Not pointing into our houses. Let me explain, briefly, the difference between "public" and "private".
We expect privacy for those things we do in private. For things we do in public, we have no expectation of privacy.
CCTV cameras record things which are done in public, therefore, they do not affect privacy (which is related to things done in private).
People looking at me as I walk down the street (a public location) = not an invasion of privacy. People looking at me as I sit in my front room (a private location) = an invasion of privacy.
That's really not a very hard distinction to make.
Wrong. But thanks for playing. If we get into an argument on the street, and I stab you with the intent of killing or grievously wounding you, and you die, its second-degree murder, not manslaughter.
If Vonage screwed up, they screwed up, and they'll lose their lawsuits. But that doesn't invalidate my initial point -- in the absence of various irregularities, a breach of contract suit would be normal common practice. Sorting out this sort of mess, and finding who is to blame is something that courts (with the SEC) are good for.
So, if you were a potential investor in Vonage, you'd be happy if they just let people back out of their legal obligations, regardless of any financial damage to the company itself?
You have strange ideas about responsible corporate governance.
Re: vonage: there's nothing weird about sueing someone who breaches a contract (even a verbal contract) with you. Why would it matter that the contract is about share deals, or anything else? Can you imagine how the prospective buyers would react if the shares had shot up, and Vonage management had said that they'd decided to sell them at the higher price? If you want to become a stock market speculators, you have to learn to cope with the fact your going to be wrong sometimes, and suck up the loss you take.
Unless you're simply parroting someone else's opinion, this would suggest that you knew a little of what you were talking about. What about the arrests make you think that they were illegal under Swedish law?
No. Not really. Firstly, people who wish to be taken seriously shouldn't generally behave like spoiled children. However cretinous your opponents, you make more friends behaving like a grown up. Secondly, it would appear that their either their knowledge of or confidence in Swedish Law was not as great as they would like it to have appeared. Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall and all that jazz.
Well, they seemed pretty confident that they would never be shut down, and that the Swedish legal system protected, condoned and generally understood their actions 100%.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but having the door kicked down and all their servers seized by the Swedish Police would rather suggest that they were talking bollocks.
Well, I feel the police are being heavy handed, but given the smug, supercilious and downright annoying tone of their responses to legal threats, its pretty hard not to feel a little schadenfreude that their bluster has been pricked and their bluff called.
It massively inflates the number of possible suspects which may later turn out to have had absolutely nothing to with the crime in question
That's a police procedural issue. Are you opposed to house-to-house investigations for the same reasons? Do you really think the police force will throw away old methods and simply pick up everyone who's DNA they find? You're a fantasist.
Merely being suspected of a crime can be pretty ruinous, even if the suspect turns out to be completely innocent.
What does that have to do with DNA?
Of course, once the DNA database goes past simple pattern matching (which person is DNA sample X from) to containing more genetic information (does person X have genes that make him/her prone to violence), things are getting very, very ugly
Taking a DNA sample from unwilling innocent citizens cannot be defined as "necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "
Really? I think a national DNA database would be extremely useful in the solution of crime, and its deterrence (high detection/convictions rates have been repeatedly shown to be the only successful deterrence). Furthermore, ACPO (who know a lot more about it that either of us) agree with me.
So, even if it solves only 1 crime, I get a benefit. What I can't see is the downside.
Tell me, in concrete, practical terms, what the downside of my DNA being in a database is.
Morfik's founders identified JavaScript as the limiting factor in the development of complex interactive Web-based software applications and decided to develop some proof-of-concept prototypes for the translation of a high-level language to JavaScript.
Congratulations, you've invented a programming language translator. I mean re-invented, obviously.
Can I suggest you invent a C-code to machine-code translator next (you could call it a "compiler"). It's the obvious next step in this genius innovation.
It's not paranoia when the buggers you're concerned with do things like fly planes into a pair of buildings with
If you track and investigate the people who are likely to do that, it's good police work. When you assume that everyone is going to do that, it's paranoia.
It's also counterproductive. You end up submerging your intelligence services with a mountain of undirected information, from which they can't possibly discover anything. The CIA didn't miss the 9/11 hijackers because they had too little information, they missed them because they had too much. Catching terrorists requires directed operations, based on actual intelligence. Data mining won't get you anywhere.
