MUD2 is still regularly played at mudii.co.uk - It's the incarnation from the old Wireplay days. I wonder if releasing the source code for MUD 1 will damage the game for the remainder of the MUD2 players?
26 posts • joined 4 Mar 2008
There are clearly defined DPA issues with recording CCTV, hence the signs will have a legal declaration about what they are collecting data for, usually something along the lines of "for the detection and prevention of crime" . I've yet to see one that says "To collect and sell information about where you've been"
That's the fundamental difference!
Ah well, we've survived for a 100 years, yes why bother. Whilst we're at it, lets sit back and survey the world, our work here is done. No need to improve chaps, time for a holiday. Survived without mobile phones and computers you say? Jolly good. Lets get rid of it all. Electricity? far too modern!
Ah suck it up, I can't wait to be "ON THE PLANE!"
/Mine's the loin cloth, next to the club!
It's not allowing mobiles that's the issue, it's training people to realise that the sound only needs to travel 6 inches from their mouth to the reciever.
I'm in favour of allowing them..so next time I'm sat on the tarmac or circling above some dingy town I can let people know not to bother coming to pick me up just yet!
...they came for fingerprints and I did not speak out because I was not a terminal five traveller.
then they came for the web profiles and I did not speak out because I was not a BT (or Virgin or Talktalk) customer.
then they came for the school applicants and I did not speak out because I was not a school applicant.
When they came for my thoughts, there was no one left to speak out.
/Mine's the one with the Niemöller biography in the pocket.
I think an interesting question is how the ICO views the opt in, as the DPA applies to individuals one would assume that the opt-in has to be on an individual basis; this would indicate that a cookie is NOT fit for purpose when it can be shown multiple users may use a single system.
I know this has been asked multiple times, but now we know opt-in is required, am I as an account holder able to give consent for information to be collected about other people who use my connection?
Surely the opt-in is on a system level, which is entirely separate to an individual giving consent under the DPA?
Answer's on a postcard please(it's just as private...)
/I'm as confused as Paris
typical Yank idiocy, but then what do you expect with a president who can't spell 'Guantemanomo' without the aid of My First World Dictionary, eh?
/Paris, because she knows what Yanks would rather do with their 'guns'.
/the whole effort has gone out of commenting; somehow something's lacking.
So actually, anybody using the connection (I'm guessing whoever happens to use the web first on the day they flick the switch) can agree to your data being used in the trial....
Not necessarily the account holder; and I'm guessing the person who has the legal rights to change things.
Now you try doing anything over the phone if you're NOT the account holder, it's virtually impossible!
Who else guessed that it would boil down the the marketing department with their seemingly blank cheques and limitless unaccountability getting the jump on legal, security and compliance?
Happens everywhere whilst the security staff are left to clean up the mess, now where's my clue stick?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019