You say, "You are assuming that You are assuming that biometrics are 100% effective".
Fact - biometrics will be 100% effective.
It is currently possible to match output on different printers of same model - this is far harder than matching biometrics.
Regarding your post on Panopticon September 03 - I have something in relation to this and ID cards at my site (on the Governments aim):
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece, wrote by another who did a better job of explaining than I could:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
Perhaps lawyers and judges should be more concerned with how the Law is being violated by trademark holder to.
For example - the overreaching of trademark rights against tribute or criticism sites - to bully the law abiding registrant of domain.
Please check out court case in America - lucasnursery.com:
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this domain did not violate the law when female owner used the name of Lucas Nursery for a Web site she created to complain about them.
Judge Hilton took a rather different view of the relationship between government secrecy and the rights of the defense in his last involvement in a politically explosive case, when he presided over the 1989 trial of Joseph Fernandez, the CIA station chief in Costa Rica. Fernandez was indicted for perjury in the Iran-Contra affair. He was charged with lying about the illegal arms shipments to the Nicaraguan contras organized by the Reagan administration.
In the run-up to that trial, the Bush administration, Judge Hilton and the attorneys for Fernandez engaged in an elaborate charade: the attorneys demanded classified materials to assist in their defense, the Bush administration refused to divulge it, and Judge Hilton eventually dismissed the case on the grounds that Fernandez would be deprived of his right to an effective defense without it.
The conflict was a prearranged sham--most of the "classified" information had already been made public in the press, such as the fact that Ilopango Air Force Base in El Salvador, the departure point for the illegal airdrops of weapons to the contras, was the location of a CIA station. Iran-Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, in his book on the case, observed that some of Hilton's declarations from the bench sounded "like those of a man working toward a predetermined objective."
While Judge Hilton's legal position has shifted dramatically, his rulings in the two cases are consistent politically--they have protected right-wing conspiracies against the democratic rights of the American people, the first spearheaded by Oliver North, the second by Kenneth Starr.
### ends ###
It is certainly most clear to me that they have little regard for democratic rights of the American people.
Mind you - no different to our government having scant regard for democratic rights of the British people.
Most our Members of Parliament are so vacuous of intelligence that they let Tony Blair do anything he wants. They do so believing him the best chance of them winning next election. The MP's that have intelligence to understand, drop their honourable principles for greedy self interest.
Lamparello's site criticizes Falwell's stance against homosexuality and includes a disclaimer that reads, "This Web site is not affiliated with Jerry Falwell Ministries."
THEREFORE THIS WAS CLEARLY FREE SPEECH
Perhaps the Judge is ignorant old duffer - or may be he is of the same opinion as Falwell.
Please read lucasnursery.com decision of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals - it ruled that this domain did not violate the law. The female owner used the name of Lucas Nursery for a Web site she created to complain about them.
That said, there have been setbacks. Earlier this year, the Italian court ruled that mod chips are legal on the basis that it's up to the user, not Sony, how they use their PS2. It even went so far as to name mod chips as crucial tools to "avoid monopolistic positions".
The European Commission has been against "monopolistic positions" - like Microsoft.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/31278.html
EU rulings have overturned UK law before.
Perhaps they will knock Sony down - for preventing owners from using imported games, not allowing them to run backup of corrupt disc and stopping them playing games they have written.
Quote from article: "The government has said it sees ID cards as a weapon against terrorism."
Once again - for the propaganda merchants in government:
ID cards in Spain did not stop the bombings.
I do not believe the stupidity of all this.
The government have complete contempt for the UK public - they want a Big Brother Surveillance Society.
People are treated like sheep by them - what is worse - most folks accept it.
Governments must think all the public are intellectually challenged morons.
ID Cards are a Red Herring - something that draws attention away from the central issue.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you absolutely anywhere with a portable eye/finger scanner - without your ID Card.
Once data is transmitted to base they can have your identity within seconds.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end.
You could be stopped anywhere and authorities would know everything about you - they would not need your ID card.
They will have effectively branded a number on every person.
Just like in 1942, when Nazi's began tattooing numbers on the left forearm of all prisoners.
Find ANYBODY in Government to deny that you can be read like a barcode on a bag of peas at the supermarket till.
They are treating us all like criminals - putting everybody's fingerprints and eye scans on file.
The ID Card propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
It is clear that Governments want a surveillance society.
When you are stopped by police:
"Just look into this eye scanner sir."
Beep..beep..Garry Anderson..49..male..speeding camera violation spotted..
Linking these systems up will just be the start of things - just exactly what Tony and David want.
Of course, many blinkered and intellectually challenged members of public would say Big Brother is a good thing.
Governments must think all the public are intellectually challenged morons.
ID Cards are a Red Herring - something that draws attention away from the central issue.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you absolutely anywhere with a portable eye/finger scanner - without your ID Card.
Once data is transmitted to base they can have your identity within seconds.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end.
You could be stopped anywhere and authorities would know everything about you - they would not need your ID card.
They will have effectively branded a number on every person.
Just like in 1942, when Nazi's began tattooing numbers on the left forearm of all prisoners.
Find ANYBODY in Government to deny that you can be read like a barcode on a bag of peas at the supermarket till.
They are treating us all like criminals - putting everybody's fingerprints and eye scans on file.
The ID Card propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
It is clear that Governments want a surveillance society.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday made it clear that the government now feels it has sufficient public support to accelerate the introduction of compulsory ID cards. Speaking at his monthly press conference, he said that "we will need to readjust our terrorism laws still further. I have to say this to you, and I think that the whole issue of identity cards that a few years ago were not on anybody's agenda are very much on the political agenda here, probably more quickly even than we anticipated."
1 - virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in the same or a different country e.g. the word 'apple' is registered by tobacco and computer companies in the US.
Every domain you pick will likely be similar to a registered trademark - you would think that authorities want people to know which domains belong to a registered trademark.
Even UN WIPO will not guarantee that your domain is safe - even if you check all their sources: "any searches using the links provided on this site will not be sufficient to determine definitively whether or not the domain name is infringing."
2 - the only way to avoid confusion with ordinary domain names is to have some sort of identifier to identify them - to replace registered trademark symbol (R) - like a protected.reg TLD.
e.g. apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg - who else could it be? (format: name.classification.country.reg)
This adds unequivocal trademark identification and directory functionality - with absolutely no restrictions or requirement to lose current domains.
I believe the evidence provides conclusive and demonstrable proof that the authorites are corrupt - they aid and abet trademark overreach. This can be shown in UDRP cases when the term could LEGALLY be used by any number of businesses (with or without trademark) - or for personal none comercial use.
UDRP rules (on which decisions are based) wrote by WIPO - is a biased system that favours trademarks to promote intellectual-property rights.
Even U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recognizes and admit this bias. They identified it when talking about open-source software:
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the USPTO, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."
With all words registered for trademarks, you could imagine them saying, "to allow others to use words runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." "To give people domain names is to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."
Do you know Trademarks 'raison d'etre'?
"They are to identify source - NOT to claim world rights to a word or words."
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
This is a post that I have used many times before:-)
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot a
I did know that multiple companies can own the same trademark - I have been talking to lawyers for YEARS.
I have also discussed this matter in detail with US and UK authorities.
I sent the following email to University of Oklahoma College of Law:
Please will you kindly forward this to Stacey Knapp.
I would also be very grateful for comments from trademark experts at Oklahoma College of Law.
I hope you will rise to the challenge:-)
You know Trademark Law is UNAMBIGUOUS - a mark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('class') in SPECIFIC country.
It seems to me that most lawyers do not want a solution to trademark/domain conflicts - perhaps because they make money from them?
You know that virtually every word is (or can be) a registered trademark - many times over in the same country - and also in different countries.
You know that there is bound to be confusion with domain names.
Is it not obvious - that trademarks have to be identified on the Internet - just like they are in the real world?
Why not use a protected TLD (e.g..reg) to identify registered trademarks?
Just like people in US know.gov site is US government site - and those in UK know.gov.uk is UK government site.
The.reg TLD could provide a certificate of authentication and directory services - both sadly missing from current system - you would think them essential, so guess why not.
So - for example - apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg - who else would it be?
This does not replace current system or domains - it does not hinder marketing or restrict in any way - just provides additional increased functionality.
From my communications with US authorities it is clear they know this, but would rather aid and abet big business unlawfully overreach with their trademarks.
You know, of course, ICANN's UDRP guidelines came from UN WIPO, whom are biased towards big business with intellectual-property rights - both in principle and with cash?
