When you said "Robot Space Maid"...
... I was thinking...
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... all the data which will now be collected on your Internet Browsing Habits and all the Age Verification records collected by porn sites to prove that you are over 18 will be *entirely* secure because the Government says they will be and we know we can trust them, can't we, boys and girls...?
The R18 certificate was introduced as just another method of control.
Given the rise in the availability of home videos and a more relaxed attitude to adult content, it was clear even to the Tories that they would be unable to stop this sort of material being available under current laws.
As such, they introduce R18 with the stipulation that you could only see these films in private cinemas or buy them from licenced sex shops. This gave TPTB greater opportunities to shut down any "unlicenced" sex shops and, at the same time, start charging for licences from any shops that wanted to sell R18 films.
Since then, of course, the rise of the Web has meant that you can get this sort of content from anywhere in the world, hence this stupid law and the idea of Hadrians Firewall whereby any site that shows it must (somehow) be blocked.
Of course this is the usual sort of Magical Thinking that politicians come up with, believing that all they have to do is make a demand and industry will wave a wand and make it happen, despite all the people who know what they're talking about telling them that it's completely unfeasible.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Section 66 - A person commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
Section 67 - A person commits an offence if—
2) (a)he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person (B) doing a private act, and
(b)he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.
3) (a) he records another person (B) doing a private act,
(b)he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and
(c)he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.
... Yes, folks, even though this and many other examples of poor data security show that handing over such private information to websites is not a good idea, the Conservative Government is pushing ahead with their plans to force all Adult sites to install Age Verification software as part of their "Think Of The Children" scheme to look good in the right wing press.
And, of course, they're even talking about demanding a Great Firewall of Britain to block any sites accessible in the UK which don't do this, even those which are hosted in another country!
Talk about clueless... :-(
But don't just get mad about this, contact your MP via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them that you won't stand for this sort of State Intrusion on private matters and that the responsibility for what children do on the interwebs is the responsibility of the *parents*, not the State, nor you and me.
Yeah, he could have kicked the shit out of an Uber driver instead and got a slap on the wrist, but, instead, he showed how vulnerable our computer systems still are and for that our Corporate Masters demand that he deserves to have the book thrown at him...
I have anonymous call blocking on my phone, yet I still get ones [Fucking hell! I've just had to stop typing this bloody post because the phone went and it was another fucking silent junk call!!!] where it's silent and 1471 says "You were called at XX:XX we do not have the caller's number"
If it can block withheld numbers, surely it's not rocket science to realise that if 1471 will give "we do not have the caller's number" is ALSO a call I don't want to receive, so they should screen this out BEFORE it rings!
> There is no such thing as right of way!
As I've pointed out in the past, "Right of Way" is defined as the right to "pass and re-pass" across a piece of land, ie you can do it when you want, without needing to ask permission.
The correct term is "Priority", ie who should get to go first.
Seriously, in these days of tiresome "reboots" (re-hashes might be a better word) because either people are running out of ideas or the big money is running scared of trying anything new, it would be just as daft to change Bond's colour, gender or anything else.
If you want a female secret agent, come up with a character and background that will do justice to the idea, the same for a black agent (who doesn't have to be a John Shaft alike) don't try to force the Bond character to conform to a change simply for change's sake.
> this country voted against PR
No, it voted for not replacing FPTP with AV, a false dilemma choice foisted on us by the Tories when they comprehensively out-manoeuvred the Lib-Dems who had sold their souls for a sniff of power and got shafted for it.
We never got a choice of *what* FPTP was going to be replaced by and many who were in favour of PR voted against AV because it wasn't what they wanted. This doesn't mean, despite what the Tories et al claim, that the country voted *for* FPTP.
> what will they do when ordered to bomb the White House again?!
I was thinking along similar lines: Who decides the missions and what if there's a difference of opinion? Exactly *who* will be in command?
RN Captain - We've been ordered to bomb XYZ
USMC Commander - Sorry, the President says we're not going to do that
... that it might be possible to read a story like this without the "Huh huh huh, it's porn" schoolboy nonsense.
Yes, some people like to watch adults engaged in consensual sexual activity. Others like to watch people engaged in sporting activity or romantic comedy activity or whatever. Big deal. A lot of them do it on their own, in private. Others do it with a partner.
