Apple’s iOS Developer Program License Agreement (a separate agreement), which respectively cover interfering with Apple’s software and services, and hiding features from the company when submitting them.

“I don’t think they’ve ever done this to another researcher. Then again, no researcher has ever looked into the security of their App Store. And after this, I imagine no other ones ever will,” Miller said in an e-mail to CNET. “That is the really bad news from their decision.”

The real shame from all this is that Apple and their walled garden gives its users a totally false sense of security. Whilst, for both the App Store and Android Market (and any other app stores), 99% of apps will be genuine and safe, you can never be 100% sure. Users should be taking their own precautions, and should not be lulled into complacency. Apple’s insistence on an ‘it just works’ method results in expectation, expectation that when Apple assert that an app is safe (by publishing it on their store) it must be.
In computer terms, you’d call the Apple model gateway security – you secure the entrance, and therefore anything that gets inside must be safe. Unfortunately, that leaves one big, central point of failure. The gateway. And any knowledgeable computer user knows it isn’t just enough to use the firewall on your router – you need the antivirus and firewall protection on the PCs too.

And the final observation – if some nice, white-hat hacker finds a flaw and tells you about it for free, ‘thanks’ will do much better than a swift kicking. I know you have an image to maintain, Apple, and you can’t allow people to lose confidence in your garden, but at least give him some credit.

Vapourware – Like a Needle in a Haystack

No Comments

Vapourware describes a product, usually software, that has been announced by a developer during or before its development, if there is significant doubt whether the product will actually be released. It is software which at best is still in development, and at worst is no more than an interesting concept in the mind of someone at the organisation. Vapourware is sometimes announced with great fanfare as a spoiling tactic to hurt sales of a competitors already launched product.

Maybe you don’t know, but in many parts of the world the internet is not free. It is not open. Many countries have, or are considering, filtering the internet. The reason for this is always cited as “protecting the public” or even just “child porn” (‘Think of the Children!’ defence). Make no mistake; filtering the internet is a bad thing, and it is coming to a country near you – the USA, Australia and UK are both considering ‘net neutrality’ bills, and the continued tightening of digital rights (think the Digital Economy Act) pushes us one step closer to a constrained internet, an internet which is no longer the last true bastion of free speech.

…but this article isn’t about that. This article is a warning. Vapourware. The definition is above. So, Matt, why did you launch into a tirade against internet law? Well, because the people of the world have been had; specifically the people of Iran. I’m talking about ‘Haystack‘.

Haystack was a fantastic story. The myth – a young, bright, entrepreneurial and morally-guided man, Austin Heap, heard the suffering of the people of Iran, and developed an encrypted proxy network, one which would bypass the filtering imposed upon the innocent Iranian people.
The fact – no software officially released to date; the beta has leaked to many Iranians but is full of basic security holes. Despite much money donated to the project, it fails and in fact risks the security of millions of Iranians, both online but also from state police.

Austin Heap, the creator, was being lauded in the press, with absolutely no software credentials to back this up. He conjured false hope about a solution better than any currently available. He even claims that Haystack is better for privacy than the Tor onion network. He refused outside, open-source development, under the guise of preventing the Iranian authorities from breaking his system. However, when the executable finally found its way into the hands of some reputable software programmers, it was clear that the product was just not what it should have been (link is to Danny O’Brien’s twitter feed. He also wrote an article about Haystack here). Even their main developer resigned.

Austin Heap was quoted as saying:

“I hope we are ready to take on the next country. We will systematically take on each repressive country that censors its people. We have a list. Don’t piss off hackers who will have their way with you. A mischievous kid will show you how the Internet works.”

I think he fell victim to his own hype, and his own motto.

A lesson indeed in the dangers of getting wrapped up in an idea. I doubt that the Dragons from Dragon’s Den would have invested in his idea. An idea is NOT a product, not a result. Ideas are easy; the idea of creating a proxy system for repressed regimes is an easy idea. The reality is all the steps in between, the lives you are risking along the way, the code and its robustness. One error can spell doom, and it seems for Haystack, this might have happened.

So… Diaspora anyone? Yeah, this is still vapourware. Diaspora purports to be a better Facebook – fixing the much-maligned privacy concerns in Facebook, removing the trash, making it clean. You can host your own Diaspora network, with its own look and feel, but all the Diaspora networks can interact and share information in a controlled way. And, yet again, it was hyped to an insane degree, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding, for a mere idea.

Even at the time of announcing I was dubious. Now Facebook is everywhere, it is tightly integrated into so much of the web at the minute. Diaspora might now be a step backwards. Heck, Facebook might even be getting into the phone OS game now. But Diaspora has now released the first elements of its source code. It at least has one advantage over Haystack – it is open-source. Bugs and problems can be fixed by the internet swarm. But, so far, it has more problems than fixes.

Diaspora may still come out clean in the wash. Haystack, doubtful. The point is, don’t pay people for an idea. Or at least, if you are going to pay someone for an idea that won’t happen, pay me. But don’t get your hopes up on software that might never materialise. And, Austin Heap, don’t get up the hopes of an entire country, and don’t release to them insecure software that might end up getting them in severe trouble for using it.

Peace, out!

-Matt