"the publication of material can amount to an act of terrorism...
"...as defined by MiniTrue and NewSpeak".
6903 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"...as defined by MiniTrue and NewSpeak".
And Call Me David makes so much more sense calling for bans on encryption and Gideon flogging off the family silver (and then furniture) to make his mates richer and Treasonous May wanting to consider us all potential terrorists...
Dear Advertisers, YOU are the problem, not ad blockers. YOU are the ones who are annoying people off to such an extent that they want to use adblockers.
You have got so wrapped up in the idea that getting your content in front of peoples' eyeballs is the most important idea that you can't see that people are fed up with their eyeballs bleeding as a result of all this crap!
Try stepping back and taking a deep breath and considering *why* people are blocking your content and think that, just perhaps, there's a better way of doing things.
Or you can sit in your smug little echo chamber and ignore anyone who points out anything that conflicts with your idea that "Well, advertising's good, isn't it, so more advertising's got to be even better, hasn't it...?"
Everyone you've pissed off.
... is what should be at the *top* of the Design Specs, yet we constantly see with stories like this and the IoT etc that either nobody thinks about it, nobody considers it necessary or, even worse, that it's just too expensive or too much hassle to worry about whilst rushing to get a product to the market first.
... so did anyone here notice?
> I believe its called consultancy...
You are correct.
That will be £5000, please.
Just beat me to it...!
But did you tell them you'd done it...? ;-)
... once they've got you hooked, you're stuck with them.
As always, when someone tells you it's 'free', the first question you need to ask is "What is this *actually* going to cost me?"
And let's not forget this gem...
> It’s an acute problem for progressives and the Left when you want to ban or regulate something, and yet you can’t show "harm" to justify it.
Sure, because the Right have *never* decided that they wanted to ban or regulate something yet have been unable to show "harm" to justify it...
Remember Alan Shepard's comment:
"It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract."
I think what's really clear is that *both* of them are playing PR games.
Your take was "Way I read it, the drone owner is self-entitled, aggressive and thinks it's fine to hover over people's fenced in gardens filming them or their family members and I'm on Meredith's side on this", but you (and your upvoters) didn't seem to have done any looking to see if there *was* an "on the other hand" version which may contradict it, hence the downvote.
As for the gun stuff, personally I don't live in a country where there are people who think that "go for your gun" is the apparent default method of resolving an issue. (If Meredith was so concerned about the drone, why didn't *he* call the Police...?)
Downvoted, not for the gun stuff (see later), but because here's the drone owner's version
* * * * *
In a video Boggs sent WDRB, he comments on drone's path 40 seconds before, during and after the incident.
"We are now one minute and 18 seconds into the flight," he says on the video. "We are now 193 feet above the ground. This area here is the world-famous drone slayer home, and this is a neighbor's home, and our friends live over here, and over here, and over here. You will see now that we did not go below this altitude -- we even went higher -- nor did we hover over their house to look in. And for sure didn't descend down to no 10 feet, or look under someone's canopy, or at somebody's daughter."
"We are right now one minute, 56 seconds over the drone slayer's house. We're still not on his property line -- we're just now getting ready to cross it....In less than two seconds...we are outside of his property, still at 272 feet. He shot the drone here, and you'll see it rapidly lose altitude, and the drone crash. Boom -- there it goes. Crazy, in the words of the great Paul Harvey, now you know the rest of the story."
* * * * *
Now, regarding the guns, if someone starts shooting at and destroying my property, I think I'd be a little miffed, and if I wanted to have a word with them, I doubt I'd just go up to their house, knock on the door and say "excuse me, old chap, would you mind not doing that?" I'd want a few friends with me. When we see the guy I want to speak to is packing a side arm and threatening 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting" I think we're going to back off. (NB nowhere can I find anything that says the drone owner or his friends are carrying firearms...)
So have "the various attempts to cast this has someone shooting down an innocent drone that was just flying along through the sky" really been exploded?
... Failure to be happy is treasonous and can be punished by termination.
- Your friend, The Computer.
(Mine's the Red Security Clearance one)
> never attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity
In this case, it's not simply stupidity, it's ideological idiocy.
Call me David, Gideon Osborne and IDS have presided over the train-wreck that this Austerity, penalising the poor for being poor whilst desperately flogging off the family silver (and, latterly, the furniture) to their rich mates to try to make the books balance and now Gideon is claiming that there's a "cocktail of threats" (should that be a cock-up?) which mean that he has to keep on kicking the least well off in society because it's clearly *their* fault that the banks and financial markets crashed...
> For that you might as well use SMS. In clear text.
... Only a third???
> As a society we are desperately behind the crims who are in control at the moment.
Yes, the ones in control are the politicians and the Media Barons who decide what we are or, more importantly, are not allowed to read and see. The Big Busineses who tell our "elected" representatives how they should run the country and how if they would pass a certain law it would be to everyone's benefit (and here's a nice lucrative Directorship for you).
