4511 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
... if this had been greeted positively, you just *know* that El Gordo Brown and Darling Alastair would have been rubbing their hands in glee at the extra tax revenue it would have gained them...
"No feminists I know are in favour of this sort of legislation, and I don't see how it's a feminist agenda fuelling this"
I suggest you take a look at the English Government's "Consultation" on "extreme pornography" which was written by three feminist anti-pornography campaigners...
Personal political agendas? Nothing new there, then...
It is rapidly becoming clear (if it wasn't blatantly obvious already) that this is just another last gasp effort by the leaders a failed Government (who know that most of them will be out of jobs after the next election) to force through any and every little bit of legislation that will allow them to impose their personal prejudices and wants on the country without caring a jot about what the effects will be on the liberties of the people they're supposed to represent.
It's not enough to think "well, they'll be out next election" because we need guarantees from whoever replaces them that they *will* get rid of the ridiculous draconian Big Brother and Nanny State legislation they have brought in rather than getting into power and then saying "well, maybe this would still be useful, so we'll keep it".
Contact your MP via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them you want a commitment from them that they'll not only oppose these proposals, but that they'll support all attempts to repeal them and restore the liberties and freedoms that have been taken away from us in the last decade to "protect" us.
Re: A victory for morals
Don't forget that it's perfectly acceptable to allow your virgin daughters to be raped to protect your guests according to the "Good" Book...
Still, if the Scots actually have the guts to throw out this stupid law, then it means only we English can't be trusted to act sensibly if we look at this stuff, so obviously Scottish morals are better than ours...
I find it amusing that you use the words "sense of reality" and "official stopping distance" in the same paragraph!
The fact is that those figures are well out of date, but they're unlikely to be changed at any time in the future (probably because it's better to have people err on the side of caution).
And you then go from a *car* in the outside lane to a *drunk* wandering around...
I suggest you look up the words "Straw Man".
The judge stated that...
..."there was nothing the peer could have done to avoid the crash."
Well I state BULLSHIT!
If he was unable to stop in the distance in which he could see ahead of him, then he was travelling *TOO FAST*!
He could have avoided the crash by going *slower* such that the distance illuminated by his headlamps was *longer* than his stopping distance.
One law for them...
... meanwhile the motorcyclist who (supposedly*) did 122 mph *without* killing anyone, has got 6 months in jail, but, of course, he doesn't have a high-priced Barrister to argue his "exceptional" case...
*That 122mph figure is highly dubious and he'd have had to dump a *lot* of speed to be able to take the next corner without cranking the bike over a hell of a lot more than he did.
I think some people don't quite understand the situation.
The point about Libel is that the original article has to be found to be defamatory and, in order to be defamatory, it cannot be true.
So if a Court has decided that an article is untrue, to continue to allow that (false) article to be available is to repeat the untruth.
The ECHR understands that Right of Freedom of Expression comes with an attendant Responsibility to ensure that what is being expressed is truthful.
> bloody good job no-one ever told Philip K. Dick.
I once used a forum that had automatic censoring software which changed his name to "Philip K Masculine Area"!
(And not forgetting that famous actor from Mary Poppins: Penis van Lesbian...)
"more active government intervention on the internet"
To mis-quote a Philip K Dick story title:
"We can control you wholesale!"
No, I don't read the Daily Mail, I watch programmes like the BBC's Working Lunch which, for all its faults, still gives a good understanding of how these "poor" companies who find it *so* hard to earn a crust, manage to screw everyone else out of anything they might have got by charging ridiculous fees (such as hundreds of pounds for photocopying is one example I remember)...
feature that allows willing subjects to be tracked through their phones.
As opposed to the Government's plans to introduce a 50mph speed limit on A Roads and enforce this with a "new generation" of Number Plate Recognition Cameras (which, incidentally, would also be excellent for enabling them to track us all wherever we go and facilitate building a National Road Pricing System...)
Feature creep? No, of course we don't have anything like that here!
Insolvency is Big Business....
