4958 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
"much-needed extra parking spot"
Sheesh, why can't they just use public transport or cycle instead...?
Why don't they...
... just set up a website where they could put all the details of the sites they've closed down...
... how long before some PHB decides that every employee who leaves the premises has to carry one of these so their every movement can be monitored...?
"a penalty up to 10% of an organisation’s turnover."
So if the MOD or the Security Services or the Governmetn lost our data, how much could they be fined.
Except, of course, they're funded from the public purse, so the money would go back to the public purse and the net result would be nothing (except some fat fees for a few lawyers, perhaps)
Now if the money was actually put into teaching such organisations about data security, password protection and file encryption for instance...
... nah, that would be sensible, forget I mentioned it.
> so I can take it as read that you're happy to condone the internet registration of convicted sex offenders (as happens in certain US states)?
I suggest you look up the actual meaning of "Straw Man Argument" because this is a classic example.
That Wolfgang Werlé was convicted of the murder of Walter Sedlmayr is a matter of historical fact. It happened, it was recorded, full stop.
What you are implying, however, is that Wikipedia mentioning this is the same as the German Authorities now publishing his name and address so that anyone can check where he lives, which is nonsense.
Should the Germans go back through all Court Records, newspapers, media broadcasts etc and redact the name of every criminal whose sentence has been completed because they are now a "private individual"?
I don't think so.
So the Law is now a Forum Moderator?
I'd say that comment goes well beyond the T&Cs of permissible comment on the site, so why the hell didn't they just complain to the Moderators and have it removed instead of going for the sledgehammer to crack a nut tactic of legal action.
Oh, hang on, it's the USA. Forget being sensible when you can reach for your lawyer...
Mute the sound...
... If there's a non-skippable ad on any content I want to watch, I'll just silence the annoying thing until it's over.
@Anonymous Coward 12th November 2009 06:23 GMT
> how to boil it down to a conveniently concise, rhetorical question?...
ITYM a politically convenient, loaded, straw-man, sound-bite question that ignores the issues...
> "who would you rather trust?"
I would rather that the state trusts me, rather than considering me to be a suspect for *every crime* that has been committed for which DNA has been gathered!
> (Feel free to copy and paste my humble effort into relevant threads elsewhere.)
You mean like threads about idiots who think that "if you have nothing to hide..." is a sensible way of deciding how the justice system works...?
We need a "Weasel" icon...
... because that's what this is, a Governmental weasel of the worst order!
They have already been *TOLD* that keeping DNA for innocent people is illegal, but, rather than complying with it, they've just weaseled and said "we'll compromise and only keep it for six years" as if that's somehow *less* illegal than keeping it indefinitely!
Another deplorable ignoring of people's rights by a Government that has lost all credibility.
DUCK DODGERS IN THE TWENTY FOURTH AND A HALF CENTURY...!!!
Johnson accused Nutt of playing politics...
Which is a bit hypocritical when you have a Home Secretary like Johnson who insists on playing at science!
Innocent until slurred by the Tabloids...
"1) In libel, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent"
In English Law a person is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven! If a newspaper publishes a potentially libellous statement, they need to be able to back that statement up with *PROOF* (and not simply "person X told us that...")
English PEN are falsely using this principle to try to reverse the burden of proof, ie you have to show that their statement was incorrect, which is utterly ridiculous.
2) "We recommend: Cap damages at £10,000".
This makes publishing libel a simple matter of money. If you're going to make more than £10,000 from a libel through increased readership/ viewers/ advertising revenue, publish and be damned.
3) "Abolish the Duke of Brunswick rule and introduce a single publication rule"
This is sensible. Of course if an article is published on a news website etc, it would not be difficult to amend the original to withdraw the libel. Any other copies aren't down to the original publisher.
4) "No case should be heard in this jurisdiction unless at least 10 per cent of copies of the relevant publication have been circulated here"
Again, also sensible. There should not be "libel tourism".
5) "Establish a libel tribunal as a low-cost forum for hearings"
6) "Strengthen the public interest defence"
Hmm. The "public interest" is not (despite how many have tried to define it) simply what the public is *interested* in (see Max Mosely for details). A Public Interest defence must show that there is material benefit to the public (eg publishing MPs expenses) or that by publishing, the public is protected from or informed about something they *should* know (see Professor Nutt for details)
7) "Expand the definition of fair comment"
Reasonable, provided, of course, that such comments are, in themselves, not libellous!