For example, the Airbus no longer radios ahead, and transfers all the passengers credit card numbers and flight itineraries to someone at US Immigration.
Well "We Can Remember It For You, Wholesale" is scarcely a novella length and, IIRC, completely fucking hatstand. I say this as a huge PKD fan: Total Recall has much better plot than WCRIFYW.
The police are allowed to ask for a DNA sample from anyone arrested on suspicion of a crime. And the DNA sample is then added to the database forever. It is not removed even if the person is released without charge or is found to be innocent
I don't understand. Why should I be worried about the police knowing my DNA sequence. Exactly which of my inviolable rights does it impinge upon?
Slashdot Mirror
Credible? I'd be happy if it had been written by someone with evidence of education above the third grade level.
Mind you, I felt like that about "A Million Little Pieces", too.
We expect privacy for those things we do in private.
For things we do in public, we have no expectation of privacy.
CCTV cameras record things which are done in public, therefore, they do not affect privacy (which is related to things done in private).
People looking at me as I walk down the street (a public location) = not an invasion of privacy.
People looking at me as I sit in my front room (a private location) = an invasion of privacy.
That's really not a very hard distinction to make.
Even English Law doesn't require premeditation to be murder.
Only intent ("malice aforethought").
If I premeditate, its first degree murder.
Well, that's fair enough.
If Vonage screwed up, they screwed up, and they'll lose their lawsuits. But that doesn't invalidate my initial point -- in the absence of various irregularities, a breach of contract suit would be normal common practice. Sorting out this sort of mess, and finding who is to blame is something that courts (with the SEC) are good for.
So, if you were a potential investor in Vonage, you'd be happy if they just let people back out of their legal obligations, regardless of any financial damage to the company itself?
You have strange ideas about responsible corporate governance.
Re: vonage: there's nothing weird about sueing someone who breaches a contract (even a verbal contract) with you.
Why would it matter that the contract is about share deals, or anything else?
Can you imagine how the prospective buyers would react if the shares had shot up, and Vonage management had said that they'd decided to sell them at the higher price?
If you want to become a stock market speculators, you have to learn to cope with the fact your going to be wrong sometimes, and suck up the loss you take.
Blogger with crap beard rants incoherently about Freedom.
Film at 11.
They simply choose not to, in exchange for information, or help to sort out a plea bargain.
And what makes you think these arrests are illegal?
You describe the arrests as "illegal".
Unless you're simply parroting someone else's opinion, this would suggest that you knew a little of what you were talking about. What about the arrests make you think that they were illegal under Swedish law?
No. Not really.
Firstly, people who wish to be taken seriously shouldn't generally behave like spoiled children. However cretinous your opponents, you make more friends behaving like a grown up.
Secondly, it would appear that their either their knowledge of or confidence in Swedish Law was not as great as they would like it to have appeared. Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall and all that jazz.
Hubris is a bitch.
Shame the elevator was glass and not made the transparent material Apple use to coat ipods with.
The customers could've just scratched their way out.
Well, they seemed pretty confident that they would never be shut down, and that the Swedish legal system protected, condoned and generally understood their actions 100%.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but having the door kicked down and all their servers seized by the Swedish Police would rather suggest that they were talking bollocks.
Oh, wait. Let me guess. The internet.
Well, I feel the police are being heavy handed, but given the smug, supercilious and downright annoying tone of their responses to legal threats, its pretty hard not to feel a little schadenfreude that their bluster has been pricked and their bluff called.
So, no concrete reasons at all.
So, even if it solves only 1 crime, I get a benefit.
What I can't see is the downside.
Tell me, in concrete, practical terms, what the downside of my DNA being in a database is.
Can I suggest you invent a C-code to machine-code translator next (you could call it a "compiler"). It's the obvious next step in this genius innovation.
It's also counterproductive. You end up submerging your intelligence services with a mountain of undirected information, from which they can't possibly discover anything. The CIA didn't miss the 9/11 hijackers because they had too little information, they missed them because they had too much. Catching terrorists requires directed operations, based on actual intelligence. Data mining won't get you anywhere.
For example, the Airbus no longer radios ahead, and transfers all the passengers credit card numbers and flight itineraries to someone at US Immigration.
Well "We Can Remember It For You, Wholesale" is scarcely a novella length and, IIRC, completely fucking hatstand. I say this as a huge PKD fan: Total Recall has much better plot than WCRIFYW.