246 posts • joined Tuesday 15th June 2010 12:19 GMT
Blame Intel & MS
Pretty sure the reason why netbooks have screens below 1024x600 and 1GB of memory is due to the OS and processor pricing discounts given to systems using Intel Atom CPU's and Windows XP/Vista netbook pricing (a discount given to prevent the early Linux netbooks getting market share).
Re: v4 IPs
Finally a reason to move to ipv6...
I guess they could keep blocking ipv6 addresses, but it would take a while to run out of free ones.
Re: It's the thin end of the wedge. And don't be surprised where that wedge is going to end up.
The next step is getting to decide what the "Orphan Works" are, the defacto ownership and use basically going to Google due to its pre-existing electronic copies and distribution mechanisms.
Some mechanism where Google don't have to pay fines, but just set aside a small amount of money in case the missing owner "reappears", and a opt-in , check for my books and mark as "don't use" or "Pay me a pittance" mechanism complete the journey.
So, headquartered in the US? Just bcc all your emails firstname.lastname@example.org
Mountain View, CA, United States of America
LinkedIn Corporation, Headquarters
And so vulnerable to secret court orders from the secret court forcing them to grab all emails using their app, regardless of what they might say or currently intend.
But they are independently audited right?
iSEC Partners - San Francisco
123 Mission Street
Tel: +1 (0) 415 268-9300
Maybe a use for one of these ..
Bonus points for some kind of head/ear targeting device.
I'll just point out that you can't actually use the Octopus card to pay for taxis in HK.
People have been asking for it for years, and they did run a trial , but it wasn't popular with the drivers , and I imagine it cut into tips quite a bit.
So don't get into a taxi thinking the money on your Octopus card will pay for the trip!
eat an ham sandwich?
it's an hamster?
go to an hospital?
Most 'h' words do not use the "an" form.
You only use "an" if the 'h' is silent so that the word starts with a vowel sound.
The general rule is, if the word starts with a vowel *sound* (not necessarily a vowel) , it uses 'an' instead of 'a'
So you can use an for all 'h' words if you pronounce them with a French accent!
But in English there are a limited number of words with a silent 'h'
An honest man
but a University (sound is yew , not un)
Re: And still
Some kind of cross between Invasion of the Bodysnatchers and Excalibur?
Re: Lovely Low Quality
At home I also plug into the wall, with a network cable that provides me with whatever digital data I need via the internet (including "Digital Radio"). I hear you can get something called "Wifi" as well, that removes the need for the cable to the wall.
Availability of DAB is a non-issue for me when in a home with an internet connection. When I want radio to work is when I move around.
This is where the disadvantages of DAB are a problem, and it has many compared to FM radios,
cost, weight, complexity, power consumption,multiplex handover.
I don't support a radio standard that works in situations when I don't need radio, and doesn't in situations where I do!
Didn't they have a fix for apps appearing on start in previous versions?
I seem to recall, something like "add to start menu/desktop" in the installer....
But all the "old" win8 installers will obviously not have it, assuming this is now something you can (again) do.
Re: One thing the FSF seems to be overlooking...
How often are security updates released for any open source project?
Almost every month.
Buffer overruns, cryptography flaws, bugs in new functionality.
Maybe some of those "bugs" are back doors being inserted deliberately. They don't have to last long, just has to be one in every release, so whether or not you upgrade they can get you.
Maybe that one guy one the project isn't "one guy". It's a team of NSA programmers working out how to put a plausible bug in this months security update while fixing last months crop of "bugs".
And if you spot the bug, they are only too happy to fix it. After they spend weeks swearing up and down that it isn't their code, and asking you to provide exhaustive debug traces etc. Like almost every programmer.
A zero day doesn't have to last for ever, just long enough for the next zero day to "turn up" (be inserted).
Re: "helium ... compress it to the point at which it is heavier than air"
Rigid airships are essentially just a load of weather balloons stuffed into a vaguely aerodynamic frame. The outside "skin" is just to stop things blowing around etc. It doesn't hold in gas, that is stored in interior "cells".
So having air vents etc isnt really a problem.
It's not like this is a new concept
Just thinner with more storage
Archos tablets have had hdd's in them for ages. I haven't seen them being hugely popular however.
Worked for the iPod though.
"His intent was clear"
"Once the election was called, the number of people who told me they would get someone else to vote for me.. [was shocking]"
Sounds like he was surprised how many people would vote for a right wing loony like himself really.
There is a major difference between a small amount of electoral fraud committed by a few individuals, and the large scale electoral fraud enabled by electronic voting machines.
Given the compulsory voting, I would be very hesitant to pursue that course. The is a real possibility that disgruntled hackers who get pissed off with now having to vote (new ID checks) and having to vote for one of these assholes (no more spoiled votes) will go out of their way to ruin your elections. And then play the justified civil disobedience card if caught.
Interesting that when faced with a situation where a large number of people are a) getting people to vote for them without formal proxies (as they don't allow those) and b) spoiling their vote due to forced voting and a lack of a formal "none of the above" option, his response is to try to stop the informal proxy voting (instead of making it much easier and official) and force valid votes (instead of adding a "none of the above" box).
Voodoo vs Voodoo
The polygraph is just the same as a magicians trick, or a seance etc. Various props and acting are used to condition the subject to believe that lying will be detected, so that when they do lie, their stress levels will go up as a result of the tension build up. Conditioning your society to believe in them as well helps to start the whole process.
Then of course all the "Beat the lie detector" tricks work exactly the same way, the "Magic feather" effect.
Because you believe that doing this "trick" enables you to lie undetected, you don't get stressed when lying.
The actual trick itself doesn't matter at all, it just allows you to sidestep the conditioning.
Teaching more that one "trick" adds confidence as the subject can suppress their doubts in the efficacy of their feather by trying a different technique if the "Polygraph technician's" performance starts to overpower their belief in the "feather".
