You'd be arrested under the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997".
So much for "My location on the street etc is anyone's business who takes the effort to watch me."
No, it's the slight difference between being 1) me being singled out and followed by a masked man and 2) cameras recording what happens in a public space. Has this difference somehow escaped your attention.
The difference between (1) A masked man recording what you do in a public space, and (2) cameras recording what everyone does in a public space? No, I don't see a relevant difference.
I have nothing to hide, but I don't want to be followed by a masked man with a camera.
Yes, that's what people say about CCTV. How does it change when the camera is held by a masked man?
I'm not hugely bothered by CCTV, but I don't follow your arguments here.
No, it's not. A EULA is a contract held prima facie. Contracts are valid under the law. A EULA is therefore valid until ruled legal. Each contract does not need to go to court before it's valid.
Except we have not established that it is a contract in the first place. Otherwise I might as well say that our contract that you will be my personal servant for the next 6 months is valid until a court rules otherwise.
No, you're not. You've paid for a restricted license of use, not for ownership of any content.
Where did I say that I owned the content (i.e., the IP)? I said you're entitled to use it.
It's clear that you're not familiar with law, so this is all I will say to you.
You're just on a roll. Please cite a case where your contention is held to be true.
As an example of how hilariously wrong you are, are you presented with terms and asked to agree to them before renting a movie? Does a DVD tell you before you buy it that you're not allowed to do x,y, and z with it? How about warranty terms--are they disclosed to you before you buy a product?
It's made clear that I'm renting, not buying, yes. What x,y and z terms are you referring to? What warranty terms are you referring to?
And again, if you disagree, cite a case that says otherwise.
Nobody forced you to buy the software, and nobody prohibited you from reviewing the license agreement before purchasing. The action is completely voluntary.
That's completely beside the point. The point is that the user has a legal right to use software he has purchased. That he installs and uses such software in no way implies he agrees with any contract that is then presented to him. The only way a contract would be valid is if the seller presents it to him before he buys it (not "on some website" - unless he's buying from a website and the screen is explicitly shown to him).
Now, my EULA says that any more posts from you on this matter mean you agree to pay me $100. Nobody is forcing you to post on this thread, so it's clear you'll be in agreement with this contract if you do.
If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a true encyclopedia, then accuracy is paramount.
And before anyone chimes in with "regular encyclopedias have inaccuracies too!", save it. While that is certainly the case, that doesn't let Wikipedia off the hook. Bringing that up is just an attempt to change the subject.
Well, I'm going to change the subject: You say that a "regular encyclopedia" therefore isn't a "true encyclopedia"? What is an example of a "true encyclopedia" then if it doesn't include all the "regular" ones?
There are many Wikipedians who love to delete things that they consider non-notable. It is not a universal repository of all knowledge.
And a good thing too, otherwise future historians may be misled to believing that some random guy was world famous, or something someone once thought up in school was a worldwide phenomenon. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information - that point is made quite clear.
I agree with this. The majority of people don't have the ability, for one reason or another, to contribute. Wikipedia is a one-sided view because it is built by people who have both the interest, the time and the ability to contribute to it. If, in the future, one is interested in how the Internet grew and the thinking behind its users, yes, Wikipedia may be useful. For the knowledge of how the majority of the human population lived their lives, Wikipedia simply has no relevance.
But note that this is at least as much true of every other written historical source. I agree that it would be silly for future historians to only look at Wikipedia, but I would say it still has relevance, along with other sources.
I'm curious, are there actually Muslims insisting on banking without interest, and the banks aren't willing to oblige? I mean, I am quite willing to look after money for them in return for no interest, if they like...
How about if the Saudi government said anything against Christianity? Yeah that's right the Christians should take to the streets burning the Saudi flag, burning cars, damaging property, etc.
Here in the UK, we still have blasphemy laws (now joined with laws against "religious hatred"), and it wasn't too long ago that people were prosecuted. Who needs rioting in the streets when you have the law on your side?
It does when the system is clearly identified as a system that operated across the various pubs in a town. If you don't like it, don't go in one of the pubs in the scheme.
Just because you give data willingly doesn't mean they should have a right to do anything with that personal information. In some cases I believe that laws such as data protection acts should apply, whatever a person signs (and I can't believe that they are actually sitting down with people, and explaining it all through to them? And it's not clear that a contract would be enforceable if the person was already drunk).
You've been successfully trolled by The Register.
"Worried", not "It's going to happen because the register says so". I know too well that The Register should be taken with a pinch of salt, almost as much as the people who post on Slashdot who appear to have successfully trolled you. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the merits or fears of a system which we know most certainly is happening, and ask what if other local councils decide to follow.
Why some people should be more concerned with revealing their identities to those around them than being beaten up by a drunken thug is a mystery to me. Some people people have no sense of proportion.
Since when was it a choice between one or the other? It's like, would you prefer to pay me £100 or get a kick in the teeth?
And this isn't "revealing their identities to those around them", it's having photo, personal details and fingerprints placed on a database that may be accessible by who knows how many private companies.
But seriously, fingerprinting an adult before they consume an intoxicant proven to lead to violence (or rather increase the likelyhood thereof) is one thing.
In a minority of people perhaps, but it's never caused violence in me, or many others. Given the vast numbers of times I've got drunk, even if it's only an "increase in likelihood", surely this would have come through randomly once or twice?
I think the US' logic is it's okay to scan 5 year olds, because they come from countries "proven more likely to have terrorists", which is pretty much the same logic.
Maybe, but you have the choice of whether you want to enter the bar and give your fingerprint, or not enter the bar and not give your fingerprint. Just as the bar has freedom to chose under what conditions it will allow people to enter the bar. This is not a civil liberties issue.
Firstly, just because you give data willingly doesn't mean they should have a right to do anything with that personal information.
Secondly, I'm worried at the hints in the article that it may become compulsory in some way, for some clubs at least. If it was just a few that chose to do it, I'd be glad to vote with my wallet.
Further to iendedi's points - employer finds out that employee or potential employee visits fetish/BDSM clubs? There are all sorts of less obvious reasons why some people might not want to have to register personal information everywhere they go especially if it is being shared on some nationwide network (I mean, I'm willing to trust an individual club to a certain degree, but not this...)
one rural backwater population 40,000. We've had bigger towns voting for monkeys as their town mayor (Hull, go have a read). Have a sip of that nice warm beer and calm down:-)
I know it's a local Government decision, but the point is still that this scheme may very well extend to many other places. I agree with you that the headline is misleading in that it's only "started" in this one place, but just saying, there is still reason to be concerned.
[apologies for stupid subject - Slashdot won't let me post with the Subject put there automatically, nor will it allow a blank one...]
and they have no idea who you are. If they don't already have your fingerprint on file (for previous drunk and disorderly behaviour) they don't know you from Adam.
Yes they do - "Clubbers and drinkers will be asked to register by providing proof of ID and personal information including name, address, date of birth and a photograph." ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2033473, 00.html ).
Like you, when I read theregister article I assumed it would just check against a fingerprint list, but it seems a lot more worrying. Yes, they will know all sorts about you.
They claim that they're not spying on us, but if that's so, why do they need these extra details?
Seems lots of people across the pond love to quote 1984 and make references to Big Brother about nearly every single political story about the United States.
And? Do you disagree with that? Where does that imply that the UK isn't turning into a 1984 state?
It's not a competition. That the US and the UK are heading this way is a bad thing. Both things are bad. Get it?
I can do better than that. I'll show you a poll that asked the ID question as the first question on the poll. No leading questions at all. http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL060101004_3. pdf 52% in favour, 37% against.
But it says nothing about the national database, nor does it specify compulsory cards. These are the two main issues which people are mostly against, so this poll tells us nothing as to whether people are in favour.
As for the later questions - yes, people are inclined to agree with the supposed benefits - even I'd be forced to technically answer Yes. But note that a majority believe the cards will contain wrong information, half believe the equipment will often fail (with only 28% disagreeing), and more people disagree it will make things easier to catch criminals. A shocking 80% say the cards could be forged, and only 21% believe it will help against terrorism. 74% believe the cost will rise more than the "enormously expensive" cost already announced, and 60% say the cards will be time consuming and enormously disruptive.
See the pattern? People have no problem with the general concept of a national ID, such as a cheap optional card. I can see it'd be handy.
But as soon as you ask details about Labour's scheme, there is immense opposition. And you claim this poll shows support!
Also, it's curious to note just how leadingly biased the questions are - in both directions - and this often seems to result in a huge number agreeing with the statement. It's a pretty poor poll.
The polls consistently say that a majority of the UK are in favour of an ID card, and so they are.
No, they don't. Unless by ID card you mean any ID card like driving licence, optional card and so on. But that's not what's being debated here.
I have no problem with owning a passport, but I do have huge problems with the ID card scheme being proposed - but you would put me down as a supporter based on the former!
