Europe - Does this comply with data protection?
US - Yes.
Europe - Why?
US - Because we say so.
Europe - Ok, that's good enough for us!
5945 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
US - Yes.
Europe - Why?
US - Because we say so.
Europe - Ok, that's good enough for us!
"...between blocking material that is generally agreed to be abhorrent and unlawful across the world, and blocking or policing where different regulatory regimes are in play."
Unfortunately there are too many people (a lot of them were in the last government) who think that *their* definitions of what is "abhorrent" are the only ones that matter and that they should thereby be able to dictate what everyone else is allowed to see.
Regrettably, however, it seems that (especially on the Tory side of the coalition) the same mentality exists...
"...make it less of a focus for organised crime than popular belief would have it."
What? You mean that those International Networks of Organised Paedos which we've heard so much about from Jim Gamble et al turn out to be figments of an over-excited imagination?
Of course I have little doubt that this will apply to any sort of CCTV setup, especially when operated by the Police...
... getting people to panic like that, total lulz!!!
An "about 80%" success rate does not equate to "beyond reasonable doubt"!
" who had simply looked up stuff on the internet – for instance actually reading the text of the proposed bill, "
ITWM "as though by lazy news services who simply cut and paste articles from other services without actually bothering to check if any of it bears any resemblance to the truth...
Counsel: This receipt is for the digital watch...
Judge: ...a digital watch? What on earth is a "digital watch"?
Counsel: Sorry m'lud. A digital watch is a watch worked by microelectronics.
Judge: Oh! How fascinating. Proceed.
Counsel: The next receipt is for an automatic video recorder...
Judge: ..."automatic video recorder"?
Counsel: Yes, I'm sorry m'lud. It's a machine that records television programmes on special tape.
Judge: Oh, how fascinating. What will they think of next? Proceed.
Counsel: Thank you m'lud. And finally, a receipt for a "deluxe model inflatable woman", whatever that is.
Judge: The Deluxe is the one with the real hair...
... they're introducing them in Midsomer...?!
"More often than not "pointless" speed limits in rural areas are due to unseen risks. "
Yes, of course, that's why the last Government wanted to introduce a blanket 50mph limit on *ALL* rural roads no matter what.
And, no, I'm not a traffic engineer, but I am an IAM Member so I can spot hazards where they exist and, more importantly, see where they don't exist.
... more extensions of 30mph limits outside village limits, not to mention pointless rural 40 mph limits etc because someone's stood there with a speed gun and gone "OMG! Look how fast these people are going, it can't be safe!"
"...McCabe, who was an IT consultant in human resources for the Metropolitan Police, found himself in a downward spiral sparked by an interest in adult pornography."
Because that makes a better exculpatory argument than "well, I like looking at pictures of naked kiddes".
It doesn't make it true, however.
... please solve the P versus NP problem...
... Goodbye Cruel World by Pink Floyd...
Quick, call Facebook!!
"I believe that porn can be dangerous for society"
You are falling for the "Precautionary Principle" fallacy of "well, we don't know if it's dangerous, but let's ban it anyway, just to be on the safe side" which Wacky Jacqui and her cohorts used to justify passing the Dangerous Pictures Act outlawing so-called Extreme Pornography.
As for "no one knows the effects that long term unrestricted access to Porn" I suggest you look at the work of Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who studied exactly that by looking at the situation in the USA and Japan (where there is *all sorts* of extreme porn easily available) and concluded: "It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes"
Opt-in systems are just a way of restricting people's right to see and view what they choose, I don't have to say "Please Sir, may I look at this stuff if it's ok with you", unless there is a legitimate and verifiable reason for restricting access to something (eg child porn) then there is *no* justification for preventing or limiting my access to it.
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
She is from the ex-Government which brought us Policy Based Evidence Making, ie deciding what they wanted the law to be then canvassing only the opinions of those who agreed with that to justify their positions.
That Government brought in multiple Nanny State laws to "save" us from Dangerous Pictures, Dangerous Cartoons, Dangerous Drugs and so on without *ANY* proof that they were actually dangerous, but that didn't matter because Wacky Jacqui and friends *believed* that they were, so us poor, weak minded and morally deficient people *needed* to be protected from such things!
Jacqui Smith is not interested in anything which contradicts her views, she knows best what is good for us and even though she has absolutely *no* credibility in these matters somehow she still gets the oxygen of publicity to spread misinformation and biased opinions, ignoring all the facts that show how utterly wrong she is.
Gods forbid that anyone should supply weapons to regimes like, oh, I don't know, Libya, for instance...
Well I haven't for a good reason: I was trying to repress the memory of Blade Runner 2 which tried (and completely failed) to square the circle between Do Androids... and the film Blade Runner and was a hopeless mish-mash that failed to comprehend that the two were entirely different entities.
".. only the good things that come into your mind about... a Blade Runner sequel."
"A Blade Runner sequel?"
"Let me tell you about a Blade Runner sequel...."
Blofeld did it first!
Would be very useful for certain areas of the Adult Industry...!
