There is no problem with your DNA being held on a Government database if you want to donate it to them.
I do not want the Government to have my DNA on a database. Why do you think it's okay to force me to contribute it? Oh, and you can stick your ad hominem attacks up your arse.
Tell me, in concrete, practical terms, what the downside of my DNA being in a database is
If you want to put it there, then you can.
The problem arises from requiring other citizens to participate in the scheme against their will. The State has no basis to require them to do it and it's a breach of the ECHR.
I don't understand. Why should I be worried about the police knowing my DNA sequence. Exactly which of my inviolable rights does it impinge upon?
More to the point, given the current UK Government's astonishing record of unachievement, waste, incompetence and sleaze, why are you not worried about a state organisation holding information on you that they do not need?
As to inviolable rights, it breaches my right to 'quiet possession'. Or, in more formal terms, Article 8 to the ECHR. Taking a DNA sample from unwilling innocent citizens cannot be defined as "necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "
Well, yes, the UK have a DNA database in which it stores every DNA-evidence from any crime
Worse than that, my friend. The police are allowed to ask for a DNA sample from anyone arrested on suspicion of a crime. And the DNA sample is then added to the database forever. It is not removed even if the person is released without charge or is found to be innocent.
I would argue that most people don't even realise the patterns and sections in a basic URL - so that, say, when a person tries $company.com and finds nothing, the person won't try.net,.org or.info. Cue anecdotal evidence - knowing some computer illiterate people, even after surfing around for half a year they're not able to see patterns like "where's the menu bar usually located" and "what is clickable, what is not" in a web page.
To be fair to most people, the software they use (e.g. Outlook, MSIE) can obscure these things for them. For example, it's pretty difficult to even see the full headers of an e-mail you're reading in Outlook. If people could see these more easily, they might be better able to interpret them.
Actually, no (and I say that as a Londoner, having personally experienced multiple terrorist bombs). No amount of spying on the general public will allow the government to wipe out terrorism. Yes, perhaps it will reduce it. Slightly. But I can assure you that the price for that reduction is too high.
Wise words, Tet.
It does make you laugh though - or cry - that with all the surveillance and tracking that the UK Government has in place, they still can't stop terrorism. And yet their response is more surveillance and more tracking. Continuing to pursue the very strategy that has been proven to fail.
Actually, the most credible-sounding explanation I've heard in the linked articles is that they set up honeypots for people like Doofus McKinnon
Credible until it fails to explain why the US would press for extradition (expensive) and a 70 year sentence (even more expensive). If it really were a honeypot, they'd just go "Hahahaha, we PWNED you, lolx!!!1!!!111!" and let the UK authorities get him on some minor charge or other. Letting hackers know that honeypots exist doesn't compromise US security, after all.
The card is NOT about identity. The CARD is not about identity because, in the real world, the CARD is irrelevant. It is about the database - and the DATABASE is not about identity - it is about control.
Amen. A brilliant post, from which I've chosen just the little bit above. If you weren't an Anonymous Coward, I'd probably buy you a beer or something.
A little illustration of the control freakery involved. In order that the UK Government can state that no-one will ever have to carry their ID card, they are going to fingerprint every man, woman and child (over 16) resident in this country. Then, these fingerprints will be added to the national database of fingerprints so that, when a crime is committed, fingerprints found at the scene can be compared against those of every man, woman and child (over 16) in the UK, just in case they did it.
No he isn't, partly because they aren't ad-hominem arguments, but also because he never said they were. That could well be because he knows what an ad-hominem is.
Here's a tip: don't try to look clever by using Latin phrases that you don't know the meaning of. It tends to have the opposite effect.
Um, there's no hyphen in 'ad hominem' and, because it's a phrase derived from a foreign language, it should be italicised.
Here's a tip: don't try to look clever by criticising others when you don't know what you're talking about. It tends to have the opposite effect.
After donating 100 hours of your life, nay, your leisure time, to WoW you are reluctant to simply walk away because of server issues that "might possibly someday not to far into the future maybe soon" be fixed on blizzard's end. If I had a project that I had already put 100 hours into I wouldn't want to walk away from it either.