8) "The potential cost of defending a libel action is prohibitive We recommend: Cap base costs and make success fees and ‘After the Event’ (ATE) insurance premiums non-recoverable"
By the same token, the cost of *proceeding* with a libel action is prohibitive. If Joe Public is libelled by a National Newspaper, without Legal Aid (no longer available for libel actions) his chance of actually being able to afford to get anywhere are slim.
9) "Exempt interactive online services and interactive chat from liability"
There should be "Common Carrier" protection for web forums etc making them not responsible for what is posted on their pages. If libel is proven, the statements should be taken down, but this should not be done pre-emptively with a threat of "take this down or we'll sue you too!"
10) "Not everything deserves a reputation We recommend: Exempt large and medium-sized corporate bodies and associations from libel law unless they can prove malicious falsehood"
I can see the rationale behind this, eg the McLibel trial where McDonalds using libel laws to threaten into silence anyone who disagreed with them (and failed, spectacularly!) but it does risk setting a dangerous precedent requiring organisations to prove "malice", something which may be very hard to do...
4.5 / 10 Could do better...
From the Human Rights Act 1998...
You have the responsibility to respect other people's rights, and they must respect yours.
Your human rights are:
* the right to life
* freedom from torture and degrading treatment
* freedom from slavery and forced labour
* the right to liberty
* the right to a fair trial
* the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
* the right to respect for private and family life
* freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
* freedom of expression
* freedom of assembly and association
* the right to marry and to start a family
* the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
* * * * *
* the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
* * * * *
* the right to an education
* the right to participate in free elections
* the right not to be subjected to the death penalty
If any of these rights and freedoms are breached, you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority, such as, for example, a police officer.
There is nothing there about you having the right to disturb others...
"rejected this idea on privacy grounds...
"...preferring to outsource storage to industry."
"Why, yes, Minister, we'd be *happy* to do all the Government's storage for it! Of course we'd need to be able to scan all the data for... (whispers to BOFH: what was it for?) ... ah, yes, revenue integrity!"
@The Fuzzy Wotnot
"A damn good reason, that if you must use PC, you learn how to protect yourself"
Yes, I agree, but consider this: I've been using computers for 30 years now. I run AVG anti-virus, Zone Alarm Firewall, Thunderbird, Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock Plus, Spybot search and destroy and I don't run software I don't know the source of, yet still, last week, I found that my website had been compromised because a trojan had sneaked through an unpatched flaw and stolen my log-in and was merrily trying to redirect people to malware sites (fortunately my hosts' software controls picked it up)
The upshot of this is that, just like when I'm riding my motorbike (which, of course, I had to pass a test for), I know that despite *ALL* the precautions I take, there's always the chance that something will happen out of the blue.
So it's all very well to say "learn a little security", but don't let your smugness blind you to the fact that you, too, are vulnerable.
Hear Hear! Since I installed NoScript and AdBlock Plus and set Firefox to "ask me" on cookies, I do all of that and it's had virtually no effect on my websurfing, so the argument that "they make using the web easier" is shown for the BS it is.
Thanks for the article from the Daily Fail, I needed a laugh.
I was going to post a comment on their pages about it, but then I got to the bit where they started referring to the Nazis and Godwin's Law was automatically invoked, saving me the time.
Re: @Ben Smith
"Protection of the innocent - especially the young - is a social function, not an individual one. "
... there's this business card come through from some outfit called Cybus Industries, offering us all "upgrades"...
... I find it necessary to lobby for a bear in the woods icon...!
"the majority of illegal drugs come from serious criminal gangs."
And the majority of ursine poop found in arboreal environments comes from...?
... needs a Playmobil reconstruction!
"employers will not be forced to take fingerprints..."
".... and job applicants will not be forced to give them to the employer."
But if you want the job, you're going to have to do what they say or you're screwed.
... but will they be transformed into actions?
Or will the Tories get into power and then suddenly decide that "Oh, maybe it is useful to hold onto this information after all..."
Yeah, right, innit...
May I be the first to welcome...
... oh fill in the rest yourself!
The short version...
Alan Johnson said: "You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field."
Professor Nutt responded: "What you cannot have is politicians stepping into the scientific arena - and that is exactly what they have done."
If you have a group of advisors and then make policy whilst *ignoring* their advice, throwing your toys out of the pram and sacking them for speaking out about said policy is just petty and childish.
Once upon a time this Government promised us "evidence based lawmaking"...
Do not go gentle into that good night...
...Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- Dylan Thomas
Norway not in EU....?
Would the commentards making these comments like to actually do a little bit of *research* before spouting their nonsense?
Here's a good place to start...