You might find that the typical slashdotter might go apeshit over ID cards, but you misrepresent the feelings of the English. Every single poll that's ever been done in the UK about ID cards has shown the majority to be in favour.
That's because the slashdotter is talking about particular types of ID card schemes, whilst the random guy knows no better, and thinks the poll just means "card with my name on it", and so obviously says he's okay with it.
Any poll which actually asks specific details about the ID card scheme being planned shows immense opposition (e.g., MORI found that 80% were unwilling to pay more than £25 - and we're talking about over £90 for a card!)
A poll which simply asks about "ID cards" is useless for determining whether people support what the Labour Government is planned. Indeed, the same polls which supposedly show "support" also show that the majority have no clue about Labour's scheme (MORI found that "67% of them have little or no knowledge").
Except that link seems to back up what he said. The article provides examples of communication, but I don't see where it says "personal, identifying information" must be sent?
Your link says: "Phoning home is usually surreptitious communication between applications or hardware installed at end-user sites and their manufacturers or developers." - maybe that doesn't go so far as to include checking for updates, but I think it counts for this Opera feature.
Well, if you think about it, there are only two choices: Creation or Evolution. There is no third possibility.
Oh come on - if we are conjecturing about things like creationism, I can think of all sorts of possibilities. "It was done by magic" or "The laws of nature were different back then, such that living things could grow out of mud". These are just as unfalsifiable and useless (in terms of having no predictive power, and not actually explaining anything) as creationism.
Only one of all these possibilities is a theory supported by evidence.
This was certainly be good - some sites are working towards this. E.g., on LiveJournal you can read journals/blogs from elsewhere on your "Friends" page, people on other sites can read your journal via RSS, and commenting can be done with OpenID.
The hardest part is security/authentication when it comes to people making posts which only some people can read ("Friends only") - this is possible over RSS, but the reader needs an account on LiveJournal (or whichever site the poster is on).
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be arrested under the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997".
So much for "My location on the street etc is anyone's business who takes the effort to watch me."
No, it's the slight difference between being 1) me being singled out and followed by a masked man and 2) cameras recording what happens in a public space. Has this difference somehow escaped your attention.
The difference between (1) A masked man recording what you do in a public space, and (2) cameras recording what everyone does in a public space? No, I don't see a relevant difference.
I have nothing to hide, but I don't want to be followed by a masked man with a camera.
Yes, that's what people say about CCTV. How does it change when the camera is held by a masked man?
I'm not hugely bothered by CCTV, but I don't follow your arguments here.
No, it's not. A EULA is a contract held prima facie. Contracts are valid under the law. A EULA is therefore valid until ruled legal. Each contract does not need to go to court before it's valid.
Except we have not established that it is a contract in the first place. Otherwise I might as well say that our contract that you will be my personal servant for the next 6 months is valid until a court rules otherwise.
No, you're not. You've paid for a restricted license of use, not for ownership of any content.
Where did I say that I owned the content (i.e., the IP)? I said you're entitled to use it.
It's clear that you're not familiar with law, so this is all I will say to you.
You're just on a roll. Please cite a case where your contention is held to be true.
As an example of how hilariously wrong you are, are you presented with terms and asked to agree to them before renting a movie? Does a DVD tell you before you buy it that you're not allowed to do x,y, and z with it? How about warranty terms--are they disclosed to you before you buy a product?
It's made clear that I'm renting, not buying, yes. What x,y and z terms are you referring to? What warranty terms are you referring to?
And again, if you disagree, cite a case that says otherwise.
Oh, and that's $100 you owe me.
Law is not a permissive pursuit--it's a limiting field. That is, it's legal until it's ruled illegal.
Right. So it's legal for me to ignore the terms of what's written on a "EULA" until a court rules otherwise.
If you decline the terms of a software license, you are entitled to return the software.
No - if you've paid for it, you're still entitled to use it. Just as you're still entitled to post to Slashdot even if you disagree to pay me $100.
Nobody forced you to buy the software, and nobody prohibited you from reviewing the license agreement before purchasing. The action is completely voluntary.
That's completely beside the point. The point is that the user has a legal right to use software he has purchased. That he installs and uses such software in no way implies he agrees with any contract that is then presented to him. The only way a contract would be valid is if the seller presents it to him before he buys it (not "on some website" - unless he's buying from a website and the screen is explicitly shown to him).
Now, my EULA says that any more posts from you on this matter mean you agree to pay me $100. Nobody is forcing you to post on this thread, so it's clear you'll be in agreement with this contract if you do.
If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a true encyclopedia, then accuracy is paramount.
