12 posts • joined 4 Feb 2011
Re: Danger already present
Not really. Snowden is referring to journalists' treatment of the material. Greenwald is referring to (and rebutting) an allegation abouttthe government (namely that he is subject to a an agreement with the government that restricts his ability to report). Simple really.
I noticed that bit...
... What exactly does GCHQ do for the "economic wellbeing" of the UK? Does it actively steal IP and commercial secrets from foreign governments/companies? If so, how does it (lawfully) pass that on to domestic companies? (with difficulty!).
Does it protect private companies from foreign espionage?
Curious 's all
.... European Convention on Human Rights:
"Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
The relevant bit is: "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
So, in a sense, the internet is nowadays an extremely important method by which people can exercise their human right to expresseion (a.k.a. freedom of speech).
Presumably as a competent admin you would not allow end users (in a corporate environment) to install applications or - heaven forbid - refresh/reset by, for example, changing their permissions?
I have three (debit/credit) cards with wireless PayWave system but no pubs accept them and instead I have to wait for ages for pin to be entered and payment to be authorised.
Why don't pubs accept these quick payment methods!! GGrr
Ha ha ha ha!
Hilarious, new keyboard needed - or a cloth
"As a soldier you do what you are ordered to do." - ??
That defence didn't work so well for the Nazis post-WW2, did it? (lookup Nuremberg: " "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes"). Also hasn't worked for a number of genocidal maniacs since then...
Why the scepticism Amberhawk?
1. European institutions are the only ones ACTIVELY doing anything consumer/human-friendly about data protection (cf. the UK ICO).
2. One of the biggest costs to businesses (big and small) is complying with the various different European Member States' differing implementations of the 95/46 Directive (clue: UK citizens get very few rights as "data subjects"; countries like Germany get constitutional-level protection).
I'd say a European "Regulation" would be very welcome. By the way, to all readers, a "Regulation" is European law that must be transposed into national (in our case UK) law as-is, whereas a "Directive" allows Members States freedom to determine how to implement said Directive.
Anyone ever wonder WHY the UK's ICO has no budget or teeth?
is the iOne of th
That is simply not true...
... I worked in the largest law firm in the world (as a solicitor), in the Netherlands, Poland, France and the UK and I worked as in-house lawyer for Airbus and now I'm the head lawyer of a software company. In all these places (certainly in the last 6 or 7 years) signed/scanned PDFs have been perfectly sufficient to create the desired legal relationship. Indeed that is far more common that faxes.
If a party was to say (in an English court at least): "Sorry Judge, I don't consider myself bound by the contract because it was a PDF" [not a fax], he would be laughed out of Court (by the Judge) and he would lose and he would be ordered to pay his opponents legal costs. Of course, if there was a digital forgery, that could be raised, but then the emphasis would be on the party seeking to allege that a signature had been forged (email chains are good against this).
Incidentally, I now sign documents by inserting a JPG of my signature into a word document and printing to PDF which preserves the quality of the text and avoids having to use a printer at all, and I've noticed more and more people doing this.
0 Even in the 'conservative' law firm, contracts and documents which were suposed to be binding
look over in that direction, no "there"
= "...bad management can keep their jobs"
and in Europe...
..."Freedom of expression applies not only to information which is favourably received, but also to that which shocks, offends and disturbs" (European Court of Human Rights, Handyside v UK judgment 1976)
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Hands on Satisfy my scroll: El Reg gets claws on Windows 8.1 spring update
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA