We'd be safe in the UK. Because the data from those chips is held on computers and anyone who's not the bank that collected the data has no right to even see it without our permission.
Just because a bank has a marketing department doesn't make it a marketing company. I've seen hospitals with cafeterias - I don't class hospitals as restaurants. Can you elaborate on these 'partnerships'?
Maybe they just can't be bothered setting up an ftp server that's just going to get trashed while everyone tries to download their source. They know they're not going to send the SAS in to tell them off and slap their hands, so they just don't do it.
'Honour the GPL or we'll... we'll... shit.'
- Westerners
How very open-minded of you. I particularly liked the way you used the word 'they' to label well over a billion people in one swoosh of your racist pen.
In the UK, that's no problem at all. Sorry to disappoint you, but over here you can request from the owner of a camera that has filmed you, and they are legally required to hand you copies of the footage (for a small admin fee, approx. $30-$50). So in your example, you'd phone up the company who owned the camera, tell them your name and the date/time/location of the accident, and they'll send you a copy of the tape. So, surveilance technology helps your average citizen. Over here, anyway.;)
And that's bad how? It's a BANK. It's not a marketing department for crying out loud. Stop immediately jumping to the conclusion that someone who holds sensitive information about you is going to sell it to the Chinese. There are legitimate non-profit uses for the data (if they even keep it at all), such as tracing money back to it's rightful owner should it be stolen. If that's too paranoid for you, maybe you should revert to using coins to buy everything.
Of course the FBI aren't going to arrest you. That's the weakest evidence there ever is. It's highly circumstantial, and can be dismissed within two seconds.
It's not a floppy credit card. How can it be? A credit card doesn't hold any physical value, whereas the bill with the chip has a face value - it is the money.
Having the chip means you would be able to trace money, which is no bad thing. (I doubt drug dealers would have machines to log the transactions anyway:) ).
I don't know about America, but in the UK the money is not ours, but lent to us while still being property of the Bank of England (and the Queen). This means that they can put these in the money no questions asked.
It's a good idea, and if it means that money that was stolen from you could be located then I'll be very happy to have some.
That was never in doubt. We should take a moment here and consider this - we're debating (arguing) about the merits of lots of freedom, or a little-bit-less freedom. We're pretty lucky. Most of the world would give their right arms (or their left if that's all they have left) for the sort of freedom we all enjoy every day. Whether we're watched by cameras or not, we can still walk down the street without being run over by a tank (unless you live in San Diego - but that was just once).
In my own home is different - I'm not near anyone else, no-one else can see me, and I can't harm anyone else. When you're outside, it's marketing open season on yo ass.
Oh please, dear. For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.
- Walter Sobchak
Indeed - you can say what you want, but be prepared for the backlash!
The cameras in the UK on public ground are not run by companies with an eye on collecting data, they just record what's happening on our streets, so we can see what happened when a crime is committed. I'm in favour of that, and anyone who isn't needs help. Seriously.
It seems in the US companies have access to a lot of information they really shouldn't. In the UK our information is strongly protected (Data Protection Act - only people with a legitimate use of your information can hold it, and only after you say it's ok), so we have little to fear. I get about 1 piece of junk mail through my door every week. I can live with that. I never run out of envelopes;)
It's up to you how you choose to live your life, but not who watches.
Right. Let's start with your last comment. Those cameras you see all over britain are public cameras, owned and operated either by local councils (government departments), or by the police. What is wrong with them knowing where you are? They're not going to pull you over and try and sell you stuff.
What, exactly, are you trying to get away from? If the government want to track you down, chances are they've got a good excuse (not 'Sorry, sir, mind if we have a talk? How about them Lakers...').
If you work in a shady part of town, every time your car gets broken in to raises the premiums of the people who actually put their car where they say, which is unfair on them, and technically insurance fraud. Maybe that's why you don't want the feds on your trail?
Americans are the most monitored. The number of credit cards issued in your country far surpasses the number issued in the rest of the world. That alone means that every single one of those cards can be traced when used. And not to mention that ralph's savings thing on your keyring;)
Your paranoia that every tracking facility is open to any private business with cash to burn is slightly unfounded. Cameras on public property (over here, at least) are 100% commissioned by the government, for YOUR safety. They're not compiling a list of where you went, they're just filming everyone so that if something happened to you, they would be able to see who did it (something wrong with that?).
All I can say is I'm glad I don't share insurance companies with you, and I'm watched by cameras. and that chip in my head (pesky CIA).
They have an obligation to inform you you're being watched? Other than a big fuck-off camera mounted on a wall tracking you as you walk past? Jesus, how stupid can some people be to not notice a camera? Bear in mind they're sometimes more of a visual deterrant than an actual useful device...
In the UK, if you're captured on camera, you can ask the person who owns the camera to give you a copy of the footage you appear in, for a minimal charge (it's the law - they have to comply). That's the most sensible way to approach cameras. If someone wants to film you, you can ask to see what they filmed. The same with data held on computers - you can request the company who has data about you on its system to send you printouts of that data (again under law, and for a small charge).
Well, that'll be America for you then. In the UK, the pedestrian has the right of way wherever they are (even walking down the middle of the road). On our pedestrian crossings (the ones with the black-and-white strips), the cars HAVE to stop for the person crossing, and if a pedestrian gets knocked over (or even nudged) by a car while on one of those crossings, the offending driver gets suspended from driving for 1 year, and a £1,000 fine.
Pedestrians in the UK can walk wherever they want (we have no jay walking - and if you've seen London, you'll know why). Pedestrians are covered very well by our law. They are the most important things out there on the roads, and drivers take second fiddle to them.
Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early *Screeeeeech* *Smash* *MEDIIIC!!!*
What are you on about? I don't want the state to look after me - I can do that myself. I don't, however, object the state looking at what I'm doing - after all, that's where I live.
If, however, you think that I've lead a sheltered existence, you're wrong. I'm politically active. I vote, I follow politics. But saying that, I don't take offence at every agency who knows where I am.
I'm not apathetic - I do care about privacy. Privacy is fine in your own home. As soon as you step out into the real world, you've just left your house and are now in THE COMMUNITY. The community is not something you own. It's something that you're a part of, and as a part you need to be accounted for. That's where your privacy has to be comprimised. Whether you know it or not, in the US you're being tracked. The US has the most vigorous consumer detail tracking system in the world, so all these citizens walking around, draped in the stars and stripes proclaiming their privacy from the highest hills are actually some of the citizens with the least amount of privacy in the world.
True, the UK is swamped with cameras and other tracking devices, but their access is limited to the emergency services, and the government. I know for a fact that the Government is not going to enter me in a mailshot for a £30 off MaxiLube 200gallon drums from CarWorld, so I don't care if they know. I don't care when I'm tracked my cameras on the street. If it's a private camera, then I'm on private property (and the owner has every right to know you're there, whether you like it or not). If it's a public camera, then the people behind it are looking out for me, which makes me feel a lot safer - they're not trying to sell me rogaine. Call that a mummy state if you want, but it's a safe state, which doesn't impose on its citizens' privacy unfairly.
And tyranny? You mean taxes? Way to go - building your country on ducking out of debts.
So what if they spam you? Don't you have better things to worry about than colourful coupons in your mailbox? Just because they sent you the coupon doesn't mean you have to use it. Use some of that decision-making prowess you talk about and decide not to use it, and go buy a coke. Unless the coupon's for coke, then go buy a pepsi. Unless that's what they want you to do, so go buy a Mr. Pibb.
It's not the speed that kills the most - it's the people doing stupid things with their cars. Most people on the motorways speed, but that's not dangerous (provided the speed is suitable to the conditions, not 200mph in rain). It's when the cars slow down and enter cities that it becomes dangerous.
Not meaning to sound horrible, but maybe if the parents of those children who die teach them how to cross the road properly, they wouldn't all die all the time. You can't just blame the drivers.
Use the simple, brightly-coloured maps on the walls for a start. And try walking OUT the exit and IN the entrance for a start - that'll make it better. Those ticket barriers don't move around the station - so don't act surprised when you're face-to-face with one asking for your ticket.
The london underground would work a lot better if people stopped trying to point out interesting things and just got on with travelling. It's not Madame Tussauds.
I had a raging case of tonsilitis the other week. I walked to my nearest walk-in centre (no appointment necessary) at 8:45PM. By 9:00PM I was out, after an examination, and a big ol' bottle of drugs to make me feel better. Not bad, considering it was free. No matter what anyone says about our NHS, it is cool.
It also looks like you don't need capital letters, or a dictionary.
Well, since the Russians are themselves European, that means there's a lot of people out there who really should learn to love their fellow countrymen.
Did the Japanese love the Americans in 1942? Unless your interpretation of love includes thousands of dead sailors floating around Hawaii and shitloads of battleships on fire, nope.
I'm from Britain, and all the cameras aren't there because football hooliganism. The ones at the football stadiums are, but the ones miles away from the nearest football stadium are there to look after the people. I'm fine with that.
If someone demands privacy and has nothing to hide, how does everyone else know that? It's an old concept - it dates back to vikings, who would open their palms to each other, demonstrating they had no weapons. This became the hand-shake. If you have nothing to hide, then hide nothing.
I couldn't give a rats ass if someone sends me junk-mail. Doesn't cost me anything. All I have to do is put it in the bin. Once in a while their marketing machine does the right thing and actually sends me something I might be interested in, which is fine by me.
As for children's information being available on the net - why are you letting your children on the net unsupervised in the first place? You seem to be combining a whole load of ideas into one. First, we have laws which don't allow children to post their info on websites. Then we have the security of the server which hosts the information (which isn't there - see part 1). AND THEN you have the fact that children shouldn't use the net on their own. I think you're just being sensationalist.
I have no-one to fear. I'm not hiding away from anything. I don't care if my name and address is given to the police, MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, Woolworths, anyone.
I don't get dressed standing in the middle of the road, but in my house, and yes - the curtains are closed (there is a $5 cover fee, though). The fact that the only time I close my curtains is when there is something to hide, only strengthens my point.
If you are stupid enough to put your details on the net, you deserve to get harassed. That must be one of the most stupid things to do ever. And as for not giving blood/breath samples when asked to by the police is a clear indication you have something to hide. If you're innocent, just give the bloody sample and stop being so childish.
Well, why do you object to people knowing where you are? I don't care at all. I know a lot of other people don't care at all. It seems to be mainly Americans who bring this subject up, which is quite funny, as Americans are probably the most traced people in the world. The irony.
Exactly - the cop could say that you weren't speeding. The GPS wouldn't have a clue, proving that it's an inaccurate way to judge whether one's speeding, as there is no-one to give an un-biassed (Yes, slashdotters, that is a word) account of what happened. And as for the car - how about if you put it on a trailer, and tow the trailer at 120mph? The car's not speeding, but it would appear to be on a road using the GPS data. (it would also appear to be levitating at 1m above the ground, but hey).
Slashdot Mirror
Just because a bank has a marketing department doesn't make it a marketing company. I've seen hospitals with cafeterias - I don't class hospitals as restaurants. Can you elaborate on these 'partnerships'?
Nice racism, by the way. You realise what postings like that makes the rest of the world think of you and your country?
'Honour the GPL or we'll... we'll... shit.'
- Westerners
In the UK, that's no problem at all. Sorry to disappoint you, but over here you can request from the owner of a camera that has filmed you, and they are legally required to hand you copies of the footage (for a small admin fee, approx. $30-$50). So in your example, you'd phone up the company who owned the camera, tell them your name and the date/time/location of the accident, and they'll send you a copy of the tape. So, surveilance technology helps your average citizen. Over here, anyway. ;)
And that's bad how? It's a BANK. It's not a marketing department for crying out loud. Stop immediately jumping to the conclusion that someone who holds sensitive information about you is going to sell it to the Chinese. There are legitimate non-profit uses for the data (if they even keep it at all), such as tracing money back to it's rightful owner should it be stolen. If that's too paranoid for you, maybe you should revert to using coins to buy everything.
