Posts by Throatwobbler Mangrove

In the absence of pre-existing or genuine concern about ownership of the phone...

...this is the absolute epitome of a fishing expedition.

In the nicest possible way...

...this would have been a really interesting article if it had been written in partnership with, say, Pinsent Masons, who already provide content to El Reg via Out-Law and should have a clue about English law. For instance, when ray says:

"But while a network operator will be subject to national laws, a handset manufacturer will likely be located outside such a jurisdiction."

I don't believe that's much of a problem for the UK - e.g. Nokia has a significant presence in the UK and I wouldn't have thought executing a court order on a handset manufacturer within the jurisdiction would be much of a problem. But IANAL and neither is Ray, so we'll never know if this whole article is based on a false premise. That's where some qualified and relevant opinion would come in useful.

And similarly, it would be nice to read something from Out-Law that isn't just a regurgitated press releases about a recent prosecution with some irrelevant commentary - recently there was a US judicial decision which seemed unusual or highly technical and the lawyer's comment was about what might have happened in England - well, so what? How does that help us understand the US decision???

oh

that's sad. :(

well

"I'm surprised states like Yemen rely on US products of this sort, I can't imagine the US relying on a Yemen based company providing products for government projects."

Hmm, good point - the Yemeni ISPs could've easily sourced equivalent or better products from the large Yemeni ICT industry in Silicon Wadi. Oh, wait...

actually old chap

"There was a time, children, when milk came in bottles. When you had drunk the milk, rather than smashing the bottle at a bottle bank and it then being chucked into a hole in the ground because there's no market for broken glass, the bottle was returned to the dairy, who washed it and used it to put milk in. That was recycling."

At the risk of being pedantic, that wasn't recycling, it was re-using. I agree it would be nice to return to that state. Reduce, re-use, recycle, in order of preference.

i don't get it...

"Although removing references to Falun Gong might make the Global Internet Freedom Consortium more palatable to US Congress, any funding from the US State Department could backfire on an organisation that needs to appear transparent and neutral."

Which organisation is it that needs to appear transparent and neutral? Not the Falun Gong. And the State Dept already funds a whole ton of NGOs and not-for-profits, some of which are very sympathetic to the executive in the US and some of which aren't. Funding doesn't always determine policy, funnily enough.

burgers

"The *big* problem with the Government's ideas for the NIR, Passports and ID cards is that function creep beyond mere ID verification is not merely possible, but almost mandated."

I agree. Even if there is an initial promise that, for instance, fingerprint scans would only be used for passport/ID card purposes, I suspect that once the data is gathered the "Chinese Wall" would evaporate as soon as the first notorious/gruesome/attention-grabbing crime happens where a fingerprint is found but can't be matched except by accessing the IPS records. At that point, anyone that suggests that should be allowed will be immediately identified by the Sunny News of the Mirror as some sort of apologist for serial hoodie immigrant swan-eating murderers.

Governments and personal information are like students and lager. If you really don't want them to drink all your lager, the only safe thing to do is not give it to them to look after in the first place.

you have to remember...

...teh Internet is a public space...bitch!

mernon

"[Johnson] also breathed life into the idea of using the ID card as a drinking licence."

Oh, dear. Did he really use that word? I hope not. A "licence" is a permission to do something which you don't already have a right to do and which can be suspended by the person giving licence. Drinking alcohol is something that is unlawful only for a certain group of people (kids). For everyone else, it's a right (sometimes interpreted as an obligation...) that the state has no ability to suspend.

constitutional law question

could the Scottish Parliament pass a law which made police enforcement of British ID card requirements unlawful or make it illegal for businesses or local government to require British ID cards at any time?

My "friends" tell me...

...that it's surprisingly easy to blow several grand in a strip club - esp if the employees know you're drunk and they run amok with your credit card.

Meanwhile, this is a good thing for two reasons: firstly, Louisiana has always been an incredibly corrupt state (half the reason why Katrina's impact and aftereffects were so nightmarish) so the more investigation of dodgy deals and the more it is highlit that "no, as a matter of fact you can't give kickbacks", the better.

But also, smartarse lawyers abusing the discovery process is a real problem in litigation - either failing to hand over relevant material or "dumptruck disclosure"where you try to drown the relevant stuff in an ocean of dross - which is what seems to the case here. It perverts justice and racks up the costs for no purpose. I would recommend Charles Yabon's article "Stupid Lawyer Tricks: An Essay on Discovery Abuse" to anyone on this issue - it's both very funny and very accessible to anyone who's not a lawyer.

well

"I wonder why [the waste disposal] bit was never picked up by article on here ...."

Because there can be no disagreement that the waste disposal situation is a complete shitshow and it's (hopefully) not something that needs any debate?

hold on, hold on

"This sounds like a major backward step - if a rights holder has to keep taking legal action against each and every shipment of fake goods,"

Yes, but that presupposes that the goods are fake. If you are asking the State to seize and destroy the property of another person, you should have to go through a court. It's a check on the capriciousness of the (alleged) IP holders and on the customs boys. And if there's abuse of process by manufacturers to stop legal parallel imports, then that would be contempt of court - which the judiciary really don't like. It doesn't have to be that elaborate a process - I would imagine that most owners of seized goods don't dispute it...