Who gets the money? Simple:
The Tax Man
Neither of the first two give a damn about the people who are actually going to be affected by a business going into liquidation. People who worked there, companies who are owned money, people who own shares in that company and those who have legitimate claims for faulty products or goods ordered but not delivered are very much sucking hind tit and can pretty much forget about ever getting back anything because the first two are feathering their own nests.
A title is required.
"it has received funding for just five weeks and had only five people working there"
The last thing the NSA et al wants is people to actually *pay attention* to cyber security, after all, that would just make their job (of snooping on everyone and everything) more difficult, wouldn't it?!
... we hear from the government a reponse that translates as "Shit, lads, we've been rumbled", but with undertones of "never mind, we'll sneak this crap in later when they've all forgotten about it or they're distracted by something else!"
The only way this sort of nonsense will be stopped for good is when we get rid of this Control Freak Government once and for all.
But what's the Humanity Cost?
Mines the one with the copy of the Cyberpunk RPG in the pocket...
I have made a decision, and given my ruling...
... "And my conclusion is 'Fuck you, we can do what we want and there's nothing you can do about it, so yah boo sucks to be you!'"
"highest standards of security."
*WHOOOOP* *WHOOOOP* *WHOOOOP*
Irony level overload...!
*WHOOOOP* *WHOOOOP* *WHOOOOP*
"I only wish we had an Orwell icon"
Well we've been asking for it or a V for Vendetta icon for quite a while now, so how about it, El Reg?!
Mine's the one with my Papers in the Pocket... (about the same time as Satan starts ice skating to work...)
Pah, that's nothing...
... we've got a guy who broke into the Pentagon's computers, you know!
Want to give him a job? Better hurry, the Yanks want to lock him away...
Well what a surprise...
... more weaseling from Wacky Jacqui and her Control Freak friends :-(
Well what a surprise...
... liability for fraud is being dumped, yet again, on the customer. And if the customer proves fraud, then it's the business that gets screwed.
Obviously there's no chance of the *bank* ever paying out for using crap security...
"It is not wholly clear what the purpose of this measure would be."
Yes it is, it's to get us even more used to the idea that the Government can monitor us wherever we go, whatever we do, whoever we talk to, whatever web sites we visit, whatever we buy...
The more used we are to this, the less we'll be (or we're supposed to be) likely to object to Government collated and controlled Databases of our DNA or our purchases or our movements or our web browsing or our phone calls...
Remember: It's for your own good, citizen!
> Parents just don't get it - its all about the money
No, you don't, get it, it's about not inflicting *your* opinions (not facts) on others.
This ban is simply another example of people trying to control what people may or may not see, just because they don't like it and you are tagging along with them.
"Exposing minors to depictions of violence in video games, including sexual and heinous violence, makes those minors more likely to experience feelings of aggression, to experience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain, and to exhibit violent antisocial or aggressive behavior," the legislation claimed.
The only problem is that there is no credible proof of this being "more likely", nor of any of the other claims. There is a lot of questionable research, with dubious conclusions from flawed testing methods, but that is not a sound basis for law.
As for "What am I trying to teach my child by letting them play violent video games?" do you pre-emptively check every book, tv show, movie or whatever else your child wants to look at to ensure that it only contains "acceptable moral messages"?
You must be one hell of a killjoy! (Oh, hang on, that contains the word "kill" doesn't it...?"
Are you a member of PETA by any chance...?
Good news - ish
"The ICO now believes that the proposed new law poses some dangers to privacy "
Well, that's great, but how the hell, then, did they come to their first conclusion that "Some have suggested that the Bill’s information sharing provisions represent an unwarranted interference with the privacy of personal information. We do not agree."?
Were they asleep when people were pointing this out?
IFPI's Sweden MD Lars Gustafsson...
... lambasted the hackers motives. He told The Register: "It is deplorable that these saboteurs will go to such extremes as to infringe on our and others' freedom of speech on the internet."
ROFL! Isn't this more than a touch ironic coming from someone whose industry supports and promotes the infringement of the right of individuals to listen to music when and how they choose!
What are these idiots smoking? If there was ever a way to "promote their message and to encourage engagement" of extremists by students, this is it! "Hey, are you a Muslim student? Then we think you're a terrorist! WE'RE WATCHING YOU!"