> You may not read about all of these events but they happen daily and serve to illustrate just how bad the situation really is
HOW can they illustrate *ANYTHING* if we can't read about them? The Government and the Security Services might claim that they've prevented X many attacks, but without anything to corroborate such assertions, they are just meaningless BS.
PS: Oh, and your post might have had more credibility had you not posted as an Anonymous Coward...
... claims by the UK government's lawyers that the huge volumes of data collected by the intelligence services won't be readable at the point of inception.
But, but... Matt Bryant disagrees with him, so he *MUST* be wrong!!!
> If you want to find a needle in a hay stack, you don't send in a person to sift through the hay with their hands. You just move all the hay past a powerful electromagnet.
But that assumes that a) there *is* a needle in the haystack and b) you don't have *so many* haystacks that you can actually search all of them.
There's also the small matter of the several attacks over recent years which have been by people who have been known to the Intelligence Services, yet have still been able to perpetrate their attacks...
> It's amazing how many houses burn down because the house next door caught fire.
If the fire is anything more than very minor, a fire extinguisher is going to do you damn all good if you use it to try to put the fire out.
The point of a home extinguisher is actually to ensure you can create a safe escape path and get out of the house and then let the Fire Brigade do their job.
> Presently, in most jurisdictions, the field video is owned and controlled by the police department.
At least this is one thing that Britain's Surveillance State got right: If you appear on CCTV or other such video footage which has been taken by the Police or similar authorities you have a right to see that footage.
And how many are based in Egypt? None? Oh, well then they clearly shouldn't object to FB doing anything in Egypt, should they? In fact they obviously shouldn't object to *anything* happening in *any* country that they're not based in...
> We're not a small, vocal group, complains the small, vocal group
The "small, vocal group" which probably has an awful lot of members all around the world, people who are interested in everyone having access to the internet (and that's *all* the internet, not just the walled garden that Zuck wants you to pay to step outside of).
> "[...] unfounded and divisive attacks" – like the one they just launched into"
Hmm, I'm wondering if El Reg has Another Opinion-holder who writes articles that should be entitled "Opinion" rather than being presented as fact...
Highly Suspect Banking Corporation
If you only have access to a small local library, there may not *be* books on the subjects you want (or those books may be 20 years out of date).
There's an awful lot more information out there on the internet and it's much easier to search through it and find the bits that are actually relevant to what you want to know.
And if you find information "offensive" or "dangerous", don't look at it!
> pretty well eveyone readint this site is in violation of at least 20 patents just for getting out of bed in the morning
And if they stay *in* bed then they are in violation of my patent for the utilisation of a device constructed of woven fabric intended to maintain a comfortable body temperature...
... encryption is ok?
No, I ordered the Hawaiian, not the Pepperoni...
> Read the report and try and form your own opinion.
Certainly, Matt. And my first opinion is (unsurprisingly) that you've cherry-picked quotes that support your position whilst missing out other, very relevant, sections.
There is a further related issue – the level of vetting required for control room operators to access police Airwave or the ANPR system. It is currently, rightly, the decision of the Chief Constable on whether or not to give access to the Local Authority control room. This is important and my concern is the lack of consistency and the absence of a recommended standard. This is something I have raised with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) via the ANPR and CCTV policing leads.
It is now possible for UK police forces to interrogate in excess of 11 billion records per year lodged on the system. The main ways that the data can be exploited through data mining are outlined as:
• vehicle tracking: real time and retrospective;
• vehicle matching: identifying all vehicles that have taken a particular route during a particular time frame;
• geographical matching: identifying all vehicles present in a particular place at a particular time;
• network analysis: by identifying the drivers of vehicles and their network of associates, ANPR can be used to indicate vehicles that may be travelling in convoy;
Now whilst, of course, someone like you would argue that this is a good thing for finding paedophiles and drug dealers and terrorists, someone who has a slightly broader perspective would realise that this also contains a risk of abuse since it could be used to identify anyone whose vehicle was in the vicinity of an event which was not officially approved by the State.
In 2015 the Home Office has committed approximately £5 million to support the development of the National ANPR Service which includes cloud based storage.
Hmm, cloud based storage? I wonder if any of that is based in the USA or owned by US corporations who are, of course, required to hand over any and all such information to their Security Services on demand (and not tell anyone they've done so...)
And in the section titled "Legitimacy of ANPR system use by police" where the author of El Reg's gets the quote about the lack of "statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database, its creation was never agreed by parliament, and no report on its operation has even been laid before parliament" (so, clearly, Kat Hall *has* RTFR) it also says:
These issues fall into sharper focus given the desire within some quarters in the police to extend retention periods from the currently agreed two year period to a maximum of seven years. I have referred these concerns over the legality of ANPR to the Home Office.
(Perish the thought that the Home Office would disagree or retroactively change the rules...)
