5189 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... for the terrorists as, once again, our leaders dance to their tune and pi$$ all over another fundamental freedom.
Human rights? We've heard of them, but so what?
Seeing your children naked in the bath gets you tagged as a paedo...?
"... should send a message to any foreign business conducting illegal activities in the United States, that geography does not render it untouchable.”
Meanwhile US Businesses can keep on doing what the fuck they like because if it happens abroad it's not the USA's problem...
... and now he thinks we trust him enough to let him dig the hole deeper!
According to http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10237403-94.html
"Things were looking up for satellite TV provider Dish Networks in the first quarter of 2009, with sales and earnings on the rise, the company reported Monday.
"Sales grew 2.1 percent to $2.91 billion for the quarter ended March 31 versus $2.84 billion for the same quarter in 2008. Earnings climbed to $313 million, or 70 cents a share, up from $259 million, or 58 cents a share a year ago."
The amount this man has been fined is approximately 1.75% of Dish Network's quarterly turnover even though "Dish faces a more competitive playing field, not just from fellow satellite provider DirecTV, but also from cable and phone companies offering low-cost TV service."
So obviously it's all this guy's fault that their sales didn't grow more and nothing to do with Dish Network "facing a more competitive playing field".
... does nothing to ensure that turbines will be made in Blighty or even erected/maintained by British workers.
This is from the same Lewis Page who is constantly urging the British Government and Armed Forces to buy the best equipment from the best suppliers, even if they're foreign, rather than pander to the British jobs market?
But it's the Tories rather than Labour at the moment:
Cameron: Give the UK's health records to Google
... you meant to use the "Troll" icon on that post...
So whilst here we have the Nanny State telling us that "No, this is bad for you, you're not allowed to see it in case it makes you do something naughty" the French attitude is "what's the big deal?"
Of course that Playmobil video clip (eat your heart out, El Reg!) would probably get you prosecuted for possession of Extreme Porn just as the guy with the "tiger" clip was, even though nobody could possibly consider it to be real...
There are those of us who are willing to stand up and say "NO! I will NOT have an ID card."
We will stand up and say "If you are going to prosecute one of us, you'll have to prosecute ALL of us!"
That is, of course, entirely the whole point of the "I'm Spartacus" scene at the end of the film, the slaves are willing to give their lives to show their defiance against the oppressors is undaunted.
Yet this point has gone entirely over the IPS' heads and they think that the slaves should have all pointed out who Spartacus was to save themselves.
Yet again the truth of Ben Franklin's words is shown "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".
And what happened in Dublin was a ridiculous exercise in Security Theatre!
"Err, hello, Ireland, we've put explosives in this guy's luggage without him knowing it..."
"Right lads, get round to his place and raid it and lock him up!"
"But, Sarge, he's innocent...!"
"If you're going to let things like that worry you, you'll never get far in the Police, sonny boy!"
Inspector: Savage, why do you keep arresting this man?
Savage: He’s a villain, sir.
Inspector: A villain …
Savage: And a jailbird.
Inspector: I know he’s a jailbird, Savage! He’s down in the cells now. We are holding him on a charge of possession of curly black hair and thick lips!
Savage: Well… there you are, sir.
Inspector: You arrested him, Savage!
Savage: Thank you, sir.
Whilst I may not agree with a lot of what you write, in this article you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Those who are implementing and carrying out the Security Theatre are not interested in the real risks involved, they just want to be seen to be Doing Something in order to justify their "need" for greater powers and more money in order to build their personal empires a bit bigger.
Several of the possible threats you mention are ones that I have thought up myself as potential attack methods and I don't even have the background you do, just an interest in science and a knowledge of how people think (or don't think!) so we're left with the conclusion that either a) the terrorists have nobody with any brains to think of these things or b) they have thought of them, but simply do not have anyone able or willing to carry them out.
I know which my money is on...
