So, by your theory of Republicans making decisions based on facts, all we now have to know is whether Michael Bloomberg thought of this idea prior to 2001 (when he was a Democrat), between 2001 and 2007 (when he was a Republican) or after 2007 (when he turned Independent, presumably so that he could choose whether to take evidence into account)
Data storage? Oooh... cloud computing! Will it be cheaper and more reliable than Apple's Mobile Me?
Perhaps the security services just have a marketing problem. If they "sold" their services as a free replacement for Google Mail and Amazon S3, nobody would complain as much...
Well, I am a UK citizen and am concerned so obviously I'm hiding it well... or else you're giving a hideous generalisation. Yes, it's probably true that the perceived threat of terrorism is causing the majority of the unthinking masses to accept some changes in the law without criticism... but that's been true in both the UK and US. After all, you lot passed the Patriot Act and you were obviously so concerned that you voted Dubya to remain in office three years later. In similar vein, the majority of UK citizens have (tacitly, at least) accepted some need for increased security after 9/11 so will probably see this proposed change in UK law in this light. That doesn't mean that the majority of UK citizens understand the full import of the privacy issues involved... but, like most Slashdot users, we're in an educated minority who do understand the differences.
At present, what's been presented is a consultation document from the Home Office. It's not been presented to Parliament for formal consideration as a change in the law. The Home Office have released the document to get feedback from concerned organisations (probably including those that will benefit from the data but also those organisations concerned with privacy and human rights) and citizens.
Also, as a consultation document, it does at least include the "do nothing" option in their table of possible options. Never underestimate the power of inertia.
I rather suspect that Liberty (the human rights organisation, not the rather expensive shop in Regent's Street, London) will have something to contribute to the debate.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/
Urmmm... actually licence is correct. Licence is the noun, license the verb.
Mind you, I let it all wash over me. You can't read the Guardian without a certain tolerance to spellling errers.
Slashdot Mirror
So, by your theory of Republicans making decisions based on facts, all we now have to know is whether Michael Bloomberg thought of this idea prior to 2001 (when he was a Democrat), between 2001 and 2007 (when he was a Republican) or after 2007 (when he turned Independent, presumably so that he could choose whether to take evidence into account)
Perhaps the security services just have a marketing problem. If they "sold" their services as a free replacement for Google Mail and Amazon S3, nobody would complain as much...
OK... time for a lie-down...
...why UK citizens don't seem overly concerned?
Well, I am a UK citizen and am concerned so obviously I'm hiding it well... or else you're giving a hideous generalisation. Yes, it's probably true that the perceived threat of terrorism is causing the majority of the unthinking masses to accept some changes in the law without criticism... but that's been true in both the UK and US. After all, you lot passed the Patriot Act and you were obviously so concerned that you voted Dubya to remain in office three years later. In similar vein, the majority of UK citizens have (tacitly, at least) accepted some need for increased security after 9/11 so will probably see this proposed change in UK law in this light. That doesn't mean that the majority of UK citizens understand the full import of the privacy issues involved... but, like most Slashdot users, we're in an educated minority who do understand the differences.
At present, what's been presented is a consultation document from the Home Office. It's not been presented to Parliament for formal consideration as a change in the law. The Home Office have released the document to get feedback from concerned organisations (probably including those that will benefit from the data but also those organisations concerned with privacy and human rights) and citizens.
Also, as a consultation document, it does at least include the "do nothing" option in their table of possible options. Never underestimate the power of inertia.
I rather suspect that Liberty (the human rights organisation, not the rather expensive shop in Regent's Street, London) will have something to contribute to the debate. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/
Urmmm... actually licence is correct. Licence is the noun, license the verb. Mind you, I let it all wash over me. You can't read the Guardian without a certain tolerance to spellling errers.
...and was George wearing the animated shorts at the time?
I'm confused... perhaps I need a little lie down