100 hours? N00b... my MUD addiction is currently clocking in at 6,000 hours
in college I watched computer science students blow away their academic careers on IRC and MUD, and learned to steer clear of both.
Well, an IRC addiction in my mid 20s resulted in me meeting my wife. Ten years and two kids later, I find it difficult to think of IRC with anything other than fondness.
I'm now playing a lot of Aardwolf. But I'm not overly concerned - I'm at a stage in life where it doesn't do too much damage and is infinitely preferable to the other things I could be into - drinking, for example. I'd much rather spend time with the kids than play on the computer. I will always make time for my family at the expense of the game, rather than vice-versa. Sometimes this is bad for my clan - when we're being raided, for instance. But that's just too bad. Several others in the clan have spouses/kids, and they accept that RL families are much more important than this game we share.
I'll stick to the easist way to crack star force or any other hidden driver protection scheme, you publish games with it, I will not buy your games. I have stopped buying games as a result of idiotic protection schemes and based upon games company revenues it seems I am not the only one.
Unfortunately falling sales revenues will be taken as evidence that there's lots of pirating going on and therefore what's needed is more copy protection...
My understanding is that one of the reasons that Enron got as far as it did was because of the absence of laws that declared a conflict of interest if the same firm used for accounting/auditing, was also used for consulting. Doing the right thing would have meant giving up either of those roles, and all the money that went with it. Money talks, integrity walks.
If my understanding is accurate, I wonder why it wasn't fixed by simply closing this loophole. Seems like every time something goes wrong (and it went terribly wrong here), there's an additional excuse to increase "oversight" - and all the red tape, hassle, and extra cost that goes with it. I also seem to recall that someone sounded the alarm quite aways before Enron broke, but was ignored by Congress
Except that your understanding isn't correct. Firstly auditors already are banned from undertaking consulting engagements, and were even before SOX came in.
Secondly, auditors can never be totally independent of a company - after all, they are paid out of company funds to perform audits. A much more sensible approach is to recognise that there are always threats to independence, but that auditors can establish certain safeguards against these threats. For example, by prohibiting members of the audit team from buying stock in the companies they audit. Or by mandating a 'cooling off' period during which an audit partner cannot go join an audit client in a financial role. This approach - unsurprisingly known as the "threats and safeguards" approach originated in the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales in the late 90s and is now part of the code of ethics of the International Federation of Accountants.
Also there are often good reasons why you should hire your auditors to undertake non-audit (non-consulting) work. They already have a wealth of knowledge about your company which another firm simply wouldn't have. Another firm would have to spend lots of time - and that means shareholders' money, folks! - learning about your company. So instead of mandating a blanket ban, SOX required (Section 201) that the company's audit committee pre-approve non-audit services. So it recognises that sometimes they will be the best firm for the job, whilst adding another hurdle for them to cross before they can provide non-audit services.
Of course the Customs and Excise commision hardly ever follows up on any of these reports
That's probably cos you're filing them with the wrong body. Reports of suspicions of money laundering are to be made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), not Customs & Excise (which, as it happens, no longer exists - it's now part of HMRC).
Re:Give her my number, I'll fix things just fine
on
Getting Off NetHack?
·
· Score: 1
Get her into MUDs
Well I've never played Nethack but I'm some sixteen months into an Aardwolf addiction (damn you, Arkanes). This is as someone already married and with two children [1]. I don't see how a MUD addiction will be much of an improvement for our OP.
[1] She just about tolerates it... she'd rather I was doing this than many of the other, worse things I could be up to.
FYI, this week's Economist suggests that, once Novell is required to expense the fair value of employee stock option grants, its profitability will be halved. That's before any of this restructuring is taken into account.
Yes, I know that this shouldn't affect market valuations. But it may surprise your more casual investor.