... because now that the database is in place, it's going to be used because "well, if we didn't use it, we'd have wasted all that time and effort and money we spent setting it up, wouldn't we?"
Of course this begs the quesion of "why the f**k did you set it up in the first place", the answer to which is "because we needed to be seen to be doing something!"
From the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008:
Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images:
An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic
way, any of the following—
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal
(whether dead or alive), AND A REASONABLE PERSON LOOKING AT THE IMAGE WOULD THINK THAT ANY SUCH PERSON OR ANIMAL WAS REAL!
Forget about the sound-track, how the F**K can anyone be so stupid as to try to prosecute for an ANIMATED image under this law???
How much public money has been wasted on what appears to have been an act of sheer childish pettiness on the part of the Police? "Ok, so we can't do him for what we arrested him for, let's trawl through his computer and see if there's anything we can stitch him up for..."
This sort of fishing expedition is just one of the many potential abuses of this law that some of us were pointing out to MPs and Lords before the Government forced this nonsense through Parliament.
FORD: Golgafrincham Ark Fleet, Ship B, Hold Seven: Telephone Sanitizer, Second Class. And a serial number!
ARTHUR: ”Telephone Sanitizer”? A dead telephone sanitizer?
FORD: Best kind. ...
... if you convert it to letters, does it spell out somewhere "Haha! I'm God, I existed all along!"?
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."
- The Hunting of the Snark
... that the US should be dealing with.
Not ridiculous "software patents" where someone writes down an idea (which is often already being used), but blatant copying of an actual program.
Unfortunately whilst there's vested interests in patent whoring...
Err, mixing your metaphors much, lads...?
"...of filing everything at the end of the day ."
"Hey, Sarge, anyone coughed to these crimes today? No? Any chance of solving them without doing some legwork? No? Ok, file them in the round file..."
... because after the turgid tedium of God-Awful of Dune, the series actually picked up nicely.
... would you have told the descendants of those soldiers suffering from Shell Shock in World War I who were executed for "cowardice" to "please shut up" and "move on" instead of campaigning to clear their forbears' names after new evidence came to light about the cause of their actions?
No? Then why should these people be told to do so simply because you love the Chinook and want it to have your babies and you think that the smear on the pilots names and reputations isn't important enough to bother about?
... you beat me to it!
... but that seems to be what has caught El Reg's attention (unsurprisingly)
The more important part IMO is this bit from the original article "Officers have also been dismissed for using police databases to check out people’s backgrounds for personal reasons."
Now *THAT* is what El Reg should have been highlighting because with the increased surveillance of everyone and the DNA database and so on, this is what is going to be the problem in the future, not some Plod knocking one off the wrist.
... is the slamming of stable doors...
Oh great, so even more Daily Mail based policies...
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
What "rights" have been "protected" by laws such as the Dangerous Pictures Act making it a crime to possess so-called "Extreme Pornography"?
This was just one of the many examples of the Nanny State saying "We don't like this, so you shouldn't be allowed to see it/ do it even if there's no absolutely no evidence that it would make you do something nasty".
The only "right" that this Government has "protected" is *their* right to interfere in what consenting adults get up to in private and to tell us that anything that is unacceptable to their prudish "moral standards" should be illegal.
Regrettably, when they're booted out at the next election, it's distinctly unlikely that the Tories would do anything to roll back Nu Labour's moral agenda...
... have you tried emptying the ashtray...?
Try getting a set of ethics!
No, but it's Apple's greed and hypocrisy that means they'll still do business with China.
... Epic Fail!
... oh, right, of course.
Nothing to see here, move along...!
... of course what Plod will do is insist that they need *even more* powers to watch and record every single Facebook entry and e-mail and tweet and web access and...
Sure, unfortunately it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel and given that in the UK we have seen Police and PCSOs acting like Constable Savage and deciding that as they are on "the front line against terrorism" they can throw their weight about as much as they like and harass people for such heinous activities as being "too tall" when taking photographs.