Unfortunate that the Federal agencies have taken the wrong stance with this, by imprisoning someone who says they can let you pass the test, they have verified the "feather" must work in the minds of future customers.
Re: Who Exactly is Freaking Out About This?
I'm not sure what country you live in.
From my POV, GCHQ, my own countries spy agency, knows that almost every COTS encryption used by the British Government, its commercial industries , and by influential people from every walk of life (including MPs) is worthless when used against the NSA (and anyone else who has discovered those back doors via leaks or investigation).
In the meantime, the NSA watches on as the GCHQ develop the capability to hack large US providers.
And then what?
Teams of Americans in the US spying wholesale on everyone of interest in the UK. If they spot any illegal activities by a pleb they flag that up to GCHQ who then go get a warrant (if they still need those). If what they spot is commercially sensitive or potential blackmail material on someone of importance, then they pass that onto the Department of Commerce, or squirrel it away for later use. After all, you never know when you might need a bit more leverage on a British MP (or PM) .
And of course, lets have the GCHQ perform a similar role for the NSA, except that the GCHQ capability is much more limited and apparently not yet completed. And I'm guessing some quiet words have been had with people in positions of actual power in the US about what not to use. I'm not sure we can say the same about British MPs etc.
Maybe the NSA revealed this on the proviso that GCHQ wouldn't tell anyone about it , but "promised" not to spy on any non-terrorists in the UK. And if the US gives you a dollar and a promise, well, at least you got a dollar.
In summary, these spy agencies are colluding with each other to spy indirectly on their own citizens, and don't give a shit about the implications of this for their own citizens security. And as the relationship appears to be a lot more weighted towards the US, it's the UK that is getting screwed over the most.
Next time we go to war with someone at the US's behest, ask yourself if that decision was influenced by some private bit of embarrassing data somewhere that would make sure someone would never be elected again if it came out.
And of course you don't have to take the step of blackmailing people in most cases. If you feel someone might not be suitable in a certain position, and would likely go public to reveal the blackmail rather than roll over, then just leak the info anyway , to the press or their party/company. Then watch them vanish, leaving the way open for someone more palatable.
My E-gate experience in Heathrow is
There are normally three E-gates
At any one time two of them are working.
There is one staff member who has to tell people how to use the gate moving up and down between the two.
There is one staff member on a manual desk behind the E-gates for when they fail to pass someone (a good percentage of the time).
The gate generally takes longer than a manual pass and stamp job.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to improved speed or staffing efficiency.
Wonder what inter-cloud provider bandwidth
would be required to transfer your 100's of TB's of data to another provider, should your existing cloud provider fail to live up to their SLAs. Or raise their prices. Or put in place a bulk data transfer cost...
What happens if you can't pay your bills due to cash flow issues, and your cloud provider flushes your data down the digital plughole?
What if a court case freezes your assets, and all the evidence is in "the cloud". Who pays the cloud provider to keep the evidence while the court case runs?
Or in a less severe case, a court order tells you to keep all the data from a certain time due to patent litigation, do you have to pull that back locally, and where are you storing that? If the cloud is storing legally required documents for you , do they have all the logging and audit and so on for that, and does your SLA cover you for legal fines and such imposed if your cloud provider e.g. loses all your tax records for the last 6 years.
"Sorry about the huge fine Mr. CEO, but at least you don't have to pay us for last months cloud services"
Then there is the danger of social engineering against your cloud provider to get access to your "stuff". Happens with DNS registrars all the time, so why are cloud vendors going to be any different?
Once they have your cloud, even for a short time, easy enough to copy all data of interest to *their* cloud on the same provider and then offload it at leisure. Or delete, deface etc. Potentially even move you to the "Backups, we don't need no stinkin' backups" plan, and then where are you?
And if hackers can't delete your data off the cloud totally, can you? Any NDA's, IP agreements etc. that you aren't meeting because your provider automatically backs stuff up for X days/weeks/months, and once its in the backup system its there until it rolls off the end (and is it gone even then?). Assuming storing this NDA/IP data on the cloud doesn't violate the agreement to start with ofc.
Looks like a huge morass of legal and regulatory issues that must make negotiating a comprehensive cloud storage agreement a total nightmare.
Re: A human body with "long fingers"
I was more concerned about the apparent development of a gene that codes for the wearing of blue trousers.
Maybe funded by Levi's and cancelled when it wasn't specific enough?
Yeah, feel free to just skip over that sort of moral argument Matt, its does seem that morals, along with politeness and any form of self examination are not your forte.
How is it "Wrong" . I did explain that to you, in minute detail. But basically, if lots of people complain that it is wrong, then , normally, it's wrong. When the people who framed the law say its use was wrong, then, normally, it was wrong.
And you know what happens if you abuse these things too much? They get removed or toned down, and then you lose the ability to use the law for what it was intended for in the first place. Kind of a lose-lose all round.
Unfortunately true that just because I want something to happen it's not necessarily the case that it will.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean I am going to stop complaining about this sort of shit, or stuff will certainly never get changed.
Multiple MPs have queried the legality of the use of this Law, Keith Vaz, David Davis, Nick Clegg, Yvette Cooper to name a few. They are from all 3 main parties.
The fact is however that the choice of targets is obviously a suppressing effect , misusing laws against people already unpopular with the government is normally a sure fire win politically, unless popular complaint makes it a big enough issue, or people in the government fear the law will be abused against them.
Also the default position for an MP is the party line. In this case, Labour voted in the law, and don't want to look too dumb for putting it in place, and the Tories abused the law, so their position is "it's fine".
The Lib Dems are putting in a bill to limit schedule 7 powers however.
You appear to have ignored the fact that my argument has consistently been that they should have used appropriate laws, like the OSA, but chose not too because those don't allow for forced questioning.
