Slashdot Mirror

No raw HTML/CSS template editing yet, but apparently that's coming soon. The labels thing is a pretty good idea. I made a blog. It's awesome.

You are a master of resolving conflict. As is evident on your blog entry: Let's piss some more people off!!. There's a word for people like you: Hypocrites.

I messed up before ... this is the link with the information on Amadinnerjackets site. http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadine jad-trying-to-infect.html From what I gather it is only going after "certain" addresses....

Link on the left of the new blog pops a "HTTP MS IE File DragDrop Embed Code" in Norton. Is this intentional or not? You decide.

Check out http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadine jad-trying-to-infect.html

Warning to IE users, the blog uses a backdoor to infect IE users. nice going slashdot. you've just helped propagate a bot net by posting the link on the front page..

Apparently it tries to seize control of PCs using IE. Currently it looks like it's just targetting Israelis but I wouldn't take the risk.

Ahmadinejad's blog tries to exploit the "HTTP MS IE File DragDrop Embed Code" vulnerability to infect the PCs from Israel that visit the page.

More info:
http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadine jad-trying-to-infect.html/

Sorry. Try this:

http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadine jad-trying-to-infect.html

According to this blog entry, the site tries to exploit an Internet Explorer vulnerability. I don't know if this information is accurate, and I use Firefox anyway.

Check out the blog of ex-Google employees, which recently featured this event.

From the entry:

This week googling officially became a verb. The 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary now includes "googling" (lower case g). Actually the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) beat them to the punch a month ago by listing Google (upper case g) in their authoritative lexicon of the English language. It's about time. People have been using Google as a verb for years, despite protestations by the company (many of which I authored myself) about the genericization of the trademarked name.

Having your brand name used as a generic term, is of course, a mixed blessing for a company. On the one hand, it's great to have your name become the common shorthand for an entire category. It implies acceptance that your product is the standard by which all others in the category are judged and it's great word-of-mouth for building awareness and trial.

On the other hand, you want to protect your trademark and it's difficult to do that if overuse dilutes its connection to your product. If Google becomes synonymous with "searching the internet" without a connection to the specific service offered by Google Inc. at www.google.com, then anyone can offer a way to "google for information." Say, for example, Microsoft. They could offer an MSN google box if Google's trademark on the name were to be revoked through genericide.

I thought Google Adsense already did the whole real time auction thing. This article seems to confirm the idea.

Everyone, we don't have to stand for this outrage anymore. Jump up on your blog-platforms and scream to the heavens! The people must know the deep-dicking the RIAA is out to give... even to the dead!

The regular media might not cover this, but we sure can! Get to your blogs/myspaces/whatevers and rant! Here's what I posted; excuse my colorful language, it's early and I haven't had time to put on my happy-face: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006 /08/riaa-wants-to-depose-dead-defendants.html From the article: "In Michigan, in Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury, after learning that the defendant had passed away, the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to "grieve", after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children:" The RIAA was suing this guy and now he's dead. Instead of dropping it, the RIAA is going after his children. Yeah, the RIAA is pretty fucking sick. Think twice when you buy your next CD -- do you want to support the RIAA? http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp there is a list of all record labels associated with the RIAA. Please, send the bastards at the RIAA a message by avoiding those labels whenever possible (or better yet, pirate the music -- that really grinds the RIAA's gears).

Take it to the sumpreme court. http://dmcadoesntownearorpen.blogspot.com/

This happens to be the topic of my PhD research in organization theory. I have written considerably about the various theoretical foundations of a new theory of organization, most of which is posted, or linked to, on my blog under this category. As well, I have published an article in the latest edition (Summer 2006, vol. 24 no. 2) of the Organization Development Journal entitled "The Penguinist Discourse: A Critical Application of Open Source Software Project Management to Organization Development," that extends the well-known work of Yochai Benkler ("Coase's Penguin") to apply open source principles and motivational factors to general management.

I would be happy to correspond with anyone who might be interested in my work relative to their own workplaces (and I also do OD consulting, btw).

The original link notably omits OS/2.