Then in the section "Compliance with Guiding Principles within the Surveillance Code of Practice" the report's author says:
I have openly called for greater transparency from the police relating to the numbers of ANPR cameras deployed and any evidence relating to their efficiency and effectiveness to also be published. It is not acceptable to have to rely on submitting Freedom of Information requests. Police forces should be willing to publish this information on websites and engage in debates around its usage.
So I think my opinion is that the report's author isn't quite as "supportive" of ANPR and the database it generates as you assert...
Yes, Matt is correct in *one* small detail, but, as I pointed out, that's only a tiny part of this. (Of course that won't stop him declaring victory...)
> one of the valid defences is to claim that someone other than the named driver was operating the vehicle at the time of the offence
It is not enough to *claim* that someone else was operating the vehicle, you have to *name* them as the law requires that you to know who is driving your vehicle at all times and fibbing about this tends to get you into trouble as a certain ex-MP found out...
"And it's Bryant, he's got the ball, he shoots... he moves the goalposts... HE SCORES!! And the crowd goes... meh."
Let's see what is *actually* being said:
There is no statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database;
such a move warrants a specific statutory basis and "clear mechanisms for accountability and governance". Privacy, data protection and human rights concerns must also be properly addressed,
No justification has ever been made for the change in the use of ANPR technology from a tool used to target suspected vehicles to the enormous national database
The lack of statutory oversight highlighted [...] should be urgently addressed [...] drivers are none the wiser as to what is happening to their data
the public must be made aware of how advancements in technology can alter the way they are monitored. There needs to be consultation and debate on matters that can severely impact on an individual’s right to privacy
So, whilst privacy is mentioned in there, it's only one *small* part of the overall picture and to claim that it's ok because the data on registration numbers themselves is not "personal" information is disingenuous at best and laughable at worst.
This is not about "the police using a specific record to convict someone of some crime", it is about *everyone* being considered a potential suspect and paedophile/ terrorist/ drug dealer (Oh my!) such that we must *all* be tracked and our journeys recorded just in case we may do something wrong.
We have a report from the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the guy who was appointed *by the Government* to look at these matters on one hand and, on the other, a Funding *Bid* which *recommends* "that the Commissioner approve the submission of a bid to the Police Innovation Fund that if successful would support the development of the National ANPR Service" and a page from Wikipedia that Matt has managed to dig up to support his usual argument that we should allow the State to snoop on all of us, because *he* thinks that's a good idea.
Which one do you consider the more reliable, boys and girls?
"... its creation was never agreed by parliament; and no report on its operation has even been laid before parliament."
"Well, yeah, but nobody told us we *couldn't* do it. (Of course we didn't actually bother to ask anyone...)"
... about walking plants...
If it was just because they'd "lost out", then there wouldn't be a case.
If, however, FB deliberately witheld relevant information from potential purchasers in order to encourage people to buy over-valued shares, that's another matter entirely...
Here's what the law says:
* * * * *
Sexual Offences Act 2003:
(1) 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.
* * * * *
So unless he was waving it around and shouting "Get a load of this, darling!" no offence was committed.
(PS for pedants: Although it says "he", that's simply for convenience and brevity and it includes women too)
... not block anonymous calls?
When I do 1471 and get a message saying "We do not have the caller's number", THAT is as good a definition of "anonymous" as you can get, yet those calls *still* get through to my phone.
WHY? It is hardly rocket science to realise that if I can get that message *after* I do 1471, then my phone company can do it *before* they put the call through and, if it thinks "Oh, I would play the 'we do not have the caller's number' message if someone does 1471, then it does *NOT* put the fucking junk call through!
That started with the military, didn't it?
Now try asking Firefighters or Mountain Rescue teams or any other such group who may need to carry heavy equipment over rough terrain that is impassible to 4x4s and see what they think...
> What kind of nutcase would put something like that in the hands of a child?
The point is, even in the hands of an experienced pilot, things can go wrong. If some idiot decides to fly a drone near an airport or over a busy road or off the top of a block of flats and there's a problem, there is a risk to anyone below. And even a moped in the wrong place can cause an accident...
... In other words, it's ok when *we* do it...
Ah, that brings back memories!
Not only great graphics and gameplay, but also voice clips from the film: "Red Five standing by", "Look at the size of that thing!" and, of course, Obi Wan urging you to "Use the force Luke" when you did the Death Star trench run where, if you could complete it without firing your lasers, you got a bonus to your score!
A team of three once played the game for over 5 days, racking up a top score of one *billion* (and twelve) points before calling it quits! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_%281983_video_game%29#Records
"Every time Zuck is able to put the Internet's resources to work collecting people's information it's a win for him and his advertisers..."
Populating (or over-populating or even going for all-out nuclear war) won't destroy a planet. Sure, it'll majorly fuck up the ecosystem, but the big ball of rock will still be there.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017