It appears to be the main point of this stop in the first place as they a) didn't arrest him b) Weren't somehow magically going to get the only copy of the secret documents in existence off of him.
You assertion that I think they (Miranda/Greenwald/Poitras) are in the right and have done nothing wrong: Well to some extent - they haven't even been charged with anything (yet), never mind convicted , so on the face of it why would you say they have Matt?
Has the little judge and jury inside of you already decided the sentence?
What will you do if they never get charged, or get proven innocent?
Has your position now moved to acknowledge that things can be "wrong" without being technically illegal?
What about the spying on the embassies, UN and stuff Matt? Illegal under international law and treaty, but of course it's fine because they are spies, and everyone is doing it. Would you say that's Illegal but not "Wrong"?
Or are you only concerned with criminals below a certain defined level of power?
So about that OSA,
Which sections do you think apply to David?
Sections 1-4 apply only to government employees/contractors and people who have been told they are subject to the act.
Section 5 applies to everyone providing the following is not true
(4)A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above in respect of information or a document or other article which has come into his possession as a result of having been disclosed—
(a)as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) above by a government contractor; or
(b)as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(iii) above,
unless that disclosure was by a British citizen or took place in the United Kingdom, in any of the Channel Islands or in the Isle of Man or a colony.
So, unless David has dual nationality or handed over documents in the UK or associated crown territory, section 5 does not apply, he isn't an employee of the Guardian and is only handing documents over to Greenwald or Poitras, so the publication of the documents isn't directly connected to him.
Section 6 applies to people in general "disclosing" documents without authority , for damaging purposes.
Assuming that David was intending to disclose those documents to Greenwald for "Damaging purposes", you might have a case if they hadn't taken all these documents off of him before letting him go. There is no "Intent" or "plans to" wording, so the fact he would have would not come into it. This would also negate any use of section 5.
Section 7 deals with forcing people to return documents when ordered to do so, and giving away official government passwords and such that would allow unauthorized access to secret data.
Ok, so maybe he admitted to previously muling documents of this nature (i.e specifically covered by the UK OSA ), in which case, they could have arrested him (but didn't). Might have a hard time making that stick if your questioning isn't subject to Miranda rights and intended only for anti-terrorism however, and all you have to go on is his confession. If they actually had evidence of previous applicable document muling, then arrest would have been the obvious choice surely?
I can imagine that the government does want to change the OSA to include words like "intends" and "plans" however, they have stated their intention to tighten up the OSA. It might even move into the digital age.
With regards to the "Lawyer Attendance issue" you show exactly part of one document, (maybe two if you include a solicitors register from 8 years ago). You could of course take a full look at the letter in question http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/759779/miranda-protocol-letter.txt for those of you watching at home.
None of those indicate that David was allowed a lawyer of his choice. The fact that one turned up would be hard to ignore once the diplomatic and legal thumbscrews come on.
Also, crucially, Schedule 8 doesn't allow for a lawyer, unless they take you to a police station or a place designated for questioning for section 41 (not schedule 7). Presumably because this law was intended for questions to be asked near the departure gates without people insisting on lawyers for a 5 minute question and answer session.
But lets assume your assertion is correct and ,despite the actual wording of schedule 8, David asked for his lawyer straight away and was allowed it, and Greenwald was just lying about being told to not bother.
So, in this situation, someone as well connected as he is can't get a lawyer there for 8 out of 9 hours of the questioning, and the maximum is 9 hours, and according to you this is only to be expected on a Sunday, with the Airport being so far away etc.
During which he has to answer questions (on apparently any subject) or be arrested for non-cooperation. So, that sounds like a well written law with good built-in legal protections, right? OK, even if you were at a police station, access to a lawyer can be delayed anyway upon someone of sufficient rank giving one of a list of reasons, the only requirement for which is that reason be recorded, but still allows the "must answer" questioning.
This law is just a terrible bit of legislation. Either people should be able to request a lawyer, after which questioning stops (but so does the 9 hour timer until the lawyer arrives), or they should not have to be compelled to answer questions. Sure people can insist on a lawyer as they wait for their flight if they wish, but then they will miss it, so the vast majority of people won't do that.
I'm also a bit hazy on how threatening a few months in prison is going to be much of a deterrent to a dedicated terrorist who just has to lie or clam up for a few hours to successfully pull off his (presumably) imminent attack.
Still , it is apparently fruitless to point out how badly written and subject to abuse a law is to you Matt.
From your point of view, the more badly written and broadly applicable a law is, the better it is for the police, so that's ok! The ability to stop anyone, for no reason , and then interrogate them on any subject without a lawyer present (unless you graciously allow the fastest of lawyers to attend the closing moments), and threaten them with prison unless they "co-operate" is a police officers wet dream. Well. that's probably a little tame for a police officers wet dream, I suspect it would also include the ability to beat answers out of suspects and then shoot them on the spot if they looked guilty.
You seemed to have overlooked the point about how laws get changed when abused even when the use of them is technically "Legal" but obviously wrong. Although even the technical "legality" of the questioning is pretty suspect here, it's going to be hard to show that what with the no lawyers allowed.
Let me know when you find an actual argument.
You should read up on the stop Matt before putting forth your made up version of events?
He was offered a lawyer of their providing.
He wasn't allowed his own lawyer, or to contact anyone else himself.
A member of the team detaining him who refused to give his name told Greenwald he was in custody, after 3 hours, and said he wasn't allowed a lawyer
Lawyers sent to the airport anyway were not allowed to contact him for 5 hours and got to see him one hour before he was freed (probably only then due to diplomatic pressure). In the meantime he had been questioned for 8 hours.
If the government actually uses the OSA against them, then good for them, that's what the act is for.