Still, it'll make the paranoid brick themselves :)
Having the chip means you would be able to trace money, which is no bad thing. (I doubt drug dealers would have machines to log the transactions anyway :) ).
I don't know about America, but in the UK the money is not ours, but lent to us while still being property of the Bank of England (and the Queen). This means that they can put these in the money no questions asked.
It's a good idea, and if it means that money that was stolen from you could be located then I'll be very happy to have some.
It's quite sad, really. I guess the love of penguins and crappy TV go hand-in-hand... no wonder TiVo runs off linux ;)
Sounds like you're describing /. there...
Oh please, dear. For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.
- Walter Sobchak
Indeed - you can say what you want, but be prepared for the backlash!
The cameras in the UK on public ground are not run by companies with an eye on collecting data, they just record what's happening on our streets, so we can see what happened when a crime is committed. I'm in favour of that, and anyone who isn't needs help. Seriously.
It seems in the US companies have access to a lot of information they really shouldn't. In the UK our information is strongly protected (Data Protection Act - only people with a legitimate use of your information can hold it, and only after you say it's ok), so we have little to fear. I get about 1 piece of junk mail through my door every week. I can live with that. I never run out of envelopes ;)
It's up to you how you choose to live your life, but not who watches.
Tikka.
What, exactly, are you trying to get away from? If the government want to track you down, chances are they've got a good excuse (not 'Sorry, sir, mind if we have a talk? How about them Lakers...'). If you work in a shady part of town, every time your car gets broken in to raises the premiums of the people who actually put their car where they say, which is unfair on them, and technically insurance fraud. Maybe that's why you don't want the feds on your trail?
Americans are the most monitored. The number of credit cards issued in your country far surpasses the number issued in the rest of the world. That alone means that every single one of those cards can be traced when used. And not to mention that ralph's savings thing on your keyring ;)
Your paranoia that every tracking facility is open to any private business with cash to burn is slightly unfounded. Cameras on public property (over here, at least) are 100% commissioned by the government, for YOUR safety. They're not compiling a list of where you went, they're just filming everyone so that if something happened to you, they would be able to see who did it (something wrong with that?).
All I can say is I'm glad I don't share insurance companies with you, and I'm watched by cameras. and that chip in my head (pesky CIA).
In the UK, if you're captured on camera, you can ask the person who owns the camera to give you a copy of the footage you appear in, for a minimal charge (it's the law - they have to comply). That's the most sensible way to approach cameras. If someone wants to film you, you can ask to see what they filmed. The same with data held on computers - you can request the company who has data about you on its system to send you printouts of that data (again under law, and for a small charge).
Pedestrians in the UK can walk wherever they want (we have no jay walking - and if you've seen London, you'll know why). Pedestrians are covered very well by our law. They are the most important things out there on the roads, and drivers take second fiddle to them.
Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early *Screeeeeech* *Smash* *MEDIIIC!!!*
It's an illustration on how easy it is to spoof the satellite into thinking the car is speeding. It's not that hard to figure out...
If, however, you think that I've lead a sheltered existence, you're wrong. I'm politically active. I vote, I follow politics. But saying that, I don't take offence at every agency who knows where I am.
I'm not apathetic - I do care about privacy. Privacy is fine in your own home. As soon as you step out into the real world, you've just left your house and are now in THE COMMUNITY. The community is not something you own. It's something that you're a part of, and as a part you need to be accounted for. That's where your privacy has to be comprimised. Whether you know it or not, in the US you're being tracked. The US has the most vigorous consumer detail tracking system in the world, so all these citizens walking around, draped in the stars and stripes proclaiming their privacy from the highest hills are actually some of the citizens with the least amount of privacy in the world.
