As you mention most European countries have fairly strict laws governing the collection and keeping of personal data, including the obligation to give access and possible redress.
Google has a Dutch portal and a Dutch sales office, both might make them responsible to follow the Laws of the Land.
Till now especially airlines have been exposed to the authority that is supervising adherence with this law but other companies with international operations are aware.
We have determined that your IP address is 213.84.78.XXX (my obscurity)
This is the public IP address that is visible to the internet.
Note: this may not be your IP address if you are connecting through a router, proxy or firewall.
Trying to gather information from your web browser...
Operating System = Linux i686
Browser = Firefox 1.5
Trying to find out your computer name...
Unable to determine your computer name!
Trying to find out what services you are running...
Unable to detect any running services!
Yep, Kubuntu via NAT seems a prety good bet, I would not feel any better on dial-up.
Democracy works by counting votes, in the US too many of these votes can be had for money.
I've said it before and I still believe in it; financial support for political means (like candidates, parties) should be limited.
It should be limited to be spend by real people that have the right to vote, not organisations or companies, these should and can be represented by the people (voters) that own them and/or work in them.
The amount of financial support should be democratised; that means a sum that even the poorest can affort, say $10.- per year.
In my view the present (US) political finance system is completely undemocratic when some can affort (and are allowed) to donate vast sums and others next to nothing.
Especially non-natural entities like companies or unions should be banned from giving financial support to political parties or candidates.
The only ones suffering in such a system would be the media, no more 100 million dollar campains.
It does not need a complete collaps of the worlds life to make certian crops suddenly needing an infusion of clean genes.
The past few years we've seen universities trying very hard to find old races/ strains of for example apple trees because the present ones seem to be more suspect to pests than it used to be.
In Africa and Asia, even Europe (FSU!) there are countries that used to have excelent universities and academics.
Due to the changing political situation these centres of knowledge don't have the budgets they used to have.
They need to decide that at the borders, and not let in anyone we need to be protected from.
Trying to be funny I hope...
The criminals that committed the bombings in Londen were all British citizen, border checks would not have helped any.
Even the 9/11 criminals entered the US quite legally.
Save for making these criminals unacceptable in their own community only good old fashioned criminal investigations and undercover work can help us.
The management of our US subsidiary decided to do a drugs test, everyone had to piss in a jar and as a result nearly the whole (7man) IT dept. was fired.
You're joking right? By that logic no-one in the world should be able to expel, fire, or make redundant anyone, ever.
No I'm not, I do expect the punishment to fit the crime.
In this case (and with the information available to me) the 'crime' did certainly not warrant such a heavy sanction.
"Information wants to be free" is something we've seen mentioned and even applauded on/.
None the less I'm quite appalled this can be legal or, even worse, common in any developed country.
OK, maybe it's a little (hidden) check box on the contract that makes it possible but such an option should be off by default.
After all, it's not just the phone's owners information that is disclosed but as well info on the innocent people he talked with.
I could imagine that people from countries where privacy is of higher value (and legally protected) could sue when their information is publicised in the US...
This isn't about civil liberties at all. Marquette is a private institution and has every right to enforce these policies.
You say they (private institutions) are above the law.
These guys are interfering with the ability of a person to (in future) make money to feed his family, I would say that's something sanctionable by law.
Slashdot Mirror
Would that explain why AOL is pretty useless??
Google has a Dutch portal and a Dutch sales office, both might make them responsible to follow the Laws of the Land.
Till now especially airlines have been exposed to the authority that is supervising adherence with this law but other companies with international operations are aware.
Teun@Tosh2:~$ whois google.nl
Rights restricted by copyright. See
http://www.domain-registry.nl/whois.php
Domain name:
google.nl (first domain)
Status: active
Registrant:
Google Inc.
Bayshore Parkway 2400
94043
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA
United States of America
Domicile:
Lagedijk 7
2064 KT SPAARNDAM
Netherlands
Sales Office Benelux
WTC2, Zuidplein 36
1077 XV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
We have determined that your IP address is 213.84.78.XXX (my obscurity)
This is the public IP address that is visible to the internet.
Note: this may not be your IP address if you are connecting through a router, proxy or firewall.
Trying to gather information from your web browser...
Operating System = Linux i686
Browser = Firefox 1.5
Trying to find out your computer name...
Unable to determine your computer name!
Trying to find out what services you are running...
Unable to detect any running services!
Yep, Kubuntu via NAT seems a prety good bet, I would not feel any better on dial-up.
There've been quite a few new stories of cable/adsl converts that were caught by a dialer 'cause they kept their old phone line connected!
I assume that's like a worm/virus/rootkit etc?
That's the time part. Ferguson said a $466, 24-inch flat-screen computer monitor was found in Bryant's office
This prooves there's no fraud, working on such acreage takes above average time!
I've said it before and I still believe in it; financial support for political means (like candidates, parties) should be limited.
It should be limited to be spend by real people that have the right to vote, not organisations or companies, these should and can be represented by the people (voters) that own them and/or work in them.
The amount of financial support should be democratised; that means a sum that even the poorest can affort, say $10.- per year.
In my view the present (US) political finance system is completely undemocratic when some can affort (and are allowed) to donate vast sums and others next to nothing. Especially non-natural entities like companies or unions should be banned from giving financial support to political parties or candidates.
The only ones suffering in such a system would be the media, no more 100 million dollar campains.
Do you know something that NASA and us astronomers don't?
Talking to yourself?
The fact this old 'vunerability' suddenly crops up makes me wonder if the paranoid are right and this was an intentional back door...
The past few years we've seen universities trying very hard to find old races/ strains of for example apple trees because the present ones seem to be more suspect to pests than it used to be.
In Africa and Asia, even Europe (FSU!) there are countries that used to have excelent universities and academics.
Due to the changing political situation these centres of knowledge don't have the budgets they used to have.
A very valid question, why are legislators allowing this?
Trying to be funny I hope...
The criminals that committed the bombings in Londen were all British citizen, border checks would not have helped any.
Even the 9/11 criminals entered the US quite legally.
Save for making these criminals unacceptable in their own community only good old fashioned criminal investigations and undercover work can help us.
The proposed law has a completely different goal.
The network hasn't been the same since.
Indeed my first thought, paranoid security drones might find this a terrorists wet dream.
I hope you try to be funny...
But without a firewall you're still screwed.
I wonder why they have not included one.
No I'm not, I do expect the punishment to fit the crime.
In this case (and with the information available to me) the 'crime' did certainly not warrant such a heavy sanction.
None the less I'm quite appalled this can be legal or, even worse, common in any developed country.
OK, maybe it's a little (hidden) check box on the contract that makes it possible but such an option should be off by default.
After all, it's not just the phone's owners information that is disclosed but as well info on the innocent people he talked with.
I could imagine that people from countries where privacy is of higher value (and legally protected) could sue when their information is publicised in the US...
You say they (private institutions) are above the law.
These guys are interfering with the ability of a person to (in future) make money to feed his family, I would say that's something sanctionable by law.
Hmm, land of the free, brave you better bee...
Never trust a XXAA lawyer...
Hmm, back to Meta Moderating!
Shit moderation, this is not a troll, these are sad facts of life on the Island of Britannia!
You insensitive clod!
What about my Creative Zen?
I see you've been in The Netherlands (: