Why does this remind me of...
... the Great Tea Trolley Disaster of ‘67?
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... I don't need to google for it, I live just a few miles down the road from Paulsgrove and when the News of the Screws did their "let's try to boost circulation by putting up pictures of paedos" my friends who actually lived there were more terrified of the lynch mob roaming the streets than any putative threat to their childre ...
Translation, they've probably got a few people googling for words like "paedo" and "pervert" and no doubt getting dozens of hits off the websites of such esteemed organisations as The Sun and the News of the World (those well known researchers and verifiers of facts!)
Of course I'm sure that if someone is convicted, but then cleared on appeal, these people will immediately correct the data in their records and point out that someone has been exonerated of any wrong-doing...
... won't they...?
PS I had to laugh (cynically) when I read the ACPO's statement that "It's a basic principle of civilised society that public protection is best served by an evidence-based approach led by law enforcement authorities..."
Great idea, guys, why not try it? (See "I'm a photographer not a terrorist!" for just one example)
The expression AIUI is actually "Strict Liability Offences" and there are plenty more of those in UK law than the two you mention.
Originally the idea was that they would stop employers from avoiding responsibility for injuries to workers by claiming that nobody was personally responsible for the accident (no "mens rea" or "guilty mind", so nobody could be charged so, quite rightly, the law was changed to make the business as a whole responsible.
But now there is, of course, the law regarding "extreme pornography" where simply possession of an image is enough to prove guilt *unless* you can prove that you were a "direct participant" in what was being done. Another examples is selling alcohol to a child (hence all those "challenge 21" stickers) because the retailer has to prove that they did *not* sell alcohol to a child.
The Government loves Strict Liability offences because they make getting convictions so much easier even though they are a clear breach of Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which say you have the Right to be Presumed Innocent...
The point that El Reg is trying to make and that you seem to be missing is that it is the *arrest* which is "on suspicion of possession of a banned substance"
Note the word SUSPICION there, suspicion is not proof of guilt, you still have the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty and if the substance is found to be innocuous, you should be released without a stain on your character.
But what the Police are saying is that it is the simple matter of the *arrest* that can screw your future employment prospects, NOT a conviction for any offence!
I've just logged onto my FB account (look, I use it for playing Scrabble, ok?!) and some of the privacy options on the "About Me" and "Family Relationships etc" section default to "Old Settings" and others are set to "everyone".
On the "Photos and Videos", "Birthday" and "Religious Views" I'm given the option of "Friends of Friends" or "Old settings" but when I mouse over the buttons on Old Settings, it tells me that they're set to Friends of Friends already...!
Wow! And it's taken 12 years of increasing public anger at increasing Labour authoriatarianism for you to realise that?
And, what, you expect them to forget all of that in the next few months before your sorry arses are booted out of offices you are not fit to hold...??
Fail, because that's what Labour have done time and time again.
My business website uses a SEO simply because without it my shopping cart system just comes up with a URL that's a meaningless alpha-numeric stream instead of the name of the product which makes it harder to search for (as well as bookmark).
That doesn't ITEM mean I'm ITEM trying to BUZZWORD game the ITEM system by UNRELATED BUT POPULAR SEARCH TERM loading the page ITEM with other INFORMATION information which will BUZZWORD push my ITEM up the GOOGLE results...
Just because a naked picture appears on the internet doesn't make it bad, unless you're some prudish, narrow-minded prod-nose who thinks that it makes someone "a slut" or unsuitable to work as a teacher/ social worker/ whatever.
The correct answer to "why are naked pics bad" is "they aren't, now fnck off and mind your own business..."
"...in which a target machine is replaced with a counterfeit one that provides precisely the same messages and prompts that the original machine would have produced."
So why not just swap the keyboard for an identical one with a keylogger built in like they did on The Real Hustle?
I know there's a whole bunch of posts here already on this subject, but I just wanted to add my voice to them!
People should become aware of their rights, since this seems to be the only way to counter the abuse of powers by the Police who, at the moment, are getting away with trampling on every right we have simply because they can and the sheeple are too afraid to object.
But what this highlights is a more dangerous problem in that the Police don't actually know (or care about) the rights of the people they are harassing and think (to quote Judge Dredd) "I am the Law!" and the law is whatever they think it is.
What we need is less "target oriented" Policing, less "box ticking" and less petty-minded BS and more actual Policing, unfortunately what we get is them rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic...
The fact of the matter now is that a lot of modern "news reporting" consists of stories grubbed off the AP/ Reuters wires or similar without any attempt to actually research them.
Try searching for a popular news story and you'll find fifty or more virtually identical versions, some with edits in, others copied verbatim.
The only ones that aren't like this are the "breaking news" stories that often contain wildly inaccurate speculation or "facts" which later turn out to be nonsense as a result of the "24 hour news cycle" that results in the "publish or broadcast first and worry about the details later" attitude.
... should only be used for those purposes.
What a great idea!
Parliament should pass an Act, say one for, oh, I don't know, Protection of Data, that has rules which state that Data must only collected for specific purposes and can only be used *for* those purposes and that the Data should not be disclosed (or sold) to others *without* the consent of the individual.
Maybe they could even have someone called a Commissioner for Information whose job it was to ensure those rules are obeyed and who had the power to do something if they were broken.
I wonder why nobody thought of this before...?
I have often thought about visiting America, however I have no intention of ever visiting it until they stop treating me as a terrorist suspect simply for wanting to go there.
The question is will Merkins visiting the UK be required to give these details and, if not, why not (or is it just another one-sided treaty that means we dance to their tune?)
... when you don't even know a cookie is being stored?
I have Firefox's cookie settings to "ask me every time" and I've found that even if I'm only looking something up on google, often I get a message that the top site on the search is asking to store a cookie on my computer!
Why, for gods' sake? I haven't even *visited* the damn site and already it's trying to shove its cookie down my metaphorical throat.
I only ever give most cookies "Allow for Session" permissions apart from the ones from obvious tracking/ advertising servers which I deny, I also use the Better Privacy add-on to get rid of Flash based cookies, yet still when I run Spybot or AdAware I get warnings of tracking cookies that have slipped through the net.
Of course Advertisers are going to try to interpret these regulations in the way that's most favourable to them, what we need is TPTB telling them to stop playing silly buggers...
"I'm asking how YOU propose to deal with the very real problem of people encrypting child porn / terrorist plans in the modern world. What's the solution? Ask them nicely, then give up if they say no?"
And I'll ask YOU why you consider the principle of Presumption of Innocence to be so insignificant that anyone who uses encryption on their hard drives can immediately be considered to be a terrerist/ paedo and locked up for refusing to prove their innocence.
Tell me, do you write for the Daily Fail?
... is that the organisers haven't twigged to the fact that they've priced pretty much all of the small niche suppliers out of the show.
What they have now is little more than a glorified Ann Summers style event with content that you can buy on the high street these days.
Unless the organisers get over their greed and stop trying to simply squeeze every penny possible out of exhibitors and public, the show will die.
Hopefully, then, someone else will step in with reasonable stall and entry charges and have a little more consideration for the people who actually make the show happen, rather than just thinking how they can further line their pockets.
One might only imagine that if one was extremely naiive given the way that other media have been sold (or not sold) by greedy publishers who are only interested in jacking up their profits by trying to restrict availability (eg regional codes on DVDs), using DRM or assuming that there's an exchange rate of £1 = $1
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019