True, the UK is swamped with cameras and other tracking devices, but their access is limited to the emergency services, and the government. I know for a fact that the Government is not going to enter me in a mailshot for a £30 off MaxiLube 200gallon drums from CarWorld, so I don't care if they know. I don't care when I'm tracked my cameras on the street. If it's a private camera, then I'm on private property (and the owner has every right to know you're there, whether you like it or not). If it's a public camera, then the people behind it are looking out for me, which makes me feel a lot safer - they're not trying to sell me rogaine. Call that a mummy state if you want, but it's a safe state, which doesn't impose on its citizens' privacy unfairly.
And tyranny? You mean taxes? Way to go - building your country on ducking out of debts.
So what if they spam you? Don't you have better things to worry about than colourful coupons in your mailbox? Just because they sent you the coupon doesn't mean you have to use it. Use some of that decision-making prowess you talk about and decide not to use it, and go buy a coke. Unless the coupon's for coke, then go buy a pepsi. Unless that's what they want you to do, so go buy a Mr. Pibb.
Not meaning to sound horrible, but maybe if the parents of those children who die teach them how to cross the road properly, they wouldn't all die all the time. You can't just blame the drivers.
The london underground would work a lot better if people stopped trying to point out interesting things and just got on with travelling. It's not Madame Tussauds.
Thank you for visiting please come again soon. ;)
I had a raging case of tonsilitis the other week. I walked to my nearest walk-in centre (no appointment necessary) at 8:45PM. By 9:00PM I was out, after an examination, and a big ol' bottle of drugs to make me feel better. Not bad, considering it was free. No matter what anyone says about our NHS, it is cool.
Well, since the Russians are themselves European, that means there's a lot of people out there who really should learn to love their fellow countrymen.
Did the Japanese love the Americans in 1942? Unless your interpretation of love includes thousands of dead sailors floating around Hawaii and shitloads of battleships on fire, nope.
If someone demands privacy and has nothing to hide, how does everyone else know that? It's an old concept - it dates back to vikings, who would open their palms to each other, demonstrating they had no weapons. This became the hand-shake. If you have nothing to hide, then hide nothing.
I couldn't give a rats ass if someone sends me junk-mail. Doesn't cost me anything. All I have to do is put it in the bin. Once in a while their marketing machine does the right thing and actually sends me something I might be interested in, which is fine by me.
As for children's information being available on the net - why are you letting your children on the net unsupervised in the first place? You seem to be combining a whole load of ideas into one. First, we have laws which don't allow children to post their info on websites. Then we have the security of the server which hosts the information (which isn't there - see part 1). AND THEN you have the fact that children shouldn't use the net on their own. I think you're just being sensationalist.
I have no-one to fear. I'm not hiding away from anything. I don't care if my name and address is given to the police, MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, Woolworths, anyone.
I don't get dressed standing in the middle of the road, but in my house, and yes - the curtains are closed (there is a $5 cover fee, though). The fact that the only time I close my curtains is when there is something to hide, only strengthens my point.
If you are stupid enough to put your details on the net, you deserve to get harassed. That must be one of the most stupid things to do ever. And as for not giving blood/breath samples when asked to by the police is a clear indication you have something to hide. If you're innocent, just give the bloody sample and stop being so childish.
Well, why do you object to people knowing where you are? I don't care at all. I know a lot of other people don't care at all. It seems to be mainly Americans who bring this subject up, which is quite funny, as Americans are probably the most traced people in the world. The irony.
Exactly - the cop could say that you weren't speeding. The GPS wouldn't have a clue, proving that it's an inaccurate way to judge whether one's speeding, as there is no-one to give an un-biassed (Yes, slashdotters, that is a word) account of what happened. And as for the car - how about if you put it on a trailer, and tow the trailer at 120mph? The car's not speeding, but it would appear to be on a road using the GPS data. (it would also appear to be levitating at 1m above the ground, but hey).