If I was still a student I'd do my damndest to look at these sites every day and if anyone left their computer unattended, sneak a quick look at these sites on their ID too and if (as I managed when I was a student) I managed to shoulder surf a lecturer's log in details, you can be certain that they would be looking at the most extremist material of all!
> Streaming is already covered
There is *NO* offence of "making extreme pornography", unlike the offence of "making child pornography" (which is just a weasel clause in itself that makes for better headlines).
PS @ J
"Fine and dandy. Do something, then! Bunch of Internet whiners..."
How do you know? FYI I've been a member of Backlash http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ since this so-called "Extreme Pornography" nonsense started and have written to and e-mailed MPs, Lords, Newspapers and many forums. Now I'm a member of the Consenting Adult Action Network http://www.caan.org.uk/
I only regret that, due to work commitments, I'll be unable to visit the Convention on Modern Liberty on the 28th http://www.modernliberty.net/ but you can be sure I'll be seeing what comes out of it (which will be a lot more sensible than what comes out of our Government, I have no doubt)
I'm sure, however, that a lot of posters on here have also, in their way, put their shoulders to the wheel of protest against this law, so dismissing people as "internet whiners" without any evidence seems pointless.
,,, her "loose" use of language "plays into the hands of our enemies"
You mean as opposed to Labour's "loose use of language" which passes laws which are so vague and incomprehensible that even their own Ministry of Justice can't say what they cover?
Or their "loose use of language" that tries to sneak even more power-grabbing legislation through in the guise of the "Coroners and Justice Bill"?
Or their "loose use of language" that spreads FUD around like manure until we're buried in so much shit that we can't even see daylight in our new Big Brother state...?
PS El Reg - Here's another vote for a V for Vendetta icon!
"they would be criminalising an action that they cannot police...
... which is not good law-making practice"
Since when has *that* stopped this bunch of Nanny State idiots?
@Doesn't this make...
Good idea: create a new form of RickRolling whereby we trick MPs into clicking on a link that leads to an "illegal image", then, as soon as they do, we log their IP address and call the Police!
We could call it Prick Rolling...
Meanwhile, of course, building on a law that has no legitimate basis, our Control Freak Government wants to extend that to make it illegal to look at anything not "State Approved" and another precious Civil Liberty is whittled away a bit further :-(
The BCS is also concerned...
... as to why such major changes to data sharing law are included in an unrelated piece of legislation rather than in a separate bill so the issues would be properly discussed.
The answer is in the question!
The Government doesn't *want* this stuff to be "properly discussed". I'm willing to place a small wager right now that this bill will be rushed through Parliament and subject to a guillote to ensure that there is *not* sufficient time for proper discussion.
I note from that article in the Guardian that the landlord raised this issue with Emily Thornberry, the local Labour MP and was told, astonishingly, that the right of residents not to become victims of crime overrode his concerns.
Presumably the right of residents to be presumed innocent is also similarly over-ridden!
She also said there was a problem with antisocial behaviour in the area and that the majority of residents were in favour of more CCTV cameras.
I wonder if these are the same people who keep coming up to Wacky Jacqui in the street demanding ID cards?
getting hydrogen into a car is horrible inefficient
And what if, just now, we had suddenly invented petroleum powered cars and had to build an infrastructure to a) get oil out of the ground, b) refine it, c) transport it to filling stations?
Exactly how efficient would that be starting from scratch?
No longer can the Government claim that "we're introducing these laws because the Security Services want them" when the former head of the Security Service is saying that these laws are actually counterproductive, making their jobs more difficult and driving people *towards* the terrorists instead of encouraging them to act against them!
Of course whether the Government pays any attention to this (or anyone else) is another matter...
... we have the Scots and the Pilots saying no. We have Dame Stella Rimington objecting to the Government's "culture of fear", we have the International Commission of Jurists condemning ill thought out, knee-jerk anti-terror laws and what is our Government's response?
Answer: "We don't give a toss what anyone else says, we're doing this anyway."
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED
- Review Bigger on the inside: WD’s Tardis-like Black² Dual Drive laptop disk
- Inside Steve Ballmer’s fondleslab rear-guard action