I'm guessing however they plan to put a case together against Greenwald or the Guardian et al for publishing the documents. That would actually give them access to legal options like extradition and the like (maybe, depends on the treaties). I am all for using law appropriately, what I don't want is laws being abused for purposes outside what they are intended for as this abuse , if allowed to stand , drastically broadens the effective scope of a law well beyond it's original framers.
If they had stopped David under the OSA. and demanded the return or destruction of documents in his possession that were covered by the official secrets act, as allowed by section 6, and then invoked RIPA to ask him to provide the plain text or decrypt his files if he claimed he didn't have any, then I would actually have had no problem with it. Of course this wouldn't have allowed 9 hours of forced questioning etc. and would have involved taking him to a police station, lawyers and so on.
I don't believe there would be a case to put him in prison under the OSA so long as he complied with that request. So I think it is unlikely that the case they are preparing is against him directly. Also, it's a lot easier to arrest someone when they are in your country rather than wait until he has left and try to extradite him.
I have to break your bubble Matt, but unlike you I don't have some huge emotional dedication to Assange or Greenwald. I personally find Assange to be quite distasteful. If you could point me at another source for these interesting revelations about how the NSA and so on are spying on everyone however, then you would probably be detained at an airport for 9 hours....
Again, comparing the content of our posts Matt, I'm pretty sure who comes across as the more immature.
Re: Notice one thing
And yet somehow that company that no one can get the real number of, and is withheld, and in a foreign country, that company still gets charged the 10p/min.
Amazing how a little profit motive makes everything work whereas when its consumer protection that will actually eat into your profits, its an "impossible" problem to solve.
I propose we all have a number that charges you 10p a minute when you ring it, but you are able to register certain phone numbers that will only get charged normal rates, and in addition you can put in a special code after a call has finished for that call to be charged at normal rates as well.
Sucks for payphone users, but nothing is perfect.
Re: Mandatory Access Control
And MAC itself.
Then it looks like they gave up , as it was apparently cheaper to buy a sharepoint license and use a wiki than implement a custom system that actually implemented MAC. Never mind the fact that in any computer system, unless you want to risk total data loss from a lock out, failure or loss of personnel , there are back doors. The best you can normally do is restrict these to physical access only , with physical observation and audited logging of any access,if you are super paranoid. Of course this become near impossible once you start storing datacenters worth of stuff. This also assumes that you trust the guys who set up the secure system in the first place. and doesn't cover you for bugs in the programs.
Or alternatively you can give your top level access to people from a third party company and allow them the ability to do anything remotely with no real local oversight. I guess it was (again) cheaper.
Still, at the basic level, I imagine almost everyone working at the NSA (or for the NSA) knew about the scope of data collection, which would be apparent from the data itself. Documents like the PRISM overview, the cables taps, the GCHQ connection, would be basic orientation material for most analysts so they would know what the possible information sources were.
Re: 256 socket Xeon
"I wonder if the IBM P795 also runs Linux in partitions of up to 16 cpus, and no larger? Wouldn't surprise me."
A look at the redbook ( http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp4640.pdf ) for the P795 says:
Scale to 256 cores/1024 threads - for the RedHat 6.3 and SLES 11 installations
Not sure what the RH 5.8 and SLES 10 go up to, they are only 2-way SMT capable , so that is going to cut down your threads by 2 for starters .
You just keep on missing the point.
You are just unable to process the idea that laws are intended for one thing, and being used for other purposes is wrong, even if "Legal".
The racism point? That is entirely applicable. All the section 6 and 44 stops were "Legal" in the strict sense. The fact that bias was being applied or the stops (in the case of camera toting tourists or kids trying to film parades) totally ridiculous didnt make them "illegal". Instead, the laws got changed or removed, oversight got put in place. Why? Because although technically legal, using them that way was acknowledged as wrong.
What is the mechanism for that Matt? It is mealymouthed shiny happy people like you insisting it's all fine and we should just shut up?
Or is it cynical , concerned and critical responses of "That isn't right" by people getting the law changed instead.
"Zero doubt" that a highly tenuous chain of reasoning that could just as well apply to engineers, architects , many scientists, makes someone a target for anti-terrorism laws. And of course most if the liberal press in general if they dare to challenge any anti-terror operations. Hey, look, you can now just recursively stop anyone who reported negatively on this case, for interfering with an anti-terror operation.
"Zero doubt" does unfortunately describe your attitude towards anything the police do, or in fact anything that disagrees with your hard wired beliefs.
Having a police (or MI5) provided lawyer isn't the same as independent legal advice, either, in this case, he refused the lawyer because why would you trust a lawyer provided by someone who is clearly prepared for you specifically. You think the lawyer would have given him independent legal advice and told him to only answer questions about terrorism? I think your naivety is showing.
The official secrets act is a law I agree. Pity they didn't use it but of course, it doesn't allow you to question people under threat of imprisonment, instead you have to arrest people, take them to a police station , allow them phone calls, that kind of thing.
And as for being proven repeatedly wrong, I don't think so. I imagine if anyone else was bothering to follow this thread they also would not be on the side of the Lol'ing, Baahing, authoritarian prat. Your attempts to belittle me just make you look small Matt.
And as for getting the law repealed, thanks for the encouragement. I do actually carefully consider the platforms (and individual voting records it applicable) of the candidates, rather than voting for any one party in particular by habit. Hopefully one of them will actually keep their principles once in power, but so far the outlook does seem poor. Still, even without a majority it appears change can happen , section 44 got repealed for instance.
Also odd that you consider "us" to be the 0.099%, yet refer to "us" as the sheep. Whoever "us" are, presumably the "rebels" you mentioned earlier.
You are the one going along with the party line, Matt, you are also the one making the sheep noises, and claim you represent the views of most people.
Take a good hard look at yourself Matt. Notice the wool over your eyes.
Re: Judybleats Judybleats Judysays Judysays Judysays Justicesays Justicesays
The stop wasn't magically "Random". You get that?
So they knew full well who he was, and that he wasn't a terrorist. Nor was he visiting a terrorist or married to one.
So just straight up abuse. Schedule 7 also limits questioning to things that are , essentially, about whether or not you are a terrorist. Pretty easy to establish that given they knew exactly who he was and what he was doing passing through Britain, as well as where he had been recently. So really a great case for keeping him 9 hours just to make sure he isn't a terrorist.
Greenwald isn't a terrorist either, and your assertion that as he might have documents of interest to terrorist somehow makes him a terrorist? Also crap.
There are plenty of laws to stop and catch actual criminals Matt, and that what they are to be used for.
People giving a sneering wink an "oh, look , its all fine, its just a "Random" stop and he *could* be a terrorist." are the worst kind of apologists.
As for your "Legal Experts", well the people who wrote the law think its a bad use. And so do a bunch of other people. Saying "its all legal, honest" isn't going to shut people up Matt, it just going to make them determined to get the law changed or removed, as its clear to pretty much everyone (apart from you and the people abusing the law) that using it was wrong. Especially when you have to use that "but we can randomly stop anyone for no reason" phrase along with that "its legal" statement just to rub in the fact that , yes, you really didn't randomly stop him , and , no, you really didn't give a shit if he was a terrorist, you just wanted an excuse to question someone in a heavy handed way, without legal protections, and the ability to threaten prison time if he didn't co-operate.
Re: Judybleats Judysays Judysays Judysays Justicesays Justicesays
I think you'll find you are the one flailing about looking for reasons to justify the actions of the police in pretty much all these circumstances.
You appear to be the one with the complete blindness to the facts, and how these things are applied in the real world. Any evidence presented is some kind of lefty conspiracy , and only the strong can be righteous , right?
Give it up Matt, you are completely unable to accept facts, or that your arguments are in fact, total bullshit.
And your amazing accusations of me moving the goalposts always seem to follow a post where you shift the focus to somewhere else yourself, so self delusional as well. Plenty of evidence, plenty of ongoing actions, plenty of reports. I mean you could just google yourself for "uk police racism".
I guess you then immediately dismiss anything you find there as clearly made up right?
Doesn't fit in the your little shiny happy world view, so it all just made up by that "lefty conspiracy of Z-list rebels. "
I could have gone on to produce numerous additional example, the chief officer of the MPS saying they are institutionally racist and always would be. The Metropolitan Black Police association says "Met still institutionally racist". And that's just for the MPS after you narrowed down your focus to just them.
However, this was just a throwaway comment I made that you seized upon and somehow thought that attacking its validity would justify your authoritarian world view. I'm not the one who started this series of attacks, it was you Matt. You couldn't let it stand that someone somewhere might think that holiest of holies, the Police, could be anything other than perfect.
And of course anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is a "rebel" . I suppose you believe we should all be rounded up and put in camps for insisting on little things like independent oversight, well defined and well written laws, applied without bias, that sort of thing.
Amazing how the "rebels" seem to have all the reports, media outlets and even a number of the politicians, whereas "the Man" seems to have, erm, frothy mouthed morons like you.
Its a real plus for the police where their friends are apparently foul mouthed, abrasive, shortsighted internet trolling prats like you Matt. Really makes them seem like the reasonable people you insist they are.
You claim I shifted focus to the controls? My point was this, Shiny happy morons like you think everything is fine, and ignore any evidence to the contrary, and point at the people implementing the controls as part of a lefty conspiracy. Given this attitude, I assume you think there should be no controls, as everything is happy and shiny and fine all the time. Thus allowing all this shit to happen a lot more , and with no one doing anything about it until , yeah, you are in an "actual" rebels situation, with riots, martial law and all that shit . That is where unchecked bias and authoritarianism leads, to the break down of society and civil order.
I don't have an irrational hatred of "the Man" Matt, as "the Man" doesn't exist.
I do have a healthy interest in the direction our society is going, and adjust my opinions appropriately, based on the evidence presented. I think a reasonable balance should be struck between liberty and safety. I also think that the will of the people should be obeyed by treating the law with respect, and not a tool to be abused at a whim.
You on the other hand have an opinion, and dismiss evidence and judge things based on that.
Your insistence that David Miranda is "involved in committing, preparing or instigating acts of terrorism".
Is total made up bullshit. That's what that law was put in place to be used for, and in this case it wasn't.
And not "accidentally" or "we just needed to check out that these encrypted documents aren't terrorist plans", deliberate, premeditated abuse of a law put in place for specific purposes, being used outside of that purpose. I have no doubt the UK government wanted to see what documents he might have on him and question him about his partners activities. They should have found an actual law that would allow them to do that. Or if unable to, then you know, act in a legal fashion and not bother him. Instead they decided that the "national interest" trumps the law and then make up some bullshit about how its all legal as a smokescreen. And that leads to the question, who is deciding what is "in the national interest" and what else might they think should be extralegally acted on. Because that , again, is where you start going once you start down this path.
Re: Judysays Judysays Judysays Justicesays Justicesays Jonathan Richards...
Again Matt, you are the one with the focus on a single (factual) statement I made a few dozen posts ago.
So now its a total shift back to the Miranda argument eh?
And how those laws are highly abusable and shouldn't exist because abusable laws have been shown to be abused, legality aside. Thus my offhand statement on abused and racially biased stop and search, both section 6 and section 44, which you seized upon like a rabid dog and ran off for what, 20 posts?
My arguments are coherent and grounded in facts, your arguments are frankly incoherent and give the impression of much mouth frothing.
You have a micro focus on how the police aren't provably biased (yes they are), and seem to think its all just a huge conspiracy to get down the hard working common copper (it isn't) run by some huge lefty conspiracy (it's not).
These controls and investigations are part of what keeps authoritarianism and unchecked bias from running rife within our essential organizations, something you dismiss as unnecessary as you appear to be starting from some premise where everything is perfect and your friends the police would never do anything wrong.
You don't know all the police Matt, and you don't run an organization that investigates and provides the checks and balances on them. Others do, and they have spoken, you just don't want to hear it.
As for David Miranda, putting laws in place for one explicit purpose and then using them for another is dishonest and cheats the voting public of their choice. It's Anti-democratic and frankly abuse against society as a whole. Laws like that should not exist, or people using them like that should be stopped and themselves held accountable. If the latter doesn't happen, then the former should be enforced.
Re: Judysays Judysays Justicesays Justicesays Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
I think you'll find you are the one who has moved the focus to just the MPS Matt, so if anyone is moving the goalposts, seems to be on your side.
I guess the fact the EHRC is concerned and has these open inquiries indicates everything is A-OK right Matt? It clearly would be better for all involved if we just let the police get on and do whatever they want.
Not obey the law or address their biases, but do whatever they want, right?
Are you in the streets calling for the end of the EHRC, I mean these PC meddlers are clearly why the crime rates are rocketing.
I think you'll find I said there was not a "Prevention of the free movement of Muggers act" Matt.
And that there is a big difference in applying an act for use against football hooligans only against football hooligans, vs applying an act that could apply to anyone only against (or not against ) muggers and street criminals.
Which was my point, totally over your head of course which must be as mentioned around waist height.
"The answer is because when they did they got smeared as being "racist" by PC numpties like you."
Did they, I'm struggling to find the evidence of that anywhere to be honest? You didn't seem to address my point that by your logic they could easily ban all the white street crims with no complaints.
And the retort that I can't counter your imaginary "police friends" unsubstantiated hearsay kind of ignores the points that I did counter it, and it's imaginary hearsay
Also, you appear to have switched to arguing with someone named Judy?
I guess I'm not the delusional one here. First Imaginary police friends, and then this Judy person.
Still, keep that head of rage stocked up Matt. Authoritarians love people like you , willing to overlook anything in the defence of those in charge, regardless of what they do or how they behave.
Re: Judysays Justicesays Justicesays Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
Glad you liked my bringing up parts of the report that back my argument.
Oh, you expected the IPCC to flat out say "Yeah, the police are racist" in their report?
Like that's going to happen.
Matt, I backed up my statements with independent evidence, your "My mate told me" doesn't come to the same standard, precisely because it's just your word on your mates word. "My mate who is a copper told me that yeah he's seen a lot of racist behaviour but doesn't report it because it seems like snitching". See how that works?
And the EHRC doesn't "Clear the MPS of racial bias". They report that measures already in effect are acting to reduce racial bias, more so that for those forces that don't have a separate oversight mechanism for stop and search. I'm also not saying that the only reason a police officer would stop a black person is because they are racist (Hi Strawman) . I'm saying, evidence based investigation has show that police forces throughout the county have been shown to use it in a racially biased fashion. That bias has to exhibit itself somewhere, so there are coppers somewhere on the beat that are allowing racism to affect who they stop and search. See how that reasoned argument proceeds directly from the evidence Matt?
As for ABSOs, a class of law usable against anyone, instead of a specific class of acts only for use against football hooligans not being used against criminals because criminals are black? Is that your argument ? Got any source for that other than "my mate who is a police officer"?
Firstly the main driver for reducing the number of ASBO's is that the government wants to get rid of them.
Also they cost £1500 per person to enforce and require a criminal level standard of evidence to get one.
I guess they at least managed to get ASBO's against all the white street crims though, that would reduce crime by 20% and no-one would complain, right?
Re: Justicesays Justicesays Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
>which says the PROCESS is not as good as it should be,
“This report shows that, though there are some examples of good practice, in general there is an unwillingness or inability to deal with these complaints robustly and effectively. Too often, complaints are dismissed without proper investigation or resolution, complainants are not properly engaged with, and lessons are not learnt.
“This in part reflects poor complaints handling in general. But, in relation to race complaints, it can exacerbate a negative experience if the racial element is not properly addressed. It can also mean that officers are not held to account, or do not learn from their actions.
“We know that there is less confidence both in policing and in the complaints system among BME communities. If the Metropolitan Police Service is serious about building that confidence, there will need to be a cultural change to complaints handling.
“Our recommendations are designed to support that change, building on the good practice and guidance that exists. This will help ensure, as the MPS Commissioner has promised, that there is indeed zero tolerance for racist behaviour in the MPS.”
Sure its all about the process. I.e. without a process to be followed strictly, the investigations are not being handled fairly in these cases. Wonder why that would be?
>Looks like you are desperately avoiding admitting the truth of what Paul Condon reported, that young >black males we responsible for 80% of muggings in London. For you, saying that fact is racist, because >your PCness means you simply have to shy away from it.
So, how is that proving or not proving that the police are acting in a racist fashion Matt? Given the reports have TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT and APPROVE OF EVIDENCE BASED POLICING. But keep parroting that over and over again why don't you. As it is the sole fact you are able to produce and isn't actually related to the case at hand.
And hey, lets move the target to just the MPS, They aren't as racist in stop and search as some other forces because they had to put in place an operation in 2006 to prevent their racism in stop and search... I.e process trumping racism. Same issue as with them having to put in place a complaints process.
As regards your Notting hill carnival hearsay , 1 million people are going to Notting Hill Carnival. And the environment is a lot more conducive to crime than a football stadium.
And lets conflate a set of laws specifically applied to football hooligans (Public order act 1986 and Football spectators act 1989) and then complain you can't stop random criminals going places under those acts. Man, imagine that 100% of Football hooliganism restriction laws were applied against football hooligans.
I wonder what the percentage is on the "Prevent free movement of muggers" law is. Wait, there isn't a law like that? Damn, there goes that argument.
