Why didn't Mervyn King...
... take a lesson from the way Sterling crashed when Darling Alastair opened his big mouth and *not* trigger another plunge for our currency?
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
(Yes, I know I've posted comments on this before, but *still* there has been no response or "guidance" from the MoJ with only two months to go before they introduce this law...!)
Here are some questions which the MoJ need to supply answers to in order to give us *any* clue as to what this law will *actually* affect...
"Jacqui Smith said last week that she wants an open, reasoned debate to build consensus around the Bill. "
A "consensus" that will then be ignored if it doesn't agree with what Wacky Jacqui and friends want, because they've already decided that this is "good for us(tm)" and so will be implemented anyway.
I'd suggest a "Big Brother" icon for stories like this, but that would just allow Jacqui and co to zero in on those of us proles who fail to engage in "blackwhite" thinking (The ability to accept whatever "truth" the party puts out) and, instead are engaging in illegal crimethink (even considering any thought not in line with the principles of the party)...
Do we allow children to drive cars? No.
Do we allow children to go into pubs and drink alcohol? No.
Do we allow children to go into cinemas and watch 18 certificate films? No.
So the answer is simple, we simply ban children from the internet entirely!
I'm sure we could get the Daily Mail onside, any parent found allowing their child to access the internet should be arrested and charged for neglect and failing to protect their kiddies from all that nasty stuff, *that* should teach them a lesson!
Or (ok, I know this is a stupid idea, but...) how about we expect parents to be *responsible* for the upbringing of their children and monitoring what they do online?
Nah, that's daft and wouldn't allow our Big Brother Government to introduce even more ridiculous and unworkable Thought Crime legislation...
... They should have used the classic 80's hit "99 Red Balloons" by Nena:
"This is what we've waited for,
This is it, Boys, this is war!
The President is on the line as
99 red balloons go by.
"99 Knights of the Air
Ride super high-tech jet fighters
Everyone's a super hero,
Everyone's a Captain Kirk.
"With orders to identify,
To clarify and classify,
Scramble in the summer sky as
99 red balloons go by."
Still, it's only a song about a massive military over-reaction, isn't it...?!
On one internet forum I used, in a discussion of the works of the author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, his name was rendered by their software as "Philip K Masculine Area"!
Mine's the one with a copy of Monty Python's "I bet you they won't play this song on the radio" in the pocket...
... to get a well known phrase or saying.
Petard, Hoist, One's, Own, By.
Obviously McCain is one of those politicos who think they have special privileges (the word derives from "private law"!) and that the sort of legislation they pass is only for the "little people" to obey.
More importantly, it's as if people don't trust this system and the people operating it and the governments who'll be spying on it (and us) and will probably then find ways of levying taxes on it, not to mention the risk of money disappearing from your account when someone hacks it, followed by the operators saying "we think you were careless with your card, so we're not going to pay you back even though we didn't ensure we had a secure system", to name just a few things...
> Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Maybe you're just misinformed.
Entrapment is where a law enforcement officer or agency actively *encourages* people to commit crimes.
A sting is where they allow criminals to commit crimes so they can be arrested.
For example them saying "Go on, steal that car with the window open" is illegal, but leaving a car unattended with the window open that turns out to lock itself when someone tries to nick it is entirely legal.
Unless someone from the Law Enforcement community on DarkMarket actually instigated any criminal behaviour, then I have no problem with them simply making it easy for crooks to incriminate themselves.
> The government can rush the one-page bill through if they've declared a national emergency. I can't remember off-hand exactly under what conditions they have can declare national emergency
For more information (at the risk of a Godwin!) see the "Enabling Legislation" which allowed Hitler to seize power from the Reichstag in 1933...
... what effect is this going to have on Screen Scraping services?
We've already seen in El Reg how Ryan Air have cancelled or refused to honour tickets that were booked through companies that do this (in order to allow customers to find the cheapest deals), now, it seems, this will give legitimacy to their actions and make life more difficult for the public to save money due to the "confusion marketing" techniques Ryan Air et al use.
> Believe me, there ain't nobody more fascist & draconian than a "liberal" given power.
Speaking as a liberal (with a small 'l') I can't say I recognise many liberal principles (Civil Liberties, Basic Human Rights, Presumption of Innocence etc) in the control-freak, nanny state legislation that has been brought in by this country and by the USA.
So, are Blair, Brown and Bush really "closet liberals"...?
... to Thought Crime Britain!
If we think that the porn you look at might make you do nasty things, we'll ban it.
If we think that looking at Hentai and Manga cartoon images of "underage" girls might make you want to groom or molest children, we'll ban them.
If we think that satirical sites about mob rule might be taken seriously, we'll ban them.
If we think that banning sites or making it illegal to look at material we don't like is actually going to have the slightest effect, then we'll do it.
If we think that you are all a bunch of mindless sheeple who are incapable of acting in a mature and responsible adult manner and can't be trusted to look at anything that might make you do bad things then we've succeeded in our mission.
