DRIP ignores the main part of the CJEU ruling - that blanket data retention severely interferes with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data. The government has claimed that other aspects of the Bill will strengthen oversight and transparency. For example, they claim it will restrict the number of public bodies that can request communications data. Yet this concession does not appear in DRIP or the secondary legislation that will implement it. There has been no acknowledgment of the legal requirement to preserve UK citizens’ right to privacy.
Hey, look at the thread -- you replied to me on some tangent about the site and points. I was responding to the general idea of what the incentive would be to use a site where the money went to charity, but the product was no cheaper. Why you chose my post to go off in that direction is a mystery to me, but since you began with, "But the fact that the guy even has to ask? Just shows the site be fucked up dude." I chose to use that to make the point the quality of the site, qua fucked up, is of much less concern than the quality of one's intellect and character who would need to ask the original question -- one who wouldn't see the good in providing an extra benefit to someone else at no further expense to themselves.
The site? I didn't even read TFA and I can see what the incentive would be sans a price break. People who can't see that and have to ask are fucked up. Seriously.
The specifics are another matter -- as I said, I didn't read TFA so maybe this particular example has lots of faults. But the general principle should be clear to anyone who is capable basic rational thought and empathy -- somebody that doesn't think capitalism is the sole arbiter of all value(s).
Even if it's no cheaper, you would have paid that amount anyway if you purchased the game through more usual means, so channeling the same amount of funds to an entity that does something good with the money is the incentive. You get the product at the same price you would have paid and the money goes to a good cause -- how is that not an incentive?
And, of course, there's a difference between actively "targeting" and collecting "incidentally" or "unwittingly." To deny the former does not exclude the latter. These guys lie for a living and love muddying the waters by using specific terms in specific contexts to sound like blanket denials which, in reality, turn out to be almost meaningless declarations.
And yes, metadata can easily be more intrusive than content.
They weren't behaving in a way that could be described as "targeted" when they asked for Lavabit's encryption keys. IIRC, Lavabit did comply with some previous requests that were targeted to individual users -- but the case that led to them shutting down was for blanket access. Retroactive blanket access.
Furthermore, "based on suspicion" and "case by case" fall by the wayside when asking for blanket access, too. And of course the whole issue of "not rubber stamp oversight" isn't met either.
So, they were doing none of what I suggested and what you quoted -- very far from "exactly the case."
...but sometimes you just hear these sorts of things.
Sometimes? What happened to, "every discussion" and "so many people" and "the overwhelmingly vast majority of people argue"? No doubt someone can be trotted out to say something stupid from time to time, but that's different than saying an entire debate is stifled because it's being forced into a false dichotomy. Or that the regular discourse position is centered around a false dichotomy.
They have to know that it's necessary at some level...
If by "it" you mean some sort of surveillance that's targeted, based on suspicion and granted on a case by case basis by an oversight (court, law, etc.) body that's just not a rubber stamp factory, then yes -- but I haven't really seen anyone argue against that, so I don't know where you are getting the notion of a false dichotomy.
Unless by "it" you mean "suspicionless mass surveillance" -- in which case, no, it is not necessary at some level.
I think the model will be moving quite rapidly towards optional invigilated final exams in meatspace where identities can be verified. In those cases, the certificate could become accredited by the institutions, count towards degree requirements or have another form of recognition by another respected body. This leaves the open free knowledge aspect of MOOCs intact for those unwilling or unable to pay and adds the option for some form of more official and weighty recognition for those willing to pay a small fee and sit the exam. These courses are handling 50k students, so if 10% are willing to sit an exam and pay 100 bucks for some form of official and recognized verification, then that's 500,000 in revenue for one iteration of the course -- and once up and running, the courses themselves don't require a large amount of staff or upkeep costs. That's comparable to the kind of income universities can generate from courses where the student numbers are in the hundreds.
When you use such generalizations as "...they're all completely drug-fucked wastes of space..." and respected scientific terms such as "the not being a complete cunt part of your brain" why would we think you unworthy of notice? Why would we not wish to bask in such measured delivery of your wisdom? When you proclaim the devil's weed will "...destroy your mind..." why would we think that to be hyperbole and scare mongering? Oh good sir, taunt us not with your desire to be unheard -- to be banished from our eyes and minds. You do us great injury to suggest such a thing -- even in mockery.
Mod him up! Mod him up, my friends. We must all see what "not being a dickhead" looks like. We must all learn from this shining example.
...you don't know the damage for blowguns and pixie bites...
Word is that the newest version just refers to these as "ouchies" -- "You have received an ouchie, you are now hopping from one foot to another for the next three rounds."
Well, the corporations buy the influence of governments, so it becomes quite difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends -- making the distinction rather moot.
Slashdot Mirror
So parliament is basically just passing a new law with those restrictions in it to satisfy the ECJ.
That's completely false. The new law extends the powers over the previous law: https://www.openrightsgroup.or...
Furthermore:
DRIP ignores the main part of the CJEU ruling - that blanket data retention severely interferes with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data. The government has claimed that other aspects of the Bill will strengthen oversight and transparency. For example, they claim it will restrict the number of public bodies that can request communications data. Yet this concession does not appear in DRIP or the secondary legislation that will implement it. There has been no acknowledgment of the legal requirement to preserve UK citizens’ right to privacy.