Or, if that's too much work, there's always Wikipedia...
"the precise location of GPS satellites..."
... but I bet that won't stop some idiot still blindly following his Sat Nav's instructions up a Welsh Mountainside!
PS There again, Tom Tom's latest e-mail doesn't give you much confidence either...
"they will not merely fall foul of the Convention [on human rights]...
... but they will rebound to the disadvantage of the very group they are designed to shield, and will undermine public confidence"
Come on, El Reg, we *need* that bear pooping in the trees icon...!
I need to apologise to someone now...
... because they were changing their forum system and, having found vBulletin to be an excellent forum system for users and for admins/ mods, I lobbied strongly for adopting it.
I won't say it was entirely on my recommendation that they did change to it, but now, possibly because of my influence, it seems they've been sold a pup.
What a ridiculous state of affairs :-(
"Even if only to the county HQ of a police force, it would save a lot of hassle trying to get assistance when 999 is not appropriate."
Down here in Hampshire we have 101 which does exactly that.
Of course it costs 10p to call...!
He looks pretty miserable in the pic as far as I can see...
"Please just grow up and go do something useful."
You mean like draw attention to how the Police in this country are infringing on people's civil liberties and human rights? You know, the ones that we fought a war to protect?
How *dare* they use the Police's own tactcs against them even though it's entirely legal for them to do so?
As for the rest of your Straw Man arguments, see the icon for details...
Remember Rebecca Loos...?
On the Channel 5 "reality show" called "The Farm" Ms Loos was given the job of masturbating a pig to collect its semen.
These days, of course, it would probably be classed as Extreme Pornography...
Magarathea, Viltvodel 6, Traal, and, of course, Golgafrincham!
Mine's the one with the towel and the Electronic Sub-Etha Thumb in the pocket...
The expression "Domestic Terrorists"...
... has been brought to you by the Ministry of Truth...
Welcome to the Hotel Facebook...
... You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave...!
Function determines form...
... as true now (and in the future) as it's always been.
Too many designers are still more interested in adding as many bells and whistles and clever bits which look pretty to their products without considering the most basic question of "is the bloody thing actually *usable*?"
And what about...
... the position on the list of data insecurity by leaving it on trains etc...?
... Fine, ok, take the mickey out of the US Chamber of Commerce on something like The Daily Show (the UK equivalent would perhaps be Bremner, Bird and Fortune) where people *know* that it's satire,
But pretending to actually *be* the US Chamber of Commerce and issuing statements etc as if they are legitimate is just stupid and can only backfire on you.
If the guy on the podium, when challenged, had put his hands up and said "Ok, it's a fair cop, we're doing this to highlight the problems we have with the current position" then they might have got away with it, but trying to maintain the pretence and whining about "you'll have to pay for the cost of the room" just makes them look petty and stupid.
I'm all for the right of freedom of expression, but you should use that right in a *responsible* way and IMO they've done themselves more harm than good.
A "detection" ...
... "means that the crime was cleared up and a DNA match was available. It does not mean a conviction was obtained, or that guilt was established."
Why does this remind me so much of the vaunted "success" of the Patriot Missiles in Gulf War 1 where a "successful interception" meant that the Patriot simply *crossed the path* of an incoming Scud missile, not that it actually shot the damn thing down...
I also have to wonder with the DNA "detections" whether someone had already copped to the crime and *then* their DNA was taken and (lo and behold!) a match was found with an *existing* record!
They should get the RIAA in on this...
... after all, these were "public performances", so they should get royalties...
"I don't think this is indicative of people's faith in this country."
ITYM "I don't want to be believe this because it doesn't fit in with what *I* think..."
... what happens when their idea of "cybercrime" starts infringing on our right of freedom of expression...?
... to all fanatics!!!!!
But seriously, "the more you hear these extremists expressing their opinions, the more you are going to believe that those extreme beliefs are normal for your community," explains Morrison.
And what about us "extremists" who, like Voltaire say "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
(NB before anyone starts setting up straw men, you have the right to express an *opinion*, you do not have the right to call on others to cause harm to those you don't like, ok?)
Speaking as a biker, I do not agree with the "loud pipes save lives" arguments.
All they do is pi$$ people off with either the whine of a demented mosquito or something that rattles their windows when they're trying to sleep.
Yes, drivers should check their blindspots, but I just prefer make life easier for them (and safer for me) by not *being* in their blindspots as much as possible.
... bloody wowsers!
- ← Prev
- Next →
- One HUNDRED FAMOUS LADIES exposed NUDE online
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64