Whereas Windows 3.1 was a cooperatively multitasked OS, OS/2 was a pre-emptively multitasked OS just like UNIX. OS/2 was rock solid. In opinion, it had only 2 problems. It was released just slightly ahead of its time: OS/2 needed, at least, an 80486 to be adequately fast even though most consumers were running computers that had an 80386, an 80286, or even an 8088.

The second problem was that IBM did not give it away for free. Windows 3.1 was, in general, inferior to OS/2 although Windows 3.1 was perfectly matched to the underpowered processors at the time. Windows 3.1 often crashed. Even when Windows did not crash, it often froze when an application neglected to cooperatively relinquish the processor. Windows 3.1 main advantage was that it had the Microsoft name on it. If IBM had open-sourced OS/2 or given it away for free, then IBM could have wrestled the entire OS market from Microsoft. Most consumers would have chosen a free, rock-solid OS over a more expensive, crappy OS. Being free is important since most consumers are cheapskates.

Also, Windows 3.1 was actually based on the core code on which IBM and Microsoft had collaborated. After they terminated the joint project, IBM continued development on the core code and turned it into OS/2. Meanwhile Microsoft gutted the parts (e.g., preemptive multitasking) that, in its opinion, the consumer would not value and morphed the result into Windows 3.1.

When you look at the APIs for both OS/2 and Windows 3.1, you can see the common heritage of both products. More than half of the APIs have identical or nearly identical names and arguments.

If the common ancestor of both products were called "Homo Erectus", then OS/2 is Cro-Magnon man, and Windows 3.1 is the chimp that preceded Homo Erectus.

Here is a program which generates the integer value of natural language numbers, e.g. nine hundred twenty eight million two thousand fourteen --> 928,002,014. Here's the info on the release. The next step is to write a dataset for solving simple word problems.

Look at all of the companies where the workers voted themselves higher and higher wages and more benefits... and then went bankrupt or out of business because they were no longer competitive.

I sure do--that would be guys like these, right?

Offhand, though, I can't think of a single case where a worker-run company has suffered anything comparable. Certainly not in the last few decades.

Corporate governance is about monkey psychology, which in practical terms means the tendency for arrogant idiots to rise to the top of human social hierarchies. Smart people realize their own limitations, and don't have deep-seated adequacy issues, and so tend to stay out of the climb to the "top", leaving a clear field for the kind of losers we get there. Most of whom, I agree, aren't competent to run a lemonade stand.

See title... VMWare make software virtualisation products. Of course they're going to try and find that software methods are better.

Disclaimer: I work for VMware.

1. VMware already supports VT, but it's not enabled by default because for normal workloads it's slower. If VT really were faster, do you really think we'd be choosing to use a slower approach and making customers unhappy?
2. Even Intel admits the first generation of VT hardware wasn't so great and now claims that they were aiming for correctness instead of performance:
   • http://x86vmm.blogspot.com/2006/04/intel-quietly-b acking-away-from-vt.html (from Keith's weblog)
   • http://news.com.com/Intel+feeds+virtualizations+ne ed+for+speed/2100-1006_3-6048217.html

Says today in the paper that Microsoft is coming out with an iPod clone and its own version of our iTunes store. I'll wager a signed hundred dollar bill (the kind I wipe my ass with) that their device, like their CEO, will be big, fat, ugly and stupid. And constantly rebooting. And their Windows-based "store" will require a manual to understand it, will have eight zillion icons and pull-down menus on a super-cluttered butt-ugly user interface, and it will bonk out when you try to buy a song. Ooh, Microsoft, I'm so scared.

—sj

I discovered YouTube, browsed through some music videos, and came up with this blog post.

I hope you enjoy the video as much as I did.

Some of my screenshots feature the girl in the video, Mana, as wallpaper.

Details here:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-s urveillance-not-illegal.html

I guess there could be a future version of a Joe McCarthy witch hunt, where the government could supoena Google and force them to release search data.

The government tried that already. Google stared them down and won.

According to the blog post that announced it, Coverity were scanning 3.9 million lines of KDE code. Although the reports are a bit wonky at the moment, I'm sure Apache has more than 9 lines of code!