Hey, look at the thread -- you replied to me on some tangent about the site and points. I was responding to the general idea of what the incentive would be to use a site where the money went to charity, but the product was no cheaper. Why you chose my post to go off in that direction is a mystery to me, but since you began with, "But the fact that the guy even has to ask? Just shows the site be fucked up dude." I chose to use that to make the point the quality of the site, qua fucked up, is of much less concern than the quality of one's intellect and character who would need to ask the original question -- one who wouldn't see the good in providing an extra benefit to someone else at no further expense to themselves.
That's me done here.
The site? I didn't even read TFA and I can see what the incentive would be sans a price break. People who can't see that and have to ask are fucked up. Seriously.
The specifics are another matter -- as I said, I didn't read TFA so maybe this particular example has lots of faults. But the general principle should be clear to anyone who is capable basic rational thought and empathy -- somebody that doesn't think capitalism is the sole arbiter of all value(s).
Seriously? You're joking, right?
Even if it's no cheaper, you would have paid that amount anyway if you purchased the game through more usual means, so channeling the same amount of funds to an entity that does something good with the money is the incentive. You get the product at the same price you would have paid and the money goes to a good cause -- how is that not an incentive?
And, of course, there's a difference between actively "targeting" and collecting "incidentally" or "unwittingly." To deny the former does not exclude the latter. These guys lie for a living and love muddying the waters by using specific terms in specific contexts to sound like blanket denials which, in reality, turn out to be almost meaningless declarations.
And yes, metadata can easily be more intrusive than content.
You're being disingenuous.
They weren't behaving in a way that could be described as "targeted" when they asked for Lavabit's encryption keys. IIRC, Lavabit did comply with some previous requests that were targeted to individual users -- but the case that led to them shutting down was for blanket access. Retroactive blanket access.
Furthermore, "based on suspicion" and "case by case" fall by the wayside when asking for blanket access, too. And of course the whole issue of "not rubber stamp oversight" isn't met either.
So, they were doing none of what I suggested and what you quoted -- very far from "exactly the case."
...but sometimes you just hear these sorts of things.
Sometimes? What happened to, "every discussion" and "so many people" and "the overwhelmingly vast majority of people argue"? No doubt someone can be trotted out to say something stupid from time to time, but that's different than saying an entire debate is stifled because it's being forced into a false dichotomy. Or that the regular discourse position is centered around a false dichotomy.
They have to know that it's necessary at some level...
If by "it" you mean some sort of surveillance that's targeted, based on suspicion and granted on a case by case basis by an oversight (court, law, etc.) body that's just not a rubber stamp factory, then yes -- but I haven't really seen anyone argue against that, so I don't know where you are getting the notion of a false dichotomy.
Unless by "it" you mean "suspicionless mass surveillance" -- in which case, no, it is not necessary at some level.
Fuck the fuck off!
Don't-cha wish your core was hot like mine? Don't-cha wish your core was hot like mine? Don't-cha?
Are they using synthetic urine to pass their tests now, too?
I think the model will be moving quite rapidly towards optional invigilated final exams in meatspace where identities can be verified. In those cases, the certificate could become accredited by the institutions, count towards degree requirements or have another form of recognition by another respected body. This leaves the open free knowledge aspect of MOOCs intact for those unwilling or unable to pay and adds the option for some form of more official and weighty recognition for those willing to pay a small fee and sit the exam. These courses are handling 50k students, so if 10% are willing to sit an exam and pay 100 bucks for some form of official and recognized verification, then that's 500,000 in revenue for one iteration of the course -- and once up and running, the courses themselves don't require a large amount of staff or upkeep costs. That's comparable to the kind of income universities can generate from courses where the student numbers are in the hundreds.
Mod you down -- oh, but why?
When you use such generalizations as "...they're all completely drug-fucked wastes of space..." and respected scientific terms such as "the not being a complete cunt part of your brain" why would we think you unworthy of notice? Why would we not wish to bask in such measured delivery of your wisdom? When you proclaim the devil's weed will "...destroy your mind..." why would we think that to be hyperbole and scare mongering? Oh good sir, taunt us not with your desire to be unheard -- to be banished from our eyes and minds. You do us great injury to suggest such a thing -- even in mockery.
Mod him up! Mod him up, my friends. We must all see what "not being a dickhead" looks like. We must all learn from this shining example.
America -- fuck yeah!
...you don't know the damage for blowguns and pixie bites...
Word is that the newest version just refers to these as "ouchies" -- "You have received an ouchie, you are now hopping from one foot to another for the next three rounds."
Get back to your own universe! Shoo! Shoo!
Just give me some good old fashioned "dumb" fire and I'll do this for you all day long.
"I know you gentlemen have been through a lot. But when you find the time...I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!!"
Who wants to be disturbed by CIA/FBI when touching one's genitals?
Fans of Tom Clancy.
I thought it was adamantium? Or is Mithril the top one? Damn, I always get them mixed up.
Well, the corporations buy the influence of governments, so it becomes quite difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends -- making the distinction rather moot.
Yep, and he got it -- it's the Snausage that keeps on giving -- he's made more money since leaving office than any other Prime Minister:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/7948653/Tony-Blair-and-the-millions-he-keeps-out-of-the-public-eye.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8787053/Tony-Blairs-Byzantine-world-of-advisers-and-lucrative-deals.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-company-paid-just-315000-tax-on-income-of-more-than-12m-6287001.html
Seriously, who would be stupid enough to login to facebook and FURTHER link themselves?
Uhm, all those people that made sending Spam a profitable industry.
You have to throw yourself at the ground and miss. That's the trick.
*imagines less AIDS and malaria victims that are bald*