Whereas I wish that the arrogant pillocks who are in power would stop thinking that *they* know best for the rest of us and would all decide to emigrate to the middle of nowhere so they can pass all the laws they want to their heart's content and enjoy living under their own rule whilst the rest of us are allowed to get on with our lives!
Does that mean they're working flat out or just that they're lying down on the job?
... you've got more chance of dying in an accident on the way to or from the beach than you have of being a victim of a shark attack.
Try doing some research which might improve your "thinkin'"
... Hammer Time!
... Certain members of "Team Register" need to look up the meaning of the fallacy "Poisoning the Well"
... Ms Streisand...!
... which is people's instant knee-jerk thoughtless reaction to an accusation that someone is abusing children (or providing such images) or that it's obviously copyright infringement without actually thinking "we've only got the Police's word for this".
"If “everybody knows” such-and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one." - Lazarus Long (via Robert A Heinlein).
Once again I mention that I make leather bondage gear. There are times when I've seen something on a website etc that has made me go "Damn, I never thought of that, what a great idea for a new product...!"
Who says you can't enjoy Business Research? :-)
Belle de Jour was an *escort* not a pornographer and she's a Research Scientist with specialisations in developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology, she has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science.
Let me see: ignorant person makes Straw Man argument based on their own lack of knowledge. Colour me unsurprised...!
... take a lesson from another Stanley Kubrick film and play "Try a Little Tenderness"
"... a future version of the prosthetic with limited precognition, allowing it to walk the owner away from unseen danger. But it didn't."
Thank Zarquon for that! Remember the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Happy Vertical People Transporters?
Imagine what would happen if your artificial leg suddenly decided it wanted participation in the direction decision making process and went on strike or started walking in the opposite direction...
(Mine's the one with the book in the pocket that has "Don't Panic" written in large friendly letters on the cover)
Remember the Sylvester McCoy story Battlefield? The Doctor was Merlin, Ace was the Lady of the Lake, so who was the Brigadier...?
Perhaps he should have googled for them...
"... to anyone considering committing this type of fraud"
Does *anyone* really believe this sort of bollocks?
People commit this sort of fraud because they think they can get away with it, if they didn't, they wouldn't do it. They don't give a toss about any potential sentence they may get.
But, as usual, the people who *actually* get away scot free are the ones who had such lax security measures in place that the fraud could happen in the first place!
... if it wasn't the same sort of skewed and nonsensical rationale which means that, in the UK, under the Dangerous Pictures Act an image taken from a film can be illegal even if the film itself isn't!
(Oh and the same goes for the "Dangerous Cartoons" Act...)
Whilst it does sound a bit like Pete and Dud, it's actually Fred Colon and Nobby Nobbs! :-)
... it always was a crap idea.
(Oh come on, *someone* had to say it!)
Not to denigrate this guy's achievement at all, but the moves on DL were a fixed sequence such that I could stand with my back to the machine, hands behind me and all I'd need was for someone to say "Ok, it's the Lizard King starting to the left" and I could go through the whole level without looking :-)
Ah, but you have to remember that it's just *knowing* that it's out there which is the problem!
People like Wacky Jacqui simply *cannot* bear the idea of others looking at things they don't like, hence the desire to pass the legislation like the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Cartoons acts.
It's laughable that she says "The internet service providers need to take more responsibility." err, no Jacqui it's *YOU* who needs to take more responsibility and understand that everyone else *also* needs to take responsibility for what they (or their children) look at. We don't need your Nanny State saying "We think this is bad for you, so *you* are not allowed to see it".
"... if we restrict anything available on the internet we'll turn into China."
Of course not, Jacqui, just like you never agreed with *anything* that didn't fit with your own personal set of prejudices and bigotry, but you still thought that your personal tastes ought to govern what everyone else is allowed to see and read...
This isn't a Lewis Page "Buy American" article...?
... showing extremely intelligent sheep who can drive tractors, build mechanical devices, perform group calisthenics and much more besides.
It can be seen on CBBC channel or there's more information here http://www.shaunthesheep.com/
You're missing the point.
I have a website for my business selling leather bondage gear, it hosts my catalogue, lets people by products etc.
What it does *not* do is supply the sort of contact linking and "like" functionality available to Facebook users and for me to try to emulate that would be massively expensive and time consuming.
I don't want to have to re-invent the wheel and create the Affordable Leather Products Social Networking site when there's something already available out there, but neither do I want to spend time and effort setting such a site up (something which I had been considering) if I can suddenly and without warning or explanation, find all that work wiped out because one person has complained to Facebook that they don't like what I do.
Facebook just need to engage in some form of consistency in their decision making, something which sadly appears to be lacking right now.
... Terpsichorean ecdysiasts as featured in the M*A*S*H books ;-)
... someone leaves a copy on a USB stick on a train...?
Nope, Google are.
We're constantly warned to watch out for spoof/ scam/ phishing sites and the URL is one simple way of checking this. Without it we lose an important safety measure.
See Mark 11:12-14
"It was a very different, very BRUTAL, world back then - to try and apply today's morality to it is just idiotic."
Yet there are those from the church who want to apply the morality of two thousand or more years ago to the world today!
Please, do us all a favour and don't let this discussion turn into an irrelevant Pro/ Anti Israel rant fest...