Re: Justicesays Justicesays Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
Looks like the Police and the Equality and Human Rights Commission disagree with you Matt.
Oh, and the IPCC as well:
Stop and Search, now only half as Racist:
Metropolitan police - Still pretty racist:
You realize that your unsubstantiated statement don't really hold out very well against the actual evidence and reports?
Maybe you can write your own report "Police: Magical Justice Fairies who can do nothing wrong" and send that out
Nice work going down the list of Logical Fallacies as well.
I guess you have trouble seeing other peoples arguments with that huge ass in your face. At least I assume there is a huge ass in your face, what with your tongue being so far up the Police's rectum that you think you can speak for them.
Re: Justicesays Justicesays Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
As I said Matt, if you had bothered to actually read the linked article, your point about specific areas was covered, conclusion, still biased. Thanks for playing though.
Re: Pokki...? Seriously?
And what is keeping Microsoft from putting in a Full "classic mode"?
Nothing.. Except stubbornness.
And your argument kind of fails when they put down low shipment volumes on laptops to the lack of touch screens, so they clearly think that touch screen control is something people are just begging for, on their creative as well as consumptive devices.
There really is no telling what these people are thinking.
Touch screen is good in the case that you are holding the device in one or two hands, or something like a kiosk where touch screen allows you to quickly guide users to the correct information with easy to see and use prompts
Any other scenario, like desktops, laptops, TVs, you don't want a touch screen.
A touch screen will just add to your ergonomics issues while also dirtying up your screen and making things more expensive.
So putting a "touch screen based" UI on those kinds of devices is just a huge fail, and everyone can see it. It's an even bigger fail when you take into account that 1) Microsoft isn't really anywhere in touch screen devices 2) Its not like you can build an app for WinPhone, Windows RT and Win 8 simultaneously with minimal effort. Which just shows how much of a bodge job this "Strategy" actually is.
Re: Justicesays Justicesays Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
Wow, nice bit of selective blindness there Matt.
Finally gotten down to the ad-hominen , having exhausted the other avenues?
It nice and easy to call someone's viewpoint unfounded if you ignore the foundations, even through they are right there in front of you.
And an well founded opinion that the Police should not be given evidence-less , wide reaching and highly abusable powers is not a prejudice.
I didn't think that these powers were a good idea when they were first put in place, and I definitely don't think so now, after the abuse has happened.
Unfortunate that the Lib Dems have just vanished from public view, after all the "Protection of Freedom" talk they put about has clearly been quashed by the spymaster general.
Re: Justicesays Justicesays Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
You do seem to be making a lot of sheep noises Matt, should probably get that looked at.
I'm guessing you didn't actually bother to read the linked article? Your point is mentioned but as no evidence is being given of the need to stop people in a certain area, it is indicative of a bias, either in the street use of Section 60, or the issuing of Section 60 orders initially.
As to why the police bother to stop street crimes... probably something to do with job performance, white collar crime and burglaries take a lot more time and effort to solve and bring to court.
The fact is that these bad laws mask the biases of the officers involved, by giving them the opportunity to assert their own prejudices without having to report the real reasons and be subject to sanction.
They also offer the opportunity for Police officers to pull out these laws as the "Trump" card which allows them to punish you for doing something they don't like but isn't illegal.
Fact: The police are biased in their use of stop and search and have promised to "Work with the EHRC" to resolve that
Fact: These badly written laws are being abused by (some) of the police, to the extent that some of them got revoked by the European Court of Human Rights.
To enable the various options
It's so you can read in 100's of pages at a time and then collate 50 copies of them. Without the ability to store all the pages you would have to cycle around the physical input multiple times (which would not be feasible for bound books etc.) or use some huge collation robot.
Of course, disks are now pretty damn cheap, so I don't know if this is only older copiers, or if Xerox decided it was cheaper to ship an aggressive compression algorithm than a decent amount of storage.
Re: Pokki...? Seriously?
Well, I'm guessing because Pokki are paying Lenovo to ship this crapware, or providing some kind of profit sharing on the app store sales.
Re: The objective of course
Should get your ears checked out then
And if you think you can somehow avoid the prying eyes of "the Man" should they specifically target you,
then I direct you to this:
The police would probably just settle for indefinite detention for failing to decrypt.
Service update: Its taking longer than expected
To repatch all the network cables into the NSA approved switch.
Services back shortly.
The objective of course
Is not to avoid the target spying, as pointed out, between black bags, bugs etc. It going to be hard to avoid compromise.
However, everyone adopting this kind of methodology will mean they have to return to the specifically targeted spying. Regardless of the resources of the nation, when it takes 3-4 agents to spy on one person, you wont be spying on more than a small proportion.
Which will bring us back to the result where communication is generally private, unless they specifically target you.
As the law is supposed to provide in any case.
Re: What has it got to do with SOCA?
Re: Justicesays Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
From the article you quoted,
at worst 60% of street crime committed by young african-carribean males
From my article, 30 times more likely to be stopped
Stopping 30 times as many people from a certain group and searching them for knives and guns is going to be contributing somewhat to that increase in "Gun and knife crime" for that group as well.
Taking into account the relative populations vs crime proportion, I'm seeing that at most a justifiable 10 times more likely stop rate . For those stoppages that were a result of crimes in the area for which the police knew only the likely race of the perp, then 7 times more likely would be justified.
Other biases that would likely lower the stoppable percentage of white people are not taken into account here, and would only serve to make the disparity worse.
30 times indicates a bias is in operation somewhere.
And by somewhere, I mean the police officers head.
Also, my article was from last year as opposed to 2009 and I'm pretty sure the EHRC are capable of doing basic statistics as well.
Not that this matters to you Matt.
I mean the modern day policeman is allowed to do anything he likes, and use whatever laws he can twist to make that happen, because they are paragons of truth and justice.