What's worse, however, is that whilst the rot is spreading at the bottom, the attitudes that cause it have come from the very top with the ACPO who aren't even answerable to the people who they work for, ie our elected representatives, yet they can still (and do) influence Government policy.
Yes, they're doing a tough job, they knew that when they signed up, if they can't take it, they shouldn't have joined in the first place.
... certainly not the "I'M ON THE TRAIN!!" sort of conversations....
Google is used for searches by the majority of web users, yet they have the power to make a website simply disappear to those searchers.
Back in 2006 the Inquisition 21 website that campaigned against Operation Ore convictions vanished from Google search results and there was a statement that "Google may temporarily or permanently ban any site or site authors that engage in tactics designed to distort their rankings or mislead users in order to preserve the accuracy and quality of our search results."
Now is that "them behaving unethically"? And would most people know or care that their results are being manipulated?
Yet again we see this Control-Freak, Nanny State Government trying to decide for us poor little people what is or isn't good for us.
Clearly we cannot be trusted with the information on the dangers of these products (or the fact that it's still more dangerous to use the roads or even get out of bed!) and be allowed to make up our own minds, we need them to say "don't you worry your pretty little heads about it, we'll make all the tough decisions so you won't need to think, so just sit down and watch the bread and circuses, erm, sorry, Get Me Out Ff Strictly Come X-Factor"
Expect a few more "last hurrahs" from this bunch of idiots before they're kicked out of power...
Ah, but you forget, everyone who goes into hospital or sees their doctor will automatically have their DNA taken and placed on the National Regist... erm, I mean "their health records" and hospital staff will then be equipped with DNA scanners so they can check they're treating the right person (or, at least, someone who shares the same DNA fingerprint)
And, of course, that data will never be abused by, say, checking someone's DNA with the Police Database to see if someone who comes into hospital is wanted for a crime (or, at least, whose DNA matches someone who is wanted for a crime...)
... policy based evidence making...?
I think that's a polite way of saying "Bullshit!"
Didn't anyone teach P&O Staff how to give an ID card the "magic flick" which will identify it as genuine...?
... of derisive laughter, Bruce!
"...and other people's intellectual property"
I'm sorry, is this another Microsoft that we've not previously heard of...???
... we're doing this because the EU *says* we have to do this...!
Well, that was what the Home Office were claiming, despite the EU not saying anything of the sort.
Glad to see the chickens coming home to roost at last, it's just a pity they pi$$ed away so much of our money first.
... is to get a *grip* on reality!
... just extradite the insurgents to the USA and charge them with doing $70,000 worth of damage to US property...?
"... that if the end is for the public good, then it doesn’t matter if the rules around data collection get slightly bent."
Hmm, "it's for your own good", so don't you worry your pretty little heads about it, you can trust us, we're looking after you, just enjoy the Bread and Circuses, erm, I mean go and watch X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing..."
Oh and as for "That would appear to be joined, at the lower levels of government, by a poor understanding of the letter of the law when it comes to Data Protection", and at the higher levels of government by a complete lack of understanding (or they just don't care) that the public don't trust them with our data...!
"...showed that over 80% of respondents supported the use of CCTV to deal with crime in their neighbourhood."
"Finally, although the public for the most part did not feel safer, and despite their perceiving
CCTV as less effective than they initially thought, they were still predominantly in favour of
its use. Even though they concluded that it did not reduce crime, there was no pressure to
have it removed, and there were no major concerns, once people had experienced CCTV,
about infringement of civil liberties."
That sounds like less than a ringing endorsement to me. Also look at Appendix A which is rather critical of the methodology and the lack of control groups for much of the data.
And from the conclusions: "Assessed on the evidence presented in this report, CCTV cannot be deemed a success. It has cost a lot of money and it has not produced the anticipated benefits"
Basically (unsurprisingly) the Home Office has spun the results to give the answers they want.