And before anyone chimes in with "regular encyclopedias have inaccuracies too!", save it. While that is certainly the case, that doesn't let Wikipedia off the hook. Bringing that up is just an attempt to change the subject.
Well, I'm going to change the subject: You say that a "regular encyclopedia" therefore isn't a "true encyclopedia"? What is an example of a "true encyclopedia" then if it doesn't include all the "regular" ones?
There are many Wikipedians who love to delete things that they consider non-notable. It is not a universal repository of all knowledge.
And a good thing too, otherwise future historians may be misled to believing that some random guy was world famous, or something someone once thought up in school was a worldwide phenomenon. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information - that point is made quite clear.
I agree with this. The majority of people don't have the ability, for one reason or another, to contribute. Wikipedia is a one-sided view because it is built by people who have both the interest, the time and the ability to contribute to it. If, in the future, one is interested in how the Internet grew and the thinking behind its users, yes, Wikipedia may be useful. For the knowledge of how the majority of the human population lived their lives, Wikipedia simply has no relevance.
But note that this is at least as much true of every other written historical source. I agree that it would be silly for future historians to only look at Wikipedia, but I would say it still has relevance, along with other sources.
insisted on banking with interest
I'm curious, are there actually Muslims insisting on banking without interest, and the banks aren't willing to oblige? I mean, I am quite willing to look after money for them in return for no interest, if they like...
How about if the Saudi government said anything against Christianity? Yeah that's right the Christians should take to the streets burning the Saudi flag, burning cars, damaging property, etc.
Here in the UK, we still have blasphemy laws (now joined with laws against "religious hatred"), and it wasn't too long ago that people were prosecuted. Who needs rioting in the streets when you have the law on your side?
It does when the system is clearly identified as a system that operated across the various pubs in a town. If you don't like it, don't go in one of the pubs in the scheme.
Just because you give data willingly doesn't mean they should have a right to do anything with that personal information. In some cases I believe that laws such as data protection acts should apply, whatever a person signs (and I can't believe that they are actually sitting down with people, and explaining it all through to them? And it's not clear that a contract would be enforceable if the person was already drunk).
You've been successfully trolled by The Register.
"Worried", not "It's going to happen because the register says so". I know too well that The Register should be taken with a pinch of salt, almost as much as the people who post on Slashdot who appear to have successfully trolled you. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the merits or fears of a system which we know most certainly is happening, and ask what if other local councils decide to follow.
Why some people should be more concerned with revealing their identities to those around them than being beaten up by a drunken thug is a mystery to me. Some people people have no sense of proportion.
Since when was it a choice between one or the other? It's like, would you prefer to pay me £100 or get a kick in the teeth?
And this isn't "revealing their identities to those around them", it's having photo, personal details and fingerprints placed on a database that may be accessible by who knows how many private companies.
But seriously, fingerprinting an adult before they consume an intoxicant proven to lead to violence (or rather increase the likelyhood thereof) is one thing.
In a minority of people perhaps, but it's never caused violence in me, or many others. Given the vast numbers of times I've got drunk, even if it's only an "increase in likelihood", surely this would have come through randomly once or twice?
I think the US' logic is it's okay to scan 5 year olds, because they come from countries "proven more likely to have terrorists", which is pretty much the same logic.
I will be happy to go downtown
And when "downtown" is across the ocean to another country, perhaps featuring an all-expenses paid stay in one of those luxurious detention centres?
Maybe, but you have the choice of whether you want to enter the bar and give your fingerprint, or not enter the bar and not give your fingerprint. Just as the bar has freedom to chose under what conditions it will allow people to enter the bar. This is not a civil liberties issue.
Firstly, just because you give data willingly doesn't mean they should have a right to do anything with that personal information.
Secondly, I'm worried at the hints in the article that it may become compulsory in some way, for some clubs at least. If it was just a few that chose to do it, I'd be glad to vote with my wallet.
Only bloody idiots drive to bars / pubs anyway.
And who said anything about driving to bars / pubs?
Further to iendedi's points - employer finds out that employee or potential employee visits fetish/BDSM clubs? There are all sorts of less obvious reasons why some people might not want to have to register personal information everywhere they go especially if it is being shared on some nationwide network (I mean, I'm willing to trust an individual club to a certain degree, but not this...)
one rural backwater population 40,000. We've had bigger towns voting for monkeys as their town mayor (Hull, go have a read). Have a sip of that nice warm beer and calm down :-)
I know it's a local Government decision, but the point is still that this scheme may very well extend to many other places. I agree with you that the headline is misleading in that it's only "started" in this one place, but just saying, there is still reason to be concerned.