Another common story was the officials and security being briefed to look out for spectators and general public wearing promotional gear (hats, t-shirts, etc) from companies that competed with official sponsors. A coca cola t-shirt for example would leave you being offered the choice of handing it over, covering up, or going home.
Well Londoners are being forced to pay additional taxes to pay for the Games - £200 (~ US$360) per household over ten years; plus more in contributions from general taxation and probably more when the cost of the Games overruns.
So I'll wear what I damn well please, thank you very much.
Connecting the ID card to biometric data was the single stupidest idea since... well, the ID card
Actually, I see the biometric data as the sole purpose of the ID card. The Government, simply, wants a big database of our biometric data.
In a properly designed database, the biometric data would not form part of the database itself. Rather it's a mechanism for validating whether your assertion that you're you is true. They've tied it to fingerprints and iris scans in order to snatch your biometric data and then use it for alternative purposes. I don't suppose the average Brit would be too happy with being considered a suspect in every crime where a fingerprint is left at the scene. But now, they will be. Probably every crime in Europe and the USA too, when we've consolidated our databases ("for national security measures", mind you). Before long, they'll take your DNA when you go to the doctor as well, so you can additionally be considered a potential rapist in every case.
The potential for miscarriages of justice in such a sloppy regime are enormous, yet the ability of the individual to make good his/her record or correct errors would seem minimal. On top of which, we'll have sucked so many resources into staffing the scheme that we'll inevitably have to reduce our intelligence-gathering and community policing. Result? More incidents like 7/7 and 21/7 (but at least we'll know who the suicide bombers were after they've blown a carriageful of innocents to pieces).
Slashdot Mirror
A long long time ago, at my old ISP, one of the admins there had registered the domain name dotat.at. And his e-mail address was dot@dotat.at.
Some bastard had used that in their reply-to, so he was crying about all the spam he was getting... back in 1996 or so, it was a problem even then.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5251526. stm
Any chance you could answer the question I asked?
There is no problem with your DNA being held on a Government database if you want to donate it to them.
I do not want the Government to have my DNA on a database. Why do you think it's okay to force me to contribute it? Oh, and you can stick your ad hominem attacks up your arse.
Tell me, in concrete, practical terms, what the downside of my DNA being in a database is
If you want to put it there, then you can.
The problem arises from requiring other citizens to participate in the scheme against their will. The State has no basis to require them to do it and it's a breach of the ECHR.
1) Register a brand new internet store. ...
2)
3) Profit!
I don't understand. Why should I be worried about the police knowing my DNA sequence. Exactly which of my inviolable rights does it impinge upon?
More to the point, given the current UK Government's astonishing record of unachievement, waste, incompetence and sleaze, why are you not worried about a state organisation holding information on you that they do not need?
As to inviolable rights, it breaches my right to 'quiet possession'. Or, in more formal terms, Article 8 to the ECHR. Taking a DNA sample from unwilling innocent citizens cannot be defined as "necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "
Well, yes, the UK have a DNA database in which it stores every DNA-evidence from any crime
Worse than that, my friend. The police are allowed to ask for a DNA sample from anyone arrested on suspicion of a crime. And the DNA sample is then added to the database forever. It is not removed even if the person is released without charge or is found to be innocent.
I would argue that most people don't even realise the patterns and sections in a basic URL - so that, say, when a person tries $company.com and finds nothing, the person won't try .net, .org or .info. Cue anecdotal evidence - knowing some computer illiterate people, even after surfing around for half a year they're not able to see patterns like "where's the menu bar usually located" and "what is clickable, what is not" in a web page.
To be fair to most people, the software they use (e.g. Outlook, MSIE) can obscure these things for them. For example, it's pretty difficult to even see the full headers of an e-mail you're reading in Outlook. If people could see these more easily, they might be better able to interpret them.
Actually, no (and I say that as a Londoner, having personally experienced multiple terrorist bombs). No amount of spying on the general public will allow the government to wipe out terrorism. Yes, perhaps it will reduce it. Slightly. But I can assure you that the price for that reduction is too high.
Wise words, Tet.
It does make you laugh though - or cry - that with all the surveillance and tracking that the UK Government has in place, they still can't stop terrorism. And yet their response is more surveillance and more tracking. Continuing to pursue the very strategy that has been proven to fail.
As your website proves: "I credit this in large part to living in London where the locals are au fait with such practices". My italics. Haythangyu
Nice try. But that's in fact an entry from my wife's blog. A bit like holding you responsible for every speling mistaek on Slashdot, dontcha think?
Actually, the most credible-sounding explanation I've heard in the linked articles is that they set up honeypots for people like Doofus McKinnon
Credible until it fails to explain why the US would press for extradition (expensive) and a 70 year sentence (even more expensive). If it really were a honeypot, they'd just go "Hahahaha, we PWNED you, lolx!!!1!!!111!" and let the UK authorities get him on some minor charge or other. Letting hackers know that honeypots exist doesn't compromise US security, after all.
The card is NOT about identity. The CARD is not about identity because, in the real world, the CARD is irrelevant. It is about the database - and the DATABASE is not about identity - it is about control.
Amen. A brilliant post, from which I've chosen just the little bit above. If you weren't an Anonymous Coward, I'd probably buy you a beer or something.
A little illustration of the control freakery involved. In order that the UK Government can state that no-one will ever have to carry their ID card, they are going to fingerprint every man, woman and child (over 16) resident in this country. Then, these fingerprints will be added to the national database of fingerprints so that, when a crime is committed, fingerprints found at the scene can be compared against those of every man, woman and child (over 16) in the UK, just in case they did it.
This is the death of this country as we know it.
No he isn't, partly because they aren't ad-hominem arguments, but also because he never said they were. That could well be because he knows what an ad-hominem is.
Here's a tip: don't try to look clever by using Latin phrases that you don't know the meaning of. It tends to have the opposite effect.
Um, there's no hyphen in 'ad hominem' and, because it's a phrase derived from a foreign language, it should be italicised.
Here's a tip: don't try to look clever by criticising others when you don't know what you're talking about. It tends to have the opposite effect.
After donating 100 hours of your life, nay, your leisure time, to WoW you are reluctant to simply walk away because of server issues that "might possibly someday not to far into the future maybe soon" be fixed on blizzard's end. If I had a project that I had already put 100 hours into I wouldn't want to walk away from it either.
100 hours? N00b... my MUD addiction is currently clocking in at 6,000 hours
in college I watched computer science students blow away their academic careers on IRC and MUD, and learned to steer clear of both.
Well, an IRC addiction in my mid 20s resulted in me meeting my wife. Ten years and two kids later, I find it difficult to think of IRC with anything other than fondness.
I'm now playing a lot of Aardwolf. But I'm not overly concerned - I'm at a stage in life where it doesn't do too much damage and is infinitely preferable to the other things I could be into - drinking, for example. I'd much rather spend time with the kids than play on the computer. I will always make time for my family at the expense of the game, rather than vice-versa. Sometimes this is bad for my clan - when we're being raided, for instance. But that's just too bad. Several others in the clan have spouses/kids, and they accept that RL families are much more important than this game we share.
I'll stick to the easist way to crack star force or any other hidden driver protection scheme, you publish games with it, I will not buy your games. I have stopped buying games as a result of idiotic protection schemes and based upon games company revenues it seems I am not the only one.
Unfortunately falling sales revenues will be taken as evidence that there's lots of pirating going on and therefore what's needed is more copy protection...
My understanding is that one of the reasons that Enron got as far as it did was because of the absence of laws that declared a conflict of interest if the same firm used for accounting/auditing, was also used for consulting. Doing the right thing would have meant giving up either of those roles, and all the money that went with it. Money talks, integrity walks.
If my understanding is accurate, I wonder why it wasn't fixed by simply closing this loophole. Seems like every time something goes wrong (and it went terribly wrong here), there's an additional excuse to increase "oversight" - and all the red tape, hassle, and extra cost that goes with it. I also seem to recall that someone sounded the alarm quite aways before Enron broke, but was ignored by Congress
Except that your understanding isn't correct. Firstly auditors already are banned from undertaking consulting engagements, and were even before SOX came in.
