One thing problematic (at least to me) about outsourcing to countries that have no privacy laws, is that a lot of European personal data is transferred to these countries, due to the personal data having been transferred from Europe to the United States.
According to the EU Personal Data Directive article 25, personal data cannot be transferred to "third countries" that don't provide an adequate level of protection of personal data (via legislation); the United States is one of these countries. Unfortunately, in article 26, you find a lot of exceptions. And even if the original European and American parties have an agreement about how personal data is to be treated, the American company contracts, and subcontracts, and subsubcontracts the work until finally, well, the work ends up in a country like India or Pakistan where an opportunistic worker can profit from databases full of sensitive personal data, without any chance of seeing a day in court.
The fear is that people will make 30 second long ringtones out of popular songs
I don't know if they last 30 seconds, but ring tones of popular songs already exist, at least in Norway/Europe. It has existed for a quite some time, at least 5 years if not more.
That's true. But at the same time, sometimes trying to get rid of an old pair of running shoes is like trying to get rid of an old pair of jeans or your old favorite chair or something like that...
You're in on something there. There are quite a few elite runners who train/compete barefoot. For example, Abebe Bikila won his first Olympic marathon running barefoot, and broke the world record.
I don't think very many serious runners would buy these shoes. A lot of people I know who are serious runners (marathon etc.) have a hard enough time detaching themselves from their old worn down shoes. When they do buy new shoes, they know what they need for their feet and terrain; they don't need a chip to tell them what they already know.
These high-tech shoes seem like something that would appeal more to the wannabes. It's their money, so...
It's not just that it's helped me with the computer science stuff. It has also helped me a lot with "unlikely" fields of study such as law. When I come across a difficult legal problem to solve, I solve that problem a lot faster when I analyze the problem "mathematically." As mentioned many times already, it has to do with thinking, problem solving techniques, etc. It's quite useful for most fields of study, I would think...
...in most cases, mail sent to you at your place of employement is considered business mail (i.e. the secretary or your boss can open it) unless it is specifically marked private or confidential.
I've read articles and engaged in various discussions about these kinds of tracking devices for children. Aside from the fears of kidnapping and kidnappers overriding the system, we have what you brought up here:
Or how bout this: 5-year-old son of European royalty is playing at legoland, taken out by a sniper from a huge distance based on his location from an SMS query to their wristband system...
While I have never come up with such an example, I can give another more realistic scenario - that a harm is done to a child within the confines of a "safe zone." For example, the child could be sexually assaulted in Legoland's bathroom. Just because a child is "where he should be," does not mean he is safe.
How unique are your fingerprints? It's general held (and as er, The Register confidently stated just yesterday) that your fingerprints being found at the scene of the crime tied you up with it pretty conclusively, but a report published earlier this year by New Scientist claims that there is little scientific basis for the infallibility of fingerprints, and that the only research indicating that there is, is fatally flawed.
This could have major implications for the criminal justice system, and could undermine the basic premise of planned ID sytems in the UK, US and Europe. The report notes that the only known study, commissioned b y the US Department of Justice and only made public in summary form, was challenged in December. The study involved matching up 50,000 fingerprint images, and concluded from this that the probability of a false match was effectively zero. However, says New Scientist, "Although this produced an impressive-sounding 2.5 billion comparisons, critics point out that it is hardly surprising that a specific image should turn out to be more like itself than 49,999 other images."
The study wasn't designed to test matches between two or more different prints from the same finger, and it was even discovered that it originally included three instances of fingerprints being listed as similar but different, when they were actually different prints from the same finger. One pair was even found to be as dissimilar as prints from different people. And the sample size is seen by many critics as being too small to be seen as valid.
Despite the apparently shaky foundations of the little 'proof' that exists, there seems to be no government enthusiasm for further research. The DoJ has refused to sanction further research, and a Department of Defense and National Institute of Justice programme fell apart last year after arguments over dissemination and review of the material.
New Scientist points out that fingerprint evidence still has a value, but that it's such a long-standing technique that it has never been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. This could well be its undoing, as ID systems' need to match up prints from millions of people takes fingerprinting into entirely uncharted territory. It would surely be just a little bit embarrassing if a few years down the line governments' deployment of fingerprints in the war on terror resulted in the near overthrow of the criminal justice system, wouldn't it?
Having an identity card actually frees you from the risk that the Police don't believe you are who you say you are and arrest you.
No. It doesn't. Take a look at this scenario. If you color your hair or lose weight or gain weight or get cancer or something like that, you could be very screwed.
Recently in Norway, a survey showed that only a very small number of Norwegians believed in Hell. Some church people thought it was too small a number and decided to do their own survey. Suddenly more Norwegians believed in Hell. Article here if you don't believe me.
Yeah, I know this has nothing to do with biometric data, but it has something to do with conducting survey after survey and playing around with statistics until you get what you want. This includes surveys showing 80% of the UK population in favor of national identity cards containing biometric data.