As I rambled myself there exists at least one obvious segment of the market Apple is not currently servicing with the extreme distance between its AIO solution and its Mac Pro. The value of the Mac Pro is quite good with respect to similar platforms, however the utility of such a platform appeals mostly to a high-margin low-volume userbase. Apple clearly cannot supplant Microsoft or Dell so long as it does not cater to the same markets. While I focused on the existence of a middle ground that still had significant requirements for flexibility since servicing it does not require a fixation on low margins, there are obviously those areas where "boring little boxes" at a low price-point have value in industry. It doesn't stand to reason that Apple needs to compete with Microsoft and Dell for this market, and to some extent their advertising makes this market seem too unhip for the cool kids, but without addressing the market then it's clear that no added functionality to Leopard will paint a strategy of supplanting Dell and Microsoft.

FWIW, Keith Adams of VMware posted a recent blog entry "Blue Pill" is quasi-illiterate gibberish and there have been a number of other folks that have come to the same conclusion.

I pretty much said the same thing here: http://globalhopping.blogspot.com/2006/08/fools-ho w-dare-they.html

I think people forget the root of the word TERORRIST. they inspire terror.. the ants want action, and the "leaders" (I use it loosely) will do anything to appear to be acting in the "best interests of the people". Just ban the bloody airlines and be done with it.

http://innerexception.blogspot.com/2006/08/leopard -preview-revisted-64-bit-and.html

In case you missed it... You might want to read this Amicus Brief filed by the EFF, ACLU, American Association of Law Libraries, Public Citizen, ACLU of Oklahoma in support of awarding attorney fees to a wrongly accused person of copyright infrigment by the RIAA.

From the brief "Where, as here, one of these innocent defendants prevails in clearing her name and the plaintiff knew or should have known that she was innocent but continued to harass the defendant, the court should award attorney's fees to compensate the victim, to deter the legal assailant, to encourage future innocent defendants to fight back, and to maintain the proper administration and balance of copyright law."

Recently, when I appeared in court in Warner v. Does 1-149 in Manhattan, Judge Owen said, in words or substance, "so they want to find out this person's name and address so they can take his deposition, what's wrong that?" I responded, in words or substance, "No, judge, that's not what they're going to do. They don't want to take this person's deposition. They are going to sue these people, bring lawsuits that wreck people's lives." The judge then said to me "what are you talking about, wreck people's lives?" I proceeded to tell him how these lawsuits affect the poor people that are targeted, and he cut me off, did not allow me to finish, and said that because I used the term "wreck people's lives" he wouldn't believe anything further I could say.

It was therefore quite gratifying to me personally to read the following passage in the amicus brief:

This is an important case. While it may appear to many as just one woman defending herself against several large corporate copyright plaintiffs, as the court is undoubtedly aware, this lawsuit is but one battle in the broader war the RIAA is waging against unauthorized internet copying. As a result of this war, the RIAA has wrought havoc on the lives of many innocent Americans who, like Deborah Foster, have been wrongfully prosecuted for illegal acts they did not commit for over a year despite their clear innocence and persistent denials. Using questionable methods and suspect evidence, the RIAA has targeted thousands of ordinary people around the country, including grandmothers, grandfathers, single mothers, and teenagers. In its broad dragnet of litigation, the RIAA has knowingly entangled the innocent along with the guilty, dragging them through an expensive and emotionally draining process of trying to clear their names.

It really is all summed up nicely by the man, Fake Steve Jobs, here.

While some of the energetic beta particles had followed of the earth's magnetic field and illuminated the sky, other high-energy electrons became trapped in man-made radiation belts around the earth. There was much uncertainty and debate about the composition, magnitude, and potential adverse effects from this trapped radiation after the detonation. The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled. These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low orbit. Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial communication satellite ever, Telstar.

move to a variant of SemanticWiki [...] If semantic statements become the standard, Wikipedia can be queried, which means that Cyc could be fed the data automatically.

Meanwhile google happily eats whatever crap its spiders manage to find and thru some hacking and dark magic algorithms is still able to give not so meaningless answers to not to much badly worded queries.

