Notice that quote from the copper - he's using the defendant's technical guilt under the New Labour password law to imply that he must also be guilty of the alleged offences that they seized his computer in connection with.
I regard surveillance cameras as constituting a blanket false accusation of ill-intent against all persons who come under their purview. No-one should be spying on me unless they have a pre-existing, genuine good faith suspicion that I'm up to no good, and allowing random internet maniacs to participate in the surveillance merely increases the offence. Where possible I'll be withdrawing contact from all organisations that collaborate with this evil scheme.
BT's concern for their customers' privacy is entirely proper and creditable. If only they'd shown the same concern when they were secretly allowing Phorm to intercept their network traffic (while publicly maintaining that this wasn't happening).
I don't think we're going to be lectured on game morality by people who supported - and in some cases took part in - the invasion of Iraq. The mass civilian slaughter that took place there makes the Berlin Wall death strip look like a picnic area.
"If you use +1 Insightful to mean +1 Agree, I'll use -1 Overrated if I disagree." - surely that policy merely doubles the inaccuracy of the score for such posts?
The 1984 debacle showed that real books have an extra advantage over virtual ones: Amazon, Microsoft or the government can't censor them or steal them back without physically breaking into my house.
I'd love these accounts to be true, but it puzzles me that the CIA/whoever could successfully cover UFO stories up for decades, while failing to prevent stuff like Abu Ghraib from coming out within a few months of it happening.
The only way to turn this sh1t off is to change your search preferences, and for that to stick, you either have to keep a Google perma-cookie, or always be logged in with a Google account when you search. I've created a separate account just for searches so that Google can't link my search goals to my other interests.
If this had happened in the UK, the terror authorities would have seized on the chance to construct a misunderstanding. The teacher would have been falsely arrested for conspiring to commit terrorist acts, then subsequently released without charge but served with a civil ban from airports. The authorities would then claim that they have to react to all threats, even 'non-credible' ones.
This is admirable, and good news for US citizens. If only the same principle could be applied to the Bush-Blair extradition treaty, which allows British citizens to be deported to the US for trial on the unsupported word of US law enforcement authorities (but not, notably, the other way round).
If the terms of the Bush-Blair extradition treaty were reciprocal, US posters would be up in arms, and rightly so, because it would allow US citizens to be deported to the UK for trial on the unsupported word of British law enforcement authorities.
Doctor Who finished in 1989. McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and Smith are just impostors in a dreadful remake with all the dramatic depth of a skip full of crumpled-up Christmas wrapping paper.
Just boring old improper requests for data access. 'My friend's record doesn't look right', 'the police want the address of every staff member' (well, they of all people ought to know the proper way to request that information if they need it).
I'd never pay any platform simply to allow me to comment. If money is to change hands, I'm the one who should be paid since I'm increasing the value of their product with my carefully considered opinions.
I wouldn't comment under my real name either - the legal arena for false accusations of libel, false accusations of terrorism etc is already heavily biased towards the state/the combatant with the most money so I am in no hurry to provide information that would make it easier to connect me to my comments.
Quite so. I don't want Google or anyone else to know for sure that my various accounts are run by the same person. Yes, they can no doubt make guesses based on IP addresses, but stating that I wanted them linked would make it difficult to deny plausibly that they weren't mine.
"The policies of those services are not governmental policies" - but because there are no alternative providers of the same services, the situation is exactly the same in effect as it would be if they were governmental policies.
"How are they going to know how much pirated content travels by one ISP's lines?" - they'll just make up a figure and double it, like they usually do.
On the one hand, it's good to see that at least one group of workers are accorded by capitalism a continuing share in the profits generated by their labour. On the other hand, I don't understand why our economic system has chosen this particular group of self-righteous tossers for special privileges.
What you have to understand is that the majority of the UK newspapers, in readership terms, are controlled by Rupert Murdoch, who sees the BBC as a dangerous rival to his ambitions to control British television. So basically any time the BBC does anything that costs money, his papers jump on it for wasting taxpayer funds. (Mind you, they do walk into some of these things - take the millions they spent on propaganda for digital pay TV).
Slashdot Mirror
Good to see that almost no-one on here has any confidence that the ostensible purpose of this suggestion is the real one.
Notice that quote from the copper - he's using the defendant's technical guilt under the New Labour password law to imply that he must also be guilty of the alleged offences that they seized his computer in connection with.