Hooray for the freedom loving and democratic UK Government!!
... the number of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users who are *STILL* being put at risk by idiots using hand-held mobile phones whilst in "control" of a tonne and half of metal despite it being illegal?
(PS "breaking"? "Swindon"?? Methinks some proof-reading is required!)
There is a difference between him being entitled to hold an opinion and him calling for "discouragements of homosexual practices after the style of warnings on cigarette packets. Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed..."
The right to hold an opinion comes with the attendant *responsibility* not to express that opinion in a way or advocating behaviour that infringes on the right of others to live their lives in a manner that doesn't harm others.
... so says the Press Complaints Commission's own guidelines for editors.
What Max Mosley did had *nothing* to do with his job as head of F1, nor did he do it in a public place or display it for public consumption. What we did have, however, is a gutter tabloid rag which decided that invading someone's privacy for a bit of salacious scandal mongering would boost their circulation figures.
Unfortunately, whilst I entirely understand his reasoning, it's very unlikely that his requests will actually be acted upon because that would tip the balance too far away from the ability of the media to publish stories which are "in the public interest" ie *of benefit* to the public.
What he would, IMO, be better advised to do, is to get the PCC changed from a toothless watchdog which is stuffed with newspaper editors whose only interest is covering each other's backs to an organisation which can actually require editors to be dismissed or journalists sacked if they publish prurient tittle-tattle like this with no real justification other than "it will sell more papers".
Perhaps that will then make the press less inclined to do this sort of "expose".
I don't live in a cave, but, unlike you it seems, I do know that the amount of DRM free music legitimately available out there is only a *fraction* of the total output available from music producers.
I'd be quite happy to pay for the music I wanted if I could actually buy it and, of course, at a reasonable price, instead of paying inflated "rip off Britain" charges.
And, no, I don't want to buy a ten quid CD simply to get one track either.
"...to block material that is not actually illegal to possess."
Not forgetting, of course, their plans to criminalise possession of material of acts that are not actually illegal to do!
> is to make it so that phone subscribers have to explicitly "opt-in" to be able to make premium rate calls
Back in 1994, during the days of 0898 chat/ sex lines, there was an attempt to do exactly that which virtually killed the income of the businesses who, perfectly legally and legitimately, operated these lines, because nobody wanted to phone up an operator and say "please let me access these numbers". Eventually the system was quietly dropped.
> if you are telling a story that involves such a scene, then its fine because it isn't simply for 'sexual gratification'
Yes, but if you take a clip from a TV show or BBFC classified film and, in someone else's *entirely subjective opinion* you did it "for sexual gratification" then you will have committed an offence.
Of course this will be judged partly by the "context" it is in, although whether that means it's in a folder marked "porn clips" or both are in the My Documents folder or both are on the same hard drive or both are on the same computer or both are in the same house, nobody knows!
There's also the point that the BBFC have given an R18 classification to a pr0n film called "Girls with Guns" that features women "forcing" men to have sex "under firearms duress", but that will still be entirely legal because it's not a clip from a film, it's the whole damn film!!
Still, apart from that, I agree entirely with your main point :-)
PS @NT - Nice rant!
> Xander: I'm confused. Does this law affect websites or users?
> Say I go on a forum and someone has posted "pornographic material that realistically depicts bestiality or necrophilia, rape and other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity, whether violent or otherwise". Am I in trouble for just having viewed the image?
The crime is "possession". Of course since you have visited the website, the image will be cached on your computer, so you are "in possession" of it, even if you didn't save it.
> Is the original poster in trouble for making the image?
Possibly, but only if they're in the UK.
> Is the person who made the image in trouble (even if the image is just a detailed drawing / photo collage)?
If it's "realistic".
> Clarification would be great :)
The Ministry of Justice is supposed to be providing "clarification" before this law comes into effect in January 2009, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
I wrote to Harry Cohen MP (the only Labour MP who seems to give a toss about objecting to this ridiculous law) with twenty questions for the MoJ. That was back in July, but so far there has been no reply from them.
See http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=803 for the letter.
> there's never been any proof that looking at nasty porn makes people do nasty things (I suspect it's more likely to be the opposite, and the porn provides the outlet for the impulse, but then you can't prove that either).
It's not proof, but there has been some very valid research conducted by Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i
"it is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes"
Wow, isn't it great that the Nanny State is there to "protect us from exposure to pornography that depicts horrific images of violence".
Obviously, just because of the actions of one or a few individuals, it is clear that we are *all* incapable of acting in a rational, sensible manner and cannot be trusted to view this material without going out and harming someone.
Excuse me whilst I stop playing GTA and go and steal a car and mow down a few pedestrians...
> UK Top Secret = Give to Journalist?
1) Hand in to the Police. They hand it back to the MOD. MOD says "Phew! That was lucky, good job nobody noticed" and does nothing about it.
2) Hand it to the media. They hand it back to the MOD with publicity and the MOD are then at least then aware that people know they screwed up and will maybe do something about their data security.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019