UDRP is flawed and corrupt as UN WIPO made it to be easy for their customers to overreach with trademark.
Lois Boland, director of international relations for USPTO identified this bias when talking about open-source software.
Lois said that this "runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights".
Also, "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO".
Perhaps though the US authorities do not want solution because the US Registered Trademark System is a sham.
You want proof it is a sham?
As you know - the USPTO can issue same trademark to different businesses selling similar products - concurrent registration.
The law was changed to allow them to do this by mostly ignorant people - in my truthful opinion those that informed them were corrupt.
Do not try to misdirect or muddy the water with honest concurrent use of unregistered marks.
Obviously unregistered trademark conflict cannot be avoided - with registered trademarks it can.
The US Registered Trademark System can at best described as a Zip Code Lottery System - made worse with resellers, national magazines/newspapers and the Internet.
Also made worse if somebody gives a product with US Registered Trademark to you as present - you are then consumer.
How does the US mark identify source?
How do you know that any US registered trademark is unique to one source from the mark?
Just exactly how do you know the registrant has "exclusive right to use the mark nationwide"?
The US Government are not stupid - they go along with DARPA to get a surveillance society.
They want to keep an eye on you all.
This is NOT about terrorism.
I have posted on this topic many times.
Extract:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
.......
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
UN WIPO experts said they do not know the solution to trademark conflicts with domain names.
These people lied - the answer was self-evident and has been ratified by honest lawyers.
Virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in same or different country e.g. the word 'apple' is registered by tobacco and computer companies in the US.
The only way to avoid confusion with ordinary domain names is to have some sort of identifier to identify them - to replace registered trademark symbol (R) - like a protected.reg TLD.
Just like only US government departments can get.gov domain - only registered trademarks can get a.reg domain.
All registered trademark words can be uniquely identified by name.classification.country.reg - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg
Apple Computers can still use apple.com - just directed to apple.computer.us.reg as certificate of authentication and use as directory.
Please visit my site - Not associated with UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).
"criminals, terrorists, and spies use VoIP"
on
Feds Want to Tap VoIP
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
They always use false arguments to get surveillance society.
Quote from article:
The agencies have asked the Federal Communications Commission to order companies offering voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to rewire their networks to guarantee police the ability to eavesdrop on subscribers' conversations.
Without such mandatory rules, the two agencies predicted in a letter to the FCC last month that "criminals, terrorists, and spies (could) use VoIP services to avoid lawfully authorized surveillance." The letter also was signed by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
I have put the following argument many times:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
The Telegraph newspaper said in Leader today (12 Nov), "Opinion polls show that a majority of the public supports ID cards, as long as they are paid for by somebody else".
The main problem is that people's opinions are being shaped by the false distorted view, that ID cards would solve our ills of illegal immigration, crime and terrorism.
The carrying of these biometric ID cards is a red herring - there is no need to carry a card - you carry your data on you at all times.
Your eye scan and/or fingerprint data will be on a national database.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you anywhere with a portable scanner.
Once data is transmitted to base - they can have your identity within seconds - ask Blunkett to deny that fact.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end.
Just as the Nazi's did to the Jews in 1942 - the New Labour government have your number branded to you.
The analogy is correct - or does anybody deny that you can be read like some barcode on the till at Tesco?
Even without being scanned, the 'stop and search' will be a dehumanising experience for those undergoing it.
More trouble ahead.
With this and RIP Act - it is clear to me that the New Labour Government wants a surveillance society.
I have posted on the subject of surveillance many times before. Here is an extract regarding the psychological aspect. This particular part was wrote by another and did a better job of explaining than I could:
"Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure."
It was always obvious that receipts would be the best way to verify vote.
Apart from initial outlay, cost is minimal - the only reason somebody would not want verification is because vote would be easier to corrupt. Apart from reason of moronic stupidity that is.
This system should be kept for all time - to prevent any fiddles in future.
People would cast their e-vote, get the receipt, verify it is correct and put the receipt in a new type ballot box.
Vote is not cast or recorded until receipt is put into ballot box (incorporating reader).
There are very reliable readers already on market for cheque validation.
Recount is always possible when number counts are close.
At all votes though, use equivalent of bank note counter to see total receipts match the votes. Also, use spot checks to see no attempt at fraud with candidate mismatch on ticket.
This is a prior posting of mine that was received favourably:-)
Subject: Why I joined ACLU
I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.