I regard surveillance cameras as constituting a blanket false accusation of ill-intent against all persons who come under their purview. No-one should be spying on me unless they have a pre-existing, genuine good faith suspicion that I'm up to no good, and allowing random internet maniacs to participate in the surveillance merely increases the offence. Where possible I'll be withdrawing contact from all organisations that collaborate with this evil scheme.
BT's concern for their customers' privacy is entirely proper and creditable. If only they'd shown the same concern when they were secretly allowing Phorm to intercept their network traffic (while publicly maintaining that this wasn't happening).
I don't think we're going to be lectured on game morality by people who supported - and in some cases took part in - the invasion of Iraq. The mass civilian slaughter that took place there makes the Berlin Wall death strip look like a picnic area.
Make up a plausible false name. Tell your friends what it is. Use it on Facebook instead of your real one.
"If you use +1 Insightful to mean +1 Agree, I'll use -1 Overrated if I disagree." - surely that policy merely doubles the inaccuracy of the score for such posts?
The 1984 debacle showed that real books have an extra advantage over virtual ones: Amazon, Microsoft or the government can't censor them or steal them back without physically breaking into my house.
I'd love these accounts to be true, but it puzzles me that the CIA/whoever could successfully cover UFO stories up for decades, while failing to prevent stuff like Abu Ghraib from coming out within a few months of it happening.
They should be working on fixing the Google Update malware so that updates are only performed manually on user request.
That link only works for the next search you perform. The results page comes back with Instant set back on
Observe how the headline places Jobs, who for once is the innocent victim, in the role of the malefactor.
The only way to turn this sh1t off is to change your search preferences, and for that to stick, you either have to keep a Google perma-cookie, or always be logged in with a Google account when you search. I've created a separate account just for searches so that Google can't link my search goals to my other interests.
If this had happened in the UK, the terror authorities would have seized on the chance to construct a misunderstanding. The teacher would have been falsely arrested for conspiring to commit terrorist acts, then subsequently released without charge but served with a civil ban from airports. The authorities would then claim that they have to react to all threats, even 'non-credible' ones.
This is admirable, and good news for US citizens. If only the same principle could be applied to the Bush-Blair extradition treaty, which allows British citizens to be deported to the US for trial on the unsupported word of US law enforcement authorities (but not, notably, the other way round).
If the terms of the Bush-Blair extradition treaty were reciprocal, US posters would be up in arms, and rightly so, because it would allow US citizens to be deported to the UK for trial on the unsupported word of British law enforcement authorities.
Doctor Who finished in 1989. McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and Smith are just impostors in a dreadful remake with all the dramatic depth of a skip full of crumpled-up Christmas wrapping paper.
Just boring old improper requests for data access. 'My friend's record doesn't look right', 'the police want the address of every staff member' (well, they of all people ought to know the proper way to request that information if they need it).
I'd never pay any platform simply to allow me to comment. If money is to change hands, I'm the one who should be paid since I'm increasing the value of their product with my carefully considered opinions. I wouldn't comment under my real name either - the legal arena for false accusations of libel, false accusations of terrorism etc is already heavily biased towards the state/the combatant with the most money so I am in no hurry to provide information that would make it easier to connect me to my comments.
Quite so. I don't want Google or anyone else to know for sure that my various accounts are run by the same person. Yes, they can no doubt make guesses based on IP addresses, but stating that I wanted them linked would make it difficult to deny plausibly that they weren't mine.
A private website to which the public at large is admitted.
"The policies of those services are not governmental policies" - but because there are no alternative providers of the same services, the situation is exactly the same in effect as it would be if they were governmental policies.
"How are they going to know how much pirated content travels by one ISP's lines?" - they'll just make up a figure and double it, like they usually do. On the one hand, it's good to see that at least one group of workers are accorded by capitalism a continuing share in the profits generated by their labour. On the other hand, I don't understand why our economic system has chosen this particular group of self-righteous tossers for special privileges.
What you have to understand is that the majority of the UK newspapers, in readership terms, are controlled by Rupert Murdoch, who sees the BBC as a dangerous rival to his ambitions to control British television. So basically any time the BBC does anything that costs money, his papers jump on it for wasting taxpayer funds. (Mind you, they do walk into some of these things - take the millions they spent on propaganda for digital pay TV).
I wouldn't pay for admission for any event where I had to present identity papers to get in. Not even the Second Coming.