Somewhere a Wesleyan professor is weeping

My good friend Steven says the grammar is fine. My good friends Steven and Jerry understand me perfectly. My good friend Steven appreciates my work. My good friend Steven says that the only film I have done that is better than my last film is my next film. Jerry says Steven is even more successful than Jerry and I are - and that's saying something considering how successful Jerry and I are.

Remembering the example set by our brothers across the Irish Sea...

"The trial starts in autumn 2009, which suddenly seems an awfully long time in politics... "

...is it long enough to spunk a lot of money on hardware, software and non-revokable contracts with inept (but Labour party-donating) suppliers and then cancel everything the week before it launches? Because that's how much time we're going to need...

yeah but...

"Trade mark law specialist Jude Tonner of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that if the case happened in the UK then the fact that one product was a 'tribute' to another would make no difference."

I realise there are lots of similarities between English law and Australian law, but discussing the case as if it were taking place in the UK just doesn't make sense.

"Since Arnott's doesn't sell in the US......then they need to STFU"

RTFA, mungbean - "Arnott's has written to Krispy Kreme's Australian arm, demanding that it withdraw the doughnut, but Krispy Kreme Australia chief executive John McGuigan said it will not back down." Krispy Kreme operates in Australia.

got it backwards

"But when you start using the term like "gay blogosphere", you're in danger of declaring "all this bit here is for <insert 'community' here> only"."

No, you buffoon, you're not. You're in danger of saying "all this bit here is about <subject x>, mostly".

A blog about gay issues and lifestyle is in the gay blogosphere. A blog written by a gay person about cheese is in the food blogosphere, like all of the other blogs about cheese (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=SSJ&q=%22the+food+blogosphere%22&btnG=Search&meta=). A blog about law is in the legal blogosphere (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22the+legal+blogosphere%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a )

It doesn't depend on the identity of the person writing the blog (no-one knows that blogger is a dog on the internet), it depends on the subject matter of the blog. Got it?

heh

Good on PETA for their sense of humour in playing the media game - and good on PSB for their good-natured response. I don't much care for their music, but it's nice to have smart/nice people still making pop music.

"hey, asshole"

"quotes the head numpty at the Passport Service as saying that chip and pin is "one way to help protect internet shoppers"."

I am sure I'm not the only one who feels that the Head Numpty should stick to his goddamn day job and stop coming up with bright ideas for protecting internet shoppers. It's not his job, none of the retailers have asked for his advice, so STFU and get back to doing what you're supposed to be doing.

I am very disappointed at the reaction here

You are all being incredibly short-sighted. If anything, this whole affair just reinforces the need for some of the government's security plans to be brought forward as soon as possible.

None of this would have happened if there had been a National ID card and proper use of biometrics. The grot-watcher would have simply swiped his ID card through the set-top box and provided a quick saliva sample, at which point the box would have been able to cross-reference his viewing privileges with National Pornography Access Register and provide him with a list of movies which are appropriate for a man of his age and interests. If he chose to watch a film, the set-top box would have billed his credit card and then uploaded a clearly marked "BONGO FILM - NOT RECLAIMABLE FROM EXPENSES" notification to his employer and tax office.

It's really quite simple, and there's no need for puerile schadenfreude whatsoever. Thank God the government has the vision to overcome the mental midget porn - I mean, mental midgets here.

double whoa!

"Whoa there buddy. polygraph are not admissible in a court of law in the US. The only people that can be forced to take a poly are CIA, NSA ,FBI, or any one else whose job deals with national security. Then the poly is used for pre-employment questioning, and then for internal investigations to see weather you want to fire the guy or proceed with criminal charges ."

Hello, AC@12.54 here. Actually, old chap, I didn't say they were admissible in court in the US - I said they were legal to use (which is not the case in other jurisdictions, as I understand it).

Also, I am afraid you are not correct when you say that only national security-related employees may be tested. In fact, some private employees can be polygraphed in pre-employment screening (security, drugs), and almost everyone else can be polygraphed in the event of economic loss. I have no idea what happens for state and federal employees.

If you're interested in this subject, you should get acquainted with the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 ( http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/eppa.htm ). (There are some state law differences to the federal EPPA law, but the basic regulatory framework is the same). This is a document with which I would have had a much closer relationship in a previous life as an investigator in the US ... if my employer had had any faith in or need for polygraphs in the first place...

Mine's the cloak with the dagger hidden in the lining.

yeah but

"FYI the "core values that all good Britons should hold dear" include the rights to "go about their lawful business without let or hindrance", yet this AC thinks that any rights he doesn't like should be eliminated or that anyone who tries to exercise them should be thrown out of his "pure lands"."

Well, that doesn't get us any further, does it? The operative word in your sentence is "lawful". This trial is about whether or not the writing business was lawful or not.

"You're a naughty, naughty boy", said Throatwobbler Mangrove, "and you're going to be punished for such circular arguments", as he took off his PVC coat and approached the poor, weeping poster...