In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are
Slashdot Mirror
You say, "You are assuming that You are assuming that biometrics are 100% effective".
Fact - biometrics will be 100% effective.
It is currently possible to match output on different printers of same model - this is far harder than matching biometrics.
Regarding your post on Panopticon September 03 - I have something in relation to this and ID cards at my site (on the Governments aim):
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece, wrote by another who did a better job of explaining than I could:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
Blunkett has said the carrying of ID cards will not be compulsary - that is a red herring.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you absolutely anywhere with a portable scanner.
Once data is transmitted to base - they can have your identity and details within seconds.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - like stated - it is a red herring - a means to an end.
You could be stopped anywhere and authorities would know everything about you - they would not need your ID card.
They will have effectively branded a number on every person in UK.
Just like in 1942, when Nazi's began putting numbers on the left forearm of Auschwitz concentration camp prisoners.
Find anybody in authority to deny that you can be read like a unique barcode at the supermarket till.
They are treating us all like criminals - putting everybody's fingerprints and eye scans on file.
It is clear that Blunkett wants a surveillance society - this is not about stopping terrorists.
Those that think it cybersquatting - obviously do not have a clue of what they are talking about.
Or are informed lawyers being paid to act dishonestly for corrupt overreaching corporate trademark holders in another case.
www.WIPO.org.uk
World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
Perhaps lawyers and judges should be more concerned with how the Law is being violated by trademark holder to .
For example - the overreaching of trademark rights against tribute or criticism sites - to bully the law abiding registrant of domain.
Please check out court case in America - lucasnursery.com:
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this domain did not violate the law when female owner used the name of Lucas Nursery for a Web site she created to complain about them.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Here is another:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
www.WIPO.org.uk
World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
Quote from news article:
Judge Hilton took a rather different view of the relationship between government secrecy and the rights of the defense in his last involvement in a politically explosive case, when he presided over the 1989 trial of Joseph Fernandez, the CIA station chief in Costa Rica. Fernandez was indicted for perjury in the Iran-Contra affair. He was charged with lying about the illegal arms shipments to the Nicaraguan contras organized by the Reagan administration.
In the run-up to that trial, the Bush administration, Judge Hilton and the attorneys for Fernandez engaged in an elaborate charade: the attorneys demanded classified materials to assist in their defense, the Bush administration refused to divulge it, and Judge Hilton eventually dismissed the case on the grounds that Fernandez would be deprived of his right to an effective defense without it.
The conflict was a prearranged sham--most of the "classified" information had already been made public in the press, such as the fact that Ilopango Air Force Base in El Salvador, the departure point for the illegal airdrops of weapons to the contras, was the location of a CIA station. Iran-Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, in his book on the case, observed that some of Hilton's declarations from the bench sounded "like those of a man working toward a predetermined objective."
While Judge Hilton's legal position has shifted dramatically, his rulings in the two cases are consistent politically--they have protected right-wing conspiracies against the democratic rights of the American people, the first spearheaded by Oliver North, the second by Kenneth Starr.
### ends ###
It is certainly most clear to me that they have little regard for democratic rights of the American people.
Mind you - no different to our government having scant regard for democratic rights of the British people.
Most our Members of Parliament are so vacuous of intelligence that they let Tony Blair do anything he wants. They do so believing him the best chance of them winning next election. The MP's that have intelligence to understand, drop their honourable principles for greedy self interest.
Quote from CNN article:
Lamparello's site criticizes Falwell's stance against homosexuality and includes a disclaimer that reads, "This Web site is not affiliated with Jerry Falwell Ministries."
THEREFORE THIS WAS CLEARLY FREE SPEECH
Perhaps the Judge is ignorant old duffer - or may be he is of the same opinion as Falwell.
Please read lucasnursery.com decision of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals - it ruled that this domain did not violate the law. The female owner used the name of Lucas Nursery for a Web site she created to complain about them.
Link
Or this quote from trendmakerhome.com court decision:
"Concluding that Maxwell's site, as a non-commercial gripe site, violates none of these statutes, we reverse and render judgment in favor of Maxwell."
Link
Please visit my complaint site to find out more of this subject.
N.B. It is not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
From the article:
That said, there have been setbacks. Earlier this year, the Italian court ruled that mod chips are legal on the basis that it's up to the user, not Sony, how they use their PS2. It even went so far as to name mod chips as crucial tools to "avoid monopolistic positions".