The fact that this site, on its own, claims 60 million visitors *a day*, is trying to protect its customers from malware and is part of a larger organisation with many employees takes second place to the "smut, heh heh heh..." sniggering, written anonymously behind the moniker of "Team Register" (is that because nobody wanted to have fingers pointed at them?)
I could ask pathetic questions like: Did you all write it? Were you all clustered around one computer going "get a load of that" or perhaps you were all sitting in private cubicles, checking over your shoulder whilst doing "research"? but frankly I don't give a damn.
Come on, El Reg, if it was any other site (eg the BBC as has been mentioned by others) the story would have been written in a completely different way and under someone's own by-line, wouldn't it? So how about we treat the Adult Industry (which is what it is) in an adult manner and leave the gutter-press attitudes to the hypocritical tabloids?
The term "Right of Way" is actually defined as the right to "pass and re-pass" across a piece of land, ie you can do so repeatedly without needing to ask (or be given) permission.
"Priority" means that you are legally entitled to go first, so if a pedestrian steps out into the street in front of a car and gets knocked down, they can't complain that it wasn't their fault because they had Right of Way. There are exceptions, of course, for example at a Zebra Crossing where once the pedestrian has set foot on it, they *do* have Priority and vehicles MUST stop for them.
Similarly, at a roundabout, you MUST give Priority to vehicles coming from the right, if you fail to do so and this results in an accident, you'll be liable.
"...you don't trust ANYONE and that makes you an anarchist..."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of the people"
- V for Vendetta
Or, if you prefer:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
- Thomas Jefferson
> Theresa May said the UK will still comply with ECHR laws even after Brexit.
And we should trust her?
What she said was "there would be no Parliamentary majority" for leaving the ECHR. The sub-text I hear is "yet..." given that she has made her position very clear.
My prediction is that, as with things like their creeping privatisation of the NHS and other sell-offs, instead of one big change we'll see a whole load of little amendments being made that, slowly but surely, will strip us of our Rights until we only have the ones that *she* likes left to us.
> Once upon a time I was instructed by my HoD to order 50 (Fifty) of a certain form, which I duly did in total accordance with his written note. What turned up was 50 pads of said form.
Good, but not quite as good as happened to a friend of mine who was told by his manager to order one of a certain item code.
He queried it and was basically told "just do what you're bloody well told".
Unfortunately said manager had put the wrong code down, so, instead of one small item, they got one *pallet* load of them!
The manager tried to blame my friend who produced the paperwork signed by the manager...
... for interfering with our Government's Right to snoop on us all and stop them doing whatever they deem necessary to protect us from terrerrists!
Now that we've voted for Brexit, we can be certain that we will be *so* much safer with the British Bill of Rights that Theresa May will Allow Us...
Such matters are treated as "Strict liability" under English Law where you are effectively treated as "guilty unless you can prove your innocence".
[i]To prove most criminal offences, it must be shown that the actus reus (action) and mens rea (intention) are present.
Strict liability offences are offences where mens rea does not form a part of what it is necessary to prove the offence. These are offences where there is no mens rea required to establish liability, in relation to one or more elements of the actus reus of the offence; in short, the ‘guilty act’ is sufficient. [/i]
In a case like this, you would very likely not only have to prove the presence of malware but that you'd taken sufficient precautions to try to avoid it and that you hadn't deliberately allowed it to get onto your system so you could look at the kiddie porn and then claim "it was the malware that did it".
> I'm an untrusting sod.
Or just sensible.
I read recently of an author who suddenly found that Google had deleted his Blogger account which had been running since 2002 for "terms of service violation" and removed his gmail account too.
Hopefully he had back-up copies of all his work, but it wasn't just the work, it was a network which he used to communicate with followers and other artists.
Things like this are why you should NEVER trust Cloud services, because they're entirely at the mercy of someone else's whims :-(
> Before anyone in the UK starts to feel a bit superior I would like to draw their attention to the following case.
Yes, the shooting of Harry Stanley in 1999
And it was the High Court, on Appeal, that decided that there wasn't enough evidence for a verdict of Unlawful Killing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019