That's a key point explaining why OpenCyc came too late. Wordnet, Thoughtreasure, Cyc et alii all share a set of common drawbacks. Their input data need to be specially formated. That's why all those overly ambitious project have progress so slowly in the past years, and are still only limited to answers precise non-ambous simple question like "Is a cat a mamal ?".
This is linked to their fundamental design around a solid, non-flexible, pure logical architectures (reading their repective Wikipedia entries help understand how they work). In a way, the scientist behind those projects tryed to apply the same kind of language logic that is used in maths and programming languages to human language, and while this may be usefull for some academic purpose or very specific application were some reasonning may be useful (which has been used and applied well - I've seen it at least for WN and TT), they don't scale that well to REAL-WORD(tm) situations.
Their fundamental structure clashes with reality of human reasonning : WordNet is limited to single non-ambigous meaning for terms (no things like "nut" as in the seed, and "nut" as in the thing that can be screwed on a bolt). Other "stuctured" designs clash with real life's fuzzy nature with the other softwares.

Meanwhile search engines have grown in a completly different way. Initially they were designed only to scan pages content and then index their keywords for later queries. Only after that, slowly, one hack after another, they where tuned. In order to make results more revelant. In order to avoid link farms. Finding some complexe strategies in the ranking calculation to return more correct and more meaningful. To find results not with matching keyword, but with related keywords (Google's "Keyword is encountered only in page linking to thig target"). To cope easily with bad spelling (something that is very common in the real life. Something that is difficult to even detect for a common-sense engine. something that is very intuitive in search enginges, and that is even more optimisable given the statistics that such engine can do). And lot of other small ponctual improvement.
And slowly, by on one hand having a system that gets each day a little bit more optimised, and, on the other hand, an incredibly huge corpus to process that grows at a very fast rate, the search enginges, like google, become fantastic multipurpose information retrieving tools.
By now, you can type crap in google and still get something (as long it's not a "google-sepuku" like of crap, but more of "I'm very clumsy with my wording and my keyboard-skills"). You can have also other wonderful information, including stats on spelling errors or even statistic based translation (that are otherwise very difficult to get by classical mean), static about currently hot topic (which can be fed back to improve results for ambigous queries).
All this because search engines are built around a fuzzy logic : at the core is a braindead simple indexing rule, slightly modified by a bunch of hacks.
Such fuzzy logic approach "without really needing to teach the machine everything" has been recently successfully used on

move to a variant of SemanticWiki [...] If semantic statements become the standard, Wikipedia can be queried, which means that Cyc could be fed the data automatically.

Meanwhile google happily eats whatever crap its spiders manage to find and thru some hacking and dark magic algorithms is still able to give not so meaningless answers to not to much badly worded queries.

That's a key point explaining why OpenCyc came too late. Wordnet, Thoughtreasure, Cyc et alii all share a set of common drawbacks. Their input data need to be specially formated. That's why all those overly ambitious project have progress so slowly in the past years, and are still only limited to answers precise non-ambous simple question like "Is a cat a mamal ?".
This is linked to their fundamental design around a solid, non-flexible, pure logical architectures (reading their repective Wikipedia entries help understand how they work). In a way, the scientist behind those projects tryed to apply the same kind of language logic that is used in maths and programming languages to human language, and while this may be usefull for some academic purpose or very specific application were some reasonning may be useful (which has been used and applied well - I've seen it at least for WN and TT), they don't scale that well to REAL-WORD(tm) situations.
Their fundamental structure clashes with reality of human reasonning : WordNet is limited to single non-ambigous meaning for terms (no things like "nut" as in the seed, and "nut" as in the thing that can be screwed on a bolt). Other "stuctured" designs clash with real life's fuzzy nature with the other softwares.