The European Commission has been against "monopolistic positions" - like Microsoft.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/31278.html
EU rulings have overturned UK law before.
Perhaps they will knock Sony down - for preventing owners from using imported games, not allowing them to run backup of corrupt disc and stopping them playing games they have written.
Quote from article: "The government has said it sees ID cards as a weapon against terrorism."
Once again - for the propaganda merchants in government:
ID cards in Spain did not stop the bombings.
I do not believe the stupidity of all this.
The government have complete contempt for the UK public - they want a Big Brother Surveillance Society.
People are treated like sheep by them - what is worse - most folks accept it.
Governments must think all the public are intellectually challenged morons.
ID Cards are a Red Herring - something that draws attention away from the central issue.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you absolutely anywhere with a portable eye/finger scanner - without your ID Card.
Once data is transmitted to base they can have your identity within seconds.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end.
You could be stopped anywhere and authorities would know everything about you - they would not need your ID card.
They will have effectively branded a number on every person.
Just like in 1942, when Nazi's began tattooing numbers on the left forearm of all prisoners.
Find ANYBODY in Government to deny that you can be read like a barcode on a bag of peas at the supermarket till.
They are treating us all like criminals - putting everybody's fingerprints and eye scans on file.
The ID Card propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
It is clear that Governments want a surveillance society.
When you are stopped by police:
"Just look into this eye scanner sir."
Beep..beep..Garry Anderson..49..male..speeding camera violation spotted..
Linking these systems up will just be the start of things - just exactly what Tony and David want.
Of course, many blinkered and intellectually challenged members of public would say Big Brother is a good thing.
ID cards in Spain did not stop the bombings.
Governments must think all the public are intellectually challenged morons.
ID Cards are a Red Herring - something that draws attention away from the central issue.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you absolutely anywhere with a portable eye/finger scanner - without your ID Card.
Once data is transmitted to base they can have your identity within seconds.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end.
You could be stopped anywhere and authorities would know everything about you - they would not need your ID card.
They will have effectively branded a number on every person.
Just like in 1942, when Nazi's began tattooing numbers on the left forearm of all prisoners.
Find ANYBODY in Government to deny that you can be read like a barcode on a bag of peas at the supermarket till.
They are treating us all like criminals - putting everybody's fingerprints and eye scans on file.
The ID Card propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
It is clear that Governments want a surveillance society.
Even BT allow you to ex-directory for your telephone here in UK.
Those in charge of DNS should have allowed domains to be ex-directory right from the start.
Sorry - I left out the link to UK ID card story.
The Government propaganda machine is working overtime.
Blair puts compulsory ID card on fast track for UK
Quote:
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday made it clear that the government now feels it has sufficient public support to accelerate the introduction of compulsory ID cards. Speaking at his monthly press conference, he said that "we will need to readjust our terrorism laws still further. I have to say this to you, and I think that the whole issue of identity cards that a few years ago were not on anybody's agenda are very much on the political agenda here, probably more quickly even than we anticipated."
After they have blown themselves up (along with many Americans) they will not be bothered that their prints and mugshot are on file.
;-)
Government propaganda here in UK is just as bad.
We are told there is no requirement to carry this ID card - but that is just a Red Herring.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you absolutely anywhere with a portable fingerprint scanner.
Once data is transmitted to base - they can have your identity within seconds.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is purely a means to an end.
You could be stopped anywhere and authorities would know everything about you - they would not need your ID card.
They will have effectively branded a number on every person in UK.
Just like in 1942, when Nazi's began tattooing numbers on the left forearm of all prisoners.
Find anybody to deny that you can be read like some barcode on a bag of peas at the supermarket till.
They are treating us all like criminals - putting everybody's fingerprints and eye scans on file.
With this and reading your private mail over the Internet - it is most clear they all want a surveillance society.
Garry Anderson - Haverhill UK - Home Page - proper English spelling
1 - virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in the same or a different country e.g. the word 'apple' is registered by tobacco and computer companies in the US.
.reg TLD.
Every domain you pick will likely be similar to a registered trademark - you would think that authorities want people to know which domains belong to a registered trademark.
Even UN WIPO will not guarantee that your domain is safe - even if you check all their sources: "any searches using the links provided on this site will not be sufficient to determine definitively whether or not the domain name is infringing."