Secondly, auditors can never be totally independent of a company - after all, they are paid out of company funds to perform audits. A much more sensible approach is to recognise that there are always threats to independence, but that auditors can establish certain safeguards against these threats. For example, by prohibiting members of the audit team from buying stock in the companies they audit. Or by mandating a 'cooling off' period during which an audit partner cannot go join an audit client in a financial role. This approach - unsurprisingly known as the "threats and safeguards" approach originated in the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales in the late 90s and is now part of the code of ethics of the International Federation of Accountants.
Also there are often good reasons why you should hire your auditors to undertake non-audit (non-consulting) work. They already have a wealth of knowledge about your company which another firm simply wouldn't have. Another firm would have to spend lots of time - and that means shareholders' money, folks! - learning about your company. So instead of mandating a blanket ban, SOX required (Section 201) that the company's audit committee pre-approve non-audit services. So it recognises that sometimes they will be the best firm for the job, whilst adding another hurdle for them to cross before they can provide non-audit services.
Of course the Customs and Excise commision hardly ever follows up on any of these reports
That's probably cos you're filing them with the wrong body. Reports of suspicions of money laundering are to be made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), not Customs & Excise (which, as it happens, no longer exists - it's now part of HMRC).
Get her into MUDs
Well I've never played Nethack but I'm some sixteen months into an Aardwolf addiction (damn you, Arkanes). This is as someone already married and with two children [1]. I don't see how a MUD addiction will be much of an improvement for our OP.
[1] She just about tolerates it... she'd rather I was doing this than many of the other, worse things I could be up to.
FYI, this week's Economist suggests that, once Novell is required to expense the fair value of employee stock option grants, its profitability will be halved. That's before any of this restructuring is taken into account.
Yes, I know that this shouldn't affect market valuations. But it may surprise your more casual investor.
and your spelling of the word "ridiculous" is rediculous. Pip pip!
Misspelling is the best way around this dumbass law
As beloved by spammers worldwide.
Cum watch teh 07YM9IC5!
Another common story was the officials and security being briefed to look out for spectators and general public wearing promotional gear (hats, t-shirts, etc) from companies that competed with official sponsors. A coca cola t-shirt for example would leave you being offered the choice of handing it over, covering up, or going home.
Well Londoners are being forced to pay additional taxes to pay for the Games - £200 (~ US$360) per household over ten years; plus more in contributions from general taxation and probably more when the cost of the Games overruns.
So I'll wear what I damn well please, thank you very much.
Connecting the ID card to biometric data was the single stupidest idea since... well, the ID card
Actually, I see the biometric data as the sole purpose of the ID card. The Government, simply, wants a big database of our biometric data.
In a properly designed database, the biometric data would not form part of the database itself. Rather it's a mechanism for validating whether your assertion that you're you is true. They've tied it to fingerprints and iris scans in order to snatch your biometric data and then use it for alternative purposes. I don't suppose the average Brit would be too happy with being considered a suspect in every crime where a fingerprint is left at the scene. But now, they will be. Probably every crime in Europe and the USA too, when we've consolidated our databases ("for national security measures", mind you). Before long, they'll take your DNA when you go to the doctor as well, so you can additionally be considered a potential rapist in every case.
The potential for miscarriages of justice in such a sloppy regime are enormous, yet the ability of the individual to make good his/her record or correct errors would seem minimal. On top of which, we'll have sucked so many resources into staffing the scheme that we'll inevitably have to reduce our intelligence-gathering and community policing. Result? More incidents like 7/7 and 21/7 (but at least we'll know who the suicide bombers were after they've blown a carriageful of innocents to pieces).
My point is the card costs money but nobody has yet adequately explained what problem it actually solves and how
Obvious really. The proposed ID card scheme is necessary to stop those currently committing the crime of not possessing an ID card.