[apologies for stupid subject - Slashdot won't let me post with the Subject put there automatically, nor will it allow a blank one...]
and they have no idea who you are. If they don't already have your fingerprint on file (for previous drunk and disorderly behaviour) they don't know you from Adam.
, 00.html ).
Yes they do - "Clubbers and drinkers will be asked to register by providing proof of ID and personal information including name, address, date of birth and a photograph." ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2033473
Like you, when I read theregister article I assumed it would just check against a fingerprint list, but it seems a lot more worrying. Yes, they will know all sorts about you.
They claim that they're not spying on us, but if that's so, why do they need these extra details?
Seems lots of people across the pond love to quote 1984 and make references to Big Brother about nearly every single political story about the United States.
And? Do you disagree with that? Where does that imply that the UK isn't turning into a 1984 state?
It's not a competition. That the US and the UK are heading this way is a bad thing. Both things are bad. Get it?
I can do better than that. I'll show you a poll that asked the ID question as the first question on the poll. No leading questions at all.. pdf
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL060101004_3
52% in favour, 37% against.
But it says nothing about the national database, nor does it specify compulsory cards. These are the two main issues which people are mostly against, so this poll tells us nothing as to whether people are in favour.
As for the later questions - yes, people are inclined to agree with the supposed benefits - even I'd be forced to technically answer Yes. But note that a majority believe the cards will contain wrong information, half believe the equipment will often fail (with only 28% disagreeing), and more people disagree it will make things easier to catch criminals. A shocking 80% say the cards could be forged, and only 21% believe it will help against terrorism. 74% believe the cost will rise more than the "enormously expensive" cost already announced, and 60% say the cards will be time consuming and enormously disruptive.
See the pattern? People have no problem with the general concept of a national ID, such as a cheap optional card. I can see it'd be handy.
But as soon as you ask details about Labour's scheme, there is immense opposition. And you claim this poll shows support!
Also, it's curious to note just how leadingly biased the questions are - in both directions - and this often seems to result in a huge number agreeing with the statement. It's a pretty poor poll.
The polls consistently say that a majority of the UK are in favour of an ID card, and so they are.
No, they don't. Unless by ID card you mean any ID card like driving licence, optional card and so on. But that's not what's being debated here.
I have no problem with owning a passport, but I do have huge problems with the ID card scheme being proposed - but you would put me down as a supporter based on the former!
You might find that the typical slashdotter might go apeshit over ID cards, but you misrepresent the feelings of the English. Every single poll that's ever been done in the UK about ID cards has shown the majority to be in favour.
n tity_card for a summary of various polls.
That's because the slashdotter is talking about particular types of ID card schemes, whilst the random guy knows no better, and thinks the poll just means "card with my name on it", and so obviously says he's okay with it.
Any poll which actually asks specific details about the ID card scheme being planned shows immense opposition (e.g., MORI found that 80% were unwilling to pay more than £25 - and we're talking about over £90 for a card!)
A poll which simply asks about "ID cards" is useless for determining whether people support what the Labour Government is planned. Indeed, the same polls which supposedly show "support" also show that the majority have no clue about Labour's scheme (MORI found that "67% of them have little or no knowledge").
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_national_ide
Except that link seems to back up what he said. The article provides examples of communication, but I don't see where it says "personal, identifying information" must be sent?
Your link says: "Phoning home is usually surreptitious communication between applications or hardware installed at end-user sites and their manufacturers or developers." - maybe that doesn't go so far as to include checking for updates, but I think it counts for this Opera feature.
Well, if you think about it, there are only two choices: Creation or Evolution. There is no third possibility.
Oh come on - if we are conjecturing about things like creationism, I can think of all sorts of possibilities. "It was done by magic" or "The laws of nature were different back then, such that living things could grow out of mud". These are just as unfalsifiable and useless (in terms of having no predictive power, and not actually explaining anything) as creationism.
Only one of all these possibilities is a theory supported by evidence.
The OP's point was music in a format that "you'll never have to buy it again". I.e., digital without DRM.
This was certainly be good - some sites are working towards this. E.g., on LiveJournal you can read journals/blogs from elsewhere on your "Friends" page, people on other sites can read your journal via RSS, and commenting can be done with OpenID.
The hardest part is security/authentication when it comes to people making posts which only some people can read ("Friends only") - this is possible over RSS, but the reader needs an account on LiveJournal (or whichever site the poster is on).