2 - the only way to avoid confusion with ordinary domain names is to have some sort of identifier to identify them - to replace registered trademark symbol (R) - like a protected
e.g. apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg - who else could it be? (format: name.classification.country.reg)
This adds unequivocal trademark identification and directory functionality - with absolutely no restrictions or requirement to lose current domains.
I believe the evidence provides conclusive and demonstrable proof that the authorites are corrupt - they aid and abet trademark overreach. This can be shown in UDRP cases when the term could LEGALLY be used by any number of businesses (with or without trademark) - or for personal none comercial use.
UDRP rules (on which decisions are based) wrote by WIPO - is a biased system that favours trademarks to promote intellectual-property rights.
Even U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recognizes and admit this bias. They identified it when talking about open-source software:
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the USPTO, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."
With all words registered for trademarks, you could imagine them saying, "to allow others to use words runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." "To give people domain names is to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."
Do you know Trademarks 'raison d'etre'?
"They are to identify source - NOT to claim world rights to a word or words."
WIPO.org.uk - Comments on WIPO Interim Report (12 April 2001) to UN WIPO.
Garry Anderson - Haverhill UK - Home Page - WIPO criticism.
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
:-)
This is a post that I have used many times before
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot a
Like they would have given me an honest answer anyway :-)
Even when I have been humble - based on past responses - that ain't going to happen.
It is demonstrable fact that the system is corrupt - I can give example.
Most people in authority are cowards whom are afraid to answer - they are without honour.
I fully understand all the problems.
:-)
.reg) to identify registered trademarks?
.gov site is US government site - and those in UK know .gov.uk is UK government site.
.reg TLD could provide a certificate of authentication and directory services - both sadly missing from current system - you would think them essential, so guess why not.
r eg ister.htm
I did know that multiple companies can own the same trademark - I have been talking to lawyers for YEARS.
I have also discussed this matter in detail with US and UK authorities.
I sent the following email to University of Oklahoma College of Law:
Please will you kindly forward this to Stacey Knapp.
I would also be very grateful for comments from trademark experts at Oklahoma College of Law.
I hope you will rise to the challenge
You know Trademark Law is UNAMBIGUOUS - a mark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('class') in SPECIFIC country.
It seems to me that most lawyers do not want a solution to trademark/domain conflicts - perhaps because they make money from them?
You know that virtually every word is (or can be) a registered trademark - many times over in the same country - and also in different countries.
You know that there is bound to be confusion with domain names.
Is it not obvious - that trademarks have to be identified on the Internet - just like they are in the real world?
Why not use a protected TLD (e.g.
Just like people in US know
The
So - for example - apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg - who else would it be?
This does not replace current system or domains - it does not hinder marketing or restrict in any way - just provides additional increased functionality.
From my communications with US authorities it is clear they know this, but would rather aid and abet big business unlawfully overreach with their trademarks.
You know, of course, ICANN's UDRP guidelines came from UN WIPO, whom are biased towards big business with intellectual-property rights - both in principle and with cash?
UDRP is flawed and corrupt as UN WIPO made it to be easy for their customers to overreach with trademark.
Lois Boland, director of international relations for USPTO identified this bias when talking about open-source software.
Lois said that this "runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights".
Also, "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO".
Perhaps though the US authorities do not want solution because the US Registered Trademark System is a sham.
You want proof it is a sham?
As you know - the USPTO can issue same trademark to different businesses selling similar products - concurrent registration.
The law was changed to allow them to do this by mostly ignorant people - in my truthful opinion those that informed them were corrupt.
Do not try to misdirect or muddy the water with honest concurrent use of unregistered marks.
Obviously unregistered trademark conflict cannot be avoided - with registered trademarks it can.
The US Registered Trademark System can at best described as a Zip Code Lottery System - made worse with resellers, national magazines/newspapers and the Internet.
Also made worse if somebody gives a product with US Registered Trademark to you as present - you are then consumer.
How does the US mark identify source?
How do you know that any US registered trademark is unique to one source from the mark?
Just exactly how do you know the registrant has "exclusive right to use the mark nationwide"?
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/
If you disagree - exactly why is the US Registered Trademark System not a sham?
Please visit WIPO.org.uk.
I would welcome your critical comments on my informed opinion and findings above and on the web site.