Meanwhile search engines have grown in a completly different way. Initially they were designed only to scan pages content and then index their keywords for later queries. Only after that, slowly, one hack after another, they where tuned. In order to make results more revelant. In order to avoid link farms. Finding some complexe strategies in the ranking calculation to return more correct and more meaningful. To find results not with matching keyword, but with related keywords (Google's "Keyword is encountered only in page linking to thig target"). To cope easily with bad spelling (something that is very common in the real life. Something that is difficult to even detect for a common-sense engine. something that is very intuitive in search enginges, and that is even more optimisable given the statistics that such engine can do). And lot of other small ponctual improvement.
And slowly, by on one hand having a system that gets each day a little bit more optimised, and, on the other hand, an incredibly huge corpus to process that grows at a very fast rate, the search enginges, like google, become fantastic multipurpose information retrieving tools.
By now, you can type crap in google and still get something (as long it's not a "google-sepuku" like of crap, but more of "I'm very clumsy with my wording and my keyboard-skills"). You can have also other wonderful information, including stats on spelling errors or even statistic based translation (that are otherwise very difficult to get by classical mean), static about currently hot topic (which can be fed back to improve results for ambigous queries).
All this because search engines are built around a fuzzy logic : at the core is a braindead simple indexing rule, slightly modified by a bunch of hacks.
Such fuzzy logic approach "without really needing to teach the machine everything" has been recently successfully used on

The US War on Drugs is a sham and the politicians know it. But the constant barrage of absolutist demonization has left no feasible opening to seriously suggest the alternative: legalization.

The UK isn't so bad. Atleast they have had the courage to allow medical marijuana research, which has resulted in the legal Sativex. Cannabis is classified as Class C, resulting in warnings & fine for possession. And very recently, a parliamentary committee lambasted the whole classification system. Even many senior politicians (like David Cameron) and police chiefs have called for considering legalization. The US does have an equivalent movement in LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) with about 5,000 officers, but getting the word out relies on media accomodation, and unlike the UK, the US is not a very tolerant venue.

--posted on behalf of daksya

Google's 6 DVDs full of n-grams are much more interesting than that: they "processed 1,011,582,453,213 words of running text and are publishing the counts for all 1,146,580,664 five-word sequences that appear at least 40 times. There are 13,653,070 unique words, after discarding words that appear less than 200 times."

http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/08/all-our -n-gram-are-belong-to-you.html

AOL has released interesting data as well...

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/08/06/aol-proudly-r eleases-massive-amounts-of-user-search-data/

The US War on Drugs is a sham and the politicians know it. But the constant barrage of absolutist demonization has left no feasible opening to seriously suggest the alternative: legalization.

The UK isn't so bad. Atleast they have had the courage to allow medical marijuana research, which has resulted in the legal Sativex. Cannabis is classified as Class C, resulting in warnings & fine for possession. And very recently, A parliamentary committee has lambasted the whole classification system. Even many senior politicians (like David Cameron) and police chiefs have called for considering legalization. The US does have an equivalent movement in LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) with about 5,000 officers, but getting the word out relies on media accomodation, and unlike the UK, the US is not a very tolerant venue.

Ultimate Ghosts 'N' Goblins, as of right now, is the only game worth playing on the hardware (out next month in the USA.) Lumines might have counted, but the cell phone version is surprisingly good and it's also coming to XBLA in September. Shameless plug: http://werratic.blogspot.com/ (UGNG review by moi.)

Yes: http://mdoyle.blogspot.com/

A few factoids I can contribute from having followed this in the local press:

The garage has killed two cars :(Boston Globe article) (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/200 6/01/30/robodude_wheres_my_car/). I personally know a couple who had the door torn off their car by it. As far as I know, the robogarage contractor paid for the damages.

The robotic parking folks were fighting with the city from day one, when the garage was still under construction. An (openly biased) account of the city's history with the garage is here: http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/2005/01/parking-p olitics-in-hoboken.html#5corruption. Can't claim to know enough to say for sure that source is authoritative. However, based on their track record, my inclination is to believe a good percentage of any charges of corruption or malfeasance on the city's part are justified.

Does anyone else question the intentions of the sponsors of this event? The competition is sponsored by the SpaWar Systems Center (where the competition was held), the US Navy, and other military industrial greats such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

Given the substantial non-military uses of autonomous robotics do we really need the military funding? I for one do not welcome our autonomous-deathsub-controlling overlords. In fact, I hit on this point in a blog yesterday.

1. The complaint charges them with "downloading, distributing, and/or making available for distribution". In fact the RIAA has no evidence at all of downloading or distributing when they commence the case.

2. I am not aware of any criminal cases. The cases I am aware of are all civil cases, for money damages and an injunction.

3. There is huge potential for mistakes. Their investigation is bogus, and they have no idea when they sue someone if that person has committed any act of copyright infringement whatsoever.

4. Defendants don't need an "excuse" for why someone else might have used their internet access account to commit a copyright infringement, although the RIAA would like you to think otherwise. Take a look at the papers being filed during the next few days in Capitol v. Foster, in Oklahoma, for a discussion of the RIAA's tactics in trying to make people think that parents are liable for their childrens' copyright infringement.

The hype about this study is really ridiculous, and I've named it the Duh!scovery of the day over on my blog.

Now, maybe we're just too blasé, but if someone has physical access to your keyboard and can sniff all of your network packets, your security is so hosed that the use of a JitterBugTM is the least of your worries.

Again, if a spy has your user name, access to your computer and hooks into your network... you are, as the geeks would say, pwnd.

The hype about this study is really ridiculous, and I've named it the Duh!scovery of the day over on my blog.

Now, maybe we're just too blasé, but if someone has physical access to your keyboard and can sniff all of your network packets, your security is so hosed that the use of a JitterBugTM is the least of your worries.

Again, if a spy has your user name, access to your computer and hooks into your network... you are, as the geeks would say, pwnd.

We recently served some followup interrogatories in UMG v. Lindor, in Brooklyn federal court, trying to get to the bottom of the RIAA's evasiveness.

Under the Copyright Act, the prevailing party may be awarded attorneys fees. In Capitol Records v. Foster, the defendant has made a motion for her attorneys fees.

But we have borrowed Expose in return.

Maybe once they have taken focus-follows-mouse (sorry, pet axe to grind - but it triples in value with translucent desktop objects) they can also copy the rest of the cutting edge eye candy in Compiz, like the insane yet cool cube thing and the rather more useful copacity.

But we have borrowed Expose in return.

Maybe once they have taken focus-follows-mouse (sorry, pet axe to grind - but it triples in value with translucent desktop objects) they can also copy the rest of the cutting edge eye candy in Compiz, like the insane yet cool cube thing and the rather more useful copacity.

We're getting that now. Qt4 with SVG is doing some incredible things.

Check out Zack Rusin's blog

He is doign things which will astound... and its on Qt, so it'll work on anyplatform Qt will compile in, which, at last check is far more than Flash is supported on.

Taking the article at face value, I think that "serious games" probably qualify as what he's looking for. Games not for the sake of the game, but for their education value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_game
http://futuremakingames.blogspot.com/

I have blogged about several of the serious games that I have played:

McDonalds Game
http://digitalcrusader.ca/archives/2006/07/mcdonal ds_video.html

Democracy Game
http://digitalcrusader.ca/archives/2006/01/democra cy_game.html

3rd world farming game
http://digitalcrusader.ca/archives/2006/05/endure_ the_hard.html

Eric

Re: stopping ID cards, go to NO2ID.

PR will help but isn't nearly enough. Multiple electoral candidates from parties will help too.

We need to devolve power from the PM. He/she should not be allowed to exert undue influence over ministers and MPs - perhaps by no-one (including the electorate) knowing who the PM will be, thus voting purely on which candidate you trust. The elected MPs will subsequently vote for a PM, and perhaps several senior ministers.

The House of Lords should be able to set up courts to hold ministers accountable under existing behavioural guidelines.

I'd be tempted to try secret ballots too. The data could always be revealed just before the next election.

I'm not sure the PM's office should be able write legislation. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (never heard of it?) contains a clause which is equivalent to Hitler's Enabling Act ie instant dictatorship in the event of an emergency (Reichstag). I'm still not sure if the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (since amended) is even worse.

Our Parliamentary Committee for the Constitution said that the National Identity Cards Bill should be renamed the National Identity Register and Identity Cards Bill. They were ignored and thus only now, once the legislation has been passed, do the public (and MPs) get to see the massive privacy implications.

Last time we had these kind of upstarts abusing the will of the people, we had a Civil War and chopped off the leader's head.