1. How many organisations already have all this information on you already, these cards aren't gonna be any worse.
So just because an organization has information on me means that everyone is allowed to have information on me?
2. If you've got nothing to hide, then why worry about it, and if you've got something to hide, then it's something you're just gonna have to deal with
I have plenty to hide; it is part of being human. I'm not a voyeuse. My secrets are none of your or anybody else's fscking business.
Volunteers, as in people who think the ID cards are an OK thing in the first place? Who will more likely than not give positive feedback?
Neil Fisher, from QinetiQ - one of the companies developing the new technology, said the public would want to be able to prove their identity to show they were not a risk.
A risk of/for what?
> The plans are designed to tackle identity fraud, which costs Britain an estimated 1.3bn each year.
> The government has said it sees ID cards as a weapon against terrorism.
I keep seeing statements like these over and over again but I have yet to hear an adequate argument as to how it works as a weapon against terrorism, identity theft, etc.
He said the biometric system proposed would end multiple identities and give a boost to the fight against terrorism and organised crime.
I hope I'm not the only one who sees how naive this statement is...
And lastly, considering these cards will be obligatory but not free of charge, I see them as nothing more than a money making mechanism for the government than anything else.
"Saudi Arabia says explicitly that they censor the internet to preserve their Islamic culture and heritage, which is a pretty valid claim to make," explained the lab's Graeme Bunton.
I disagree. If what Saudi citizens find out about other places via the Internet causes them to reject their Islamic culture and heritage, then perhaps it's a culture and heritage not worth preserving in the first place.
There are plenty of countries that are online, for the most part uncensored, and are able to maintain their culture. Next lame attempt at an argument, please?
A person at 50 can be much stronger than they were at 40. It's true. There are even 60 year olds competing in powerlifting competitions.
There are actually quite a lot of little old ladies who bodybuild/powerlift competitively, who started to train after the age of 40-50. I almost feel sorry for the dumbasses who try to steal their purses:-)
Strength training is especially important for us geek gals out there.
Women lose bone mass at a greater rate than men, so weight training is especially crucial. Typically, after age 35, women lose 1.2% per year, whereas men lose 0.2% per year. For optimal bone remodeling to occur, significant resistance must be used. Ideally, this means progressing beyond the light weights used in group fitness classes.
Additionally, the increase in lean mass associated with weight training strongly correlates with a faster metabolism. This means that women will burn more calories twenty-four hours a day, not just during or immediately following the exercise sessions. If you consider that a pound of fat contains roughly 3,500 kcals, exercise alone is not the most efficient mechanism to reduce that fat. However, generating significant metabolically active tissue (muscle) will cause an increase in the basal metabolic rate, thus burning off those excess calories more efficiently!
Slashdot Mirror
According to the EU Personal Data Directive article 25, personal data cannot be transferred to "third countries" that don't provide an adequate level of protection of personal data (via legislation); the United States is one of these countries. Unfortunately, in article 26, you find a lot of exceptions. And even if the original European and American parties have an agreement about how personal data is to be treated, the American company contracts, and subcontracts, and subsubcontracts the work until finally, well, the work ends up in a country like India or Pakistan where an opportunistic worker can profit from databases full of sensitive personal data, without any chance of seeing a day in court.
That is SO true!
I don't know if they last 30 seconds, but ring tones of popular songs already exist, at least in Norway/Europe. It has existed for a quite some time, at least 5 years if not more.
Precursor of database project gave feds 120,000 terrorist suspects
That's true. But at the same time, sometimes trying to get rid of an old pair of running shoes is like trying to get rid of an old pair of jeans or your old favorite chair or something like that...
Here's another interesting site regarding barefoot running/marathoning.
These high-tech shoes seem like something that would appeal more to the wannabes. It's their money, so...
It's not just that it's helped me with the computer science stuff. It has also helped me a lot with "unlikely" fields of study such as law. When I come across a difficult legal problem to solve, I solve that problem a lot faster when I analyze the problem "mathematically." As mentioned many times already, it has to do with thinking, problem solving techniques, etc. It's quite useful for most fields of study, I would think...
...in most cases, mail sent to you at your place of employement is considered business mail (i.e. the secretary or your boss can open it) unless it is specifically marked private or confidential.
I've read articles and engaged in various discussions about these kinds of tracking devices for children. Aside from the fears of kidnapping and kidnappers overriding the system, we have what you brought up here:
Or how bout this: 5-year-old son of European royalty is playing at legoland, taken out by a sniper from a huge distance based on his location from an SMS query to their wristband system...
While I have never come up with such an example, I can give another more realistic scenario - that a harm is done to a child within the confines of a "safe zone." For example, the child could be sexually assaulted in Legoland's bathroom. Just because a child is "where he should be," does not mean he is safe.