Regards,
Garry Anderson
FACT: Virtually every word is (or can be) registered trademark - there is BOUND TO BE CONFUSION WITH DOMAIN NAMES.
.reg) to identify registered trademarks.
.gov site is US government site - and those in UK know .gov.uk is UK government site.
OBVIOUSLY - trademarks have to be identified on the Internet - just like they are in the real world.
There is a solution - use a protected TLD (e.g.
Just like people in US know
The authorities know this but would rather aid and abet big business unlawfully overreach with their trademarks.
Please visit my web site - not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).
The US Government are not stupid - they go along with DARPA to get a surveillance society.
.......
They want to keep an eye on you all.
This is NOT about terrorism.
I have posted on this topic many times.
Extract:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
More at previous post.
UN WIPO experts said they do not know the solution to trademark conflicts with domain names.
.reg TLD.
.gov domain - only registered trademarks can get a .reg domain.
These people lied - the answer was self-evident and has been ratified by honest lawyers.
Virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in same or different country e.g. the word 'apple' is registered by tobacco and computer companies in the US.
The only way to avoid confusion with ordinary domain names is to have some sort of identifier to identify them - to replace registered trademark symbol (R) - like a protected
Just like only US government departments can get
All registered trademark words can be uniquely identified by name.classification.country.reg - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg
Apple Computers can still use apple.com - just directed to apple.computer.us.reg as certificate of authentication and use as directory.
Please visit my site - Not associated with UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).
They always use false arguments to get surveillance society.
Quote from article:
The agencies have asked the Federal Communications Commission to order companies offering voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to rewire their networks to guarantee police the ability to eavesdrop on subscribers' conversations.
Without such mandatory rules, the two agencies predicted in a letter to the FCC last month that "criminals, terrorists, and spies (could) use VoIP services to avoid lawfully authorized surveillance." The letter also was signed by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
I have put the following argument many times:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Please see any one of my posts on this topic.
The Telegraph newspaper said in Leader today (12 Nov), "Opinion polls show that a majority of the public supports ID cards, as long as they are paid for by somebody else".
The main problem is that people's opinions are being shaped by the false distorted view, that ID cards would solve our ills of illegal immigration, crime and terrorism.
The carrying of these biometric ID cards is a red herring - there is no need to carry a card - you carry your data on you at all times.
Your eye scan and/or fingerprint data will be on a national database.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you anywhere with a portable scanner.
Once data is transmitted to base - they can have your identity within seconds - ask Blunkett to deny that fact.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end.
Just as the Nazi's did to the Jews in 1942 - the New Labour government have your number branded to you.
The analogy is correct - or does anybody deny that you can be read like some barcode on the till at Tesco?
Even without being scanned, the 'stop and search' will be a dehumanising experience for those undergoing it.
More trouble ahead.
With this and RIP Act - it is clear to me that the New Labour Government wants a surveillance society.
www.SKILFUL.com
I have posted on the subject of surveillance many times before. Here is an extract regarding the psychological aspect. This particular part was wrote by another and did a better job of explaining than I could:
"Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure."
Full text is here and also on my personal website.
Keep It Simple Stupid
It was always obvious that receipts would be the best way to verify vote.
Apart from initial outlay, cost is minimal - the only reason somebody would not want verification is because vote would be easier to corrupt. Apart from reason of moronic stupidity that is.
This system should be kept for all time - to prevent any fiddles in future.
People would cast their e-vote, get the receipt, verify it is correct and put the receipt in a new type ballot box.
Vote is not cast or recorded until receipt is put into ballot box (incorporating reader).
There are very reliable readers already on market for cheque validation.
Recount is always possible when number counts are close.
At all votes though, use equivalent of bank note counter to see total receipts match the votes. Also, use spot checks to see no attempt at fraud with candidate mismatch on ticket.
This system should be kept for all time - to prevent any fiddles in future.
It was always obvious that receipts would be the best way to verify vote.
People would cast their e-vote, get the receipt, verify it is correct and put the receipt in a new type ballot box.
Vote is not cast or recorded until receipt is put into ballot box (incorporating reader).
There are very reliable readers already on market for cheque validation.
Recount is always possible when close.
At all votes though, use spot checks to see no fiddles of candidate mismatch on ticket.
This is a prior posting of mine that was received favourably :-)
Subject: Why I joined ACLU
I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.
In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are