If a policeman tells you (not) to do something , he shouldn't have to have a legal basis for that, his opinion is enough, right? And if you object to that (on the justifiable basis that this isn't a crime for instance) then they can just pull out some of these "well written" laws and declare you a potential terrorist , random stoppee (suspicious due to not doing what a policeman told him to do) or whatever. Notable in that they don't actually arrest you for whatever "law" they made up in their heads that they thought should exist. They just abuse these other laws instead.
And of course they are overseen by a government who feel that commonly agreed human rights are just too much trouble, so not much hope there.
Re: Justicesays Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
But you think they should be able to , right.
I mean the police can do whatever they like so long as they "pretend" to obey the law?
Not sure you know what those are
Not sure where your "facts" about it not being biased are.
Apart from your personal experience of being so suspicious you get stopped twice of course.
Not that the police need to suspect anything. Well, they didn't until section 44 got suspended after massive abuse , by the ECHR.
Even if only a minority of police are pricks who will abuse any law they get their hands on , so long as the police refuse to handle these cases in a satisfactory manner I am all for keeping broadly/badly written laws away from them as much as possible.
Re: Schultz A lot of frustrated officials
Section 5 of the UK Official secrets act applies to everyone.
Re: Jonathan Richards 1 Salts What if...
"The police can stop you under any pretence they like,"
Like the pretence of random checks when they are actually only stopping black guys?
Or the pretence of anti-Terrorism when they are actually bullying a guys partner as punishment for going against the Party?
Or the pretence of an open and democratic society when its actually a neo-facist state run by shadowy figures who appear to be nothing to do with the elected "representatives" ?
Yeah, we should be accepting of these Police "pretences". Nothing wrong there.
Re: Justicesays Schultz A lot of frustrated officials
"The crime in this case would be being in breach of the Official Secrets Act"
Odd that they didn't then arrest him under that act , give they had all these unencrypted secret government files he was couriering. Hell, they could have just arrested him under that straight away, instead of misusing Terror legislation.
Unfortunate that arresting people requires things like rights, and lawyers, and the possibility of involving judges or other people outside of the heavies they actually set to pressure him.
The only likely thing he was carrying would be raw or early footage of whatever the film maker Poitras has put together for her shortly to be released documentary on worldwide spying and so on.
The kind of film you would be dismissing as "tin foil hattery" a few months back no doubt.
Amazing how you can continue to have so much trust in your government as they keep showing that last years "tin foil hat" conspiracy theories fall way short of this years reality,
"And if Snowjob had been on the plane it would have been an even worse diplomatic insult, as well as in breach of international law. Grow up."
But he wasn't. Turns out if you act like heavy handed fascists , smug in your conviction you are in the right and it turns out you are not, you look like a bunch of heavy handed fascists that don't give a shit about diplomatic relations.
In this case, they "broke the rules" of diplomatic behaviour without any justification either prior or post the act, and they deserve to be shat upon thereby, so suck it up.
Treating those that interfere with the diplomatic processes (and those that support them doing so) with contempt is the least that can be expected.
Its this kind of shit that means the US has to have all these terrorist laws and so on.
"The information being leaked by Manning and Snowden is interfering in anti-terror investigations"
You mean, the NSA is spying on terrorists? Woah, say it isn't so.
You know what, I'm not big on the current trend of expanding the definition of terrorist to cover anything the government doesn't like. Like Iceland, or Journalists
Re: Schultz A lot of frustrated officials
That's the theory, and the US DOD and letter agencies did invent the concept of MAC.
But the evidence of the Manning and Snowden cases shows that MAC has by and large gone by the wayside, probably in the interests of speedy results, lower administrative overhead and use of contractors.
Otherwise how were they (especially Manning) able to download huge swathes of files which are patently not connected with their jobs.
Admittedly the Snowden case might be slightly different. He was a sysadmin and they are often treated as the almost invisible servants that make the rules happen, but in fact are exempt from the rules themselves in practical terms.
Re: Schultz A lot of frustrated officials
"Greenwald was silly to use his boyfriend as a courier"
Why the hell would he need to be used as a "Courier".
It has already been established that Greenwald et. al. have set up encryption regimes that would allow information to be sent over the internets, without risk of interception and imprisonment under the UK's "Tell us the encryption key or else" laws.
In addition, what use is it if they know what secret information someone might be carrying about the Snowden case
a) It's the Government's secret information, so they already know it
b) They know where Snowden is , so its not like they need this info to sniff him out.
They also have no problem breaking into Greenwalds place and stealing his stuff in Brazil anyway.
"Stopping the aircraft and requesting the passengers be checked was completely legal"
And not at all a severe and misjudged diplomatic insult along much the same intimidatory and "Legal" lines as this present case.
" only stopped him because they're homophobic too"
They stopped him because they had a watch order on him and decided to try to pump him for information about ongoing journalistic activities under laws specifically designed for terror cases that have very little built in protection because of the speed those cases can happen and the impact they can have.
If it turns out this use of the law was "Legal" then I guess that law will have to go, as it is clearly too widely defined and abusable.
But don't worry, the balance of probabilities is that someone will be given a golden parachute, made a scapegoat (only after they have copies any information etc. they want to) and it declared a "misjudgement" on that persons part. Then the government will issue a meaningless apology. Just so they can keep this law on the books without protest while continuing to abuse it.
Re: Of more interest....
Why are we waiting until August 2014?
Did you miss the bit where 20% of the Internet is vulnerable to an exploit published in January.
Availability of patches only helps if you actually patch. The morons who think it's fine to have an Internet facing XP box late next year will be the same morons not bothering to patch it now.
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Beijing leans on Microsoft to maintain Windows XP support
- Storagebod Oh no, RBS has gone titsup again... but is it JUST BAD LUCK?