It is an extreme reaction; there's no denying that. But perhaps it's the only way for governments to take spam seriously and take action accordingly.
here's something interesting I read not too long ago:
Are fingerprints really infallible, unique ID?
How unique are your fingerprints? It's general held (and as er, The Register confidently stated just yesterday) that your fingerprints being found at the scene of the crime tied you up with it pretty conclusively, but a report published earlier this year by New Scientist claims that there is little scientific basis for the infallibility of fingerprints, and that the only research indicating that there is, is fatally flawed.
This could have major implications for the criminal justice system, and could undermine the basic premise of planned ID sytems in the UK, US and Europe. The report notes that the only known study, commissioned b y the US Department of Justice and only made public in summary form, was challenged in December. The study involved matching up 50,000 fingerprint images, and concluded from this that the probability of a false match was effectively zero. However, says New Scientist, "Although this produced an impressive-sounding 2.5 billion comparisons, critics point out that it is hardly surprising that a specific image should turn out to be more like itself than 49,999 other images."
The study wasn't designed to test matches between two or more different prints from the same finger, and it was even discovered that it originally included three instances of fingerprints being listed as similar but different, when they were actually different prints from the same finger. One pair was even found to be as dissimilar as prints from different people. And the sample size is seen by many critics as being too small to be seen as valid.
Despite the apparently shaky foundations of the little 'proof' that exists, there seems to be no government enthusiasm for further research. The DoJ has refused to sanction further research, and a Department of Defense and National Institute of Justice programme fell apart last year after arguments over dissemination and review of the material.
New Scientist points out that fingerprint evidence still has a value, but that it's such a long-standing technique that it has never been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. This could well be its undoing, as ID systems' need to match up prints from millions of people takes fingerprinting into entirely uncharted territory. It would surely be just a little bit embarrassing if a few years down the line governments' deployment of fingerprints in the war on terror resulted in the near overthrow of the criminal justice system, wouldn't it?
If you really have nothing to hide, then you'll have sex in public ;-)
No. It doesn't. Take a look at this scenario. If you color your hair or lose weight or gain weight or get cancer or something like that, you could be very screwed.
Yeah, I know this has nothing to do with biometric data, but it has something to do with conducting survey after survey and playing around with statistics until you get what you want. This includes surveys showing 80% of the UK population in favor of national identity cards containing biometric data.
So just because an organization has information on me means that everyone is allowed to have information on me?
2. If you've got nothing to hide, then why worry about it, and if you've got something to hide, then it's something you're just gonna have to deal with
I have plenty to hide; it is part of being human. I'm not a voyeuse. My secrets are none of your or anybody else's fscking business.
The blind armless chick may not be able to do anything physically but she could easily be a symbol for or mastermind of something dangerous.
Volunteers, as in people who think the ID cards are an OK thing in the first place? Who will more likely than not give positive feedback?
Neil Fisher, from QinetiQ - one of the companies developing the new technology, said the public would want to be able to prove their identity to show they were not a risk.
A risk of/for what?
> The plans are designed to tackle identity fraud, which costs Britain an estimated 1.3bn each year.
> The government has said it sees ID cards as a weapon against terrorism.
I keep seeing statements like these over and over again but I have yet to hear an adequate argument as to how it works as a weapon against terrorism, identity theft, etc.
He said the biometric system proposed would end multiple identities and give a boost to the fight against terrorism and organised crime.
I hope I'm not the only one who sees how naive this statement is...
And lastly, considering these cards will be obligatory but not free of charge, I see them as nothing more than a money making mechanism for the government than anything else.
Now that could be quite interesting. Frightening, but interesting...
You need more than just goggles for something like that! Yikes!!!
Please give us a warning before you post links like that!!!!
I disagree. If what Saudi citizens find out about other places via the Internet causes them to reject their Islamic culture and heritage, then perhaps it's a culture and heritage not worth preserving in the first place.
There are plenty of countries that are online, for the most part uncensored, and are able to maintain their culture. Next lame attempt at an argument, please?
Will /. participate?
There are actually quite a lot of little old ladies who bodybuild/powerlift competitively, who started to train after the age of 40-50. I almost feel sorry for the dumbasses who try to steal their purses :-)
Women lose bone mass at a greater rate than men, so weight training is especially crucial. Typically, after age 35, women lose 1.2% per year, whereas men lose 0.2% per year. For optimal bone remodeling to occur, significant resistance must be used. Ideally, this means progressing beyond the light weights used in group fitness classes.
Additionally, the increase in lean mass associated with weight training strongly correlates with a faster metabolism. This means that women will burn more calories twenty-four hours a day, not just during or immediately following the exercise sessions. If you consider that a pound of fat contains roughly 3,500 kcals, exercise alone is not the most efficient mechanism to reduce that fat. However, generating significant metabolically active tissue (muscle) will cause an increase in the basal metabolic rate, thus burning off those excess calories more efficiently!
Source: http://www.deepsquatter.com/strength/archives/lady lift3.htm