Well maybe Mrs. 75 year old should 'blame the people in her age group for not understanding contracts so well', hmm? Wasn't the point that that was a stupid assumption because people are individuals and not necessarily all the same as their 'group'?
There is a huge difference here; the ISP is not taking on any risk from the individual with the contract. ISPs are very well shielded from liability so her violating the contract is unlikely to offer greater cost to the company. The reason insurance companies charge different rates for different people is because they are essentially exchanging your liability risk (and this changes with age) for money if you have more risk then naturally it will cost more, you are getting a different product. The problem with this case is that regardless of age the service is the same, same speed, bandwidth and such regardless of age.
How about ONLY using an individual's personal actions as a factor in determining the charge?
And that history is just supposed to pop out of nowhere. You need good data to determine someone's risk that is why they use a heck of a lot more factors then just age and it's not a coincidence that the longer you have the insurance the more your rates drop (or rise), your personal history starts growing in importance..
Then you don't get to sign up for this service because, gee, your age group is too retarded. Oh, was that another dumb rampant generalization?
There is nothing wrong with generalization in business so long as there are facts and statistics to back it up.
The ISP was legally covering their asses, and last time I checked a free market economy allowed a company to decide with whom they'd like to do business (short of random anti-discriminatory acts the US has set, but I don't believe age is a protected factor).
On the same token in a free market economy the business must also take responsibility for the fallout of any ageist (age is protected in the US btw, but this is the UK) (sexist or raciest in such cases for that matter) policy. That fallout may mean bad PR and losing customers who can sign up for not wishing to support such views. She did the responsible thing by letting people know of this policy in a relatively benign way.
On the side having worked at an ISP the elderly are probably some of the easier people to support and offer services to, most often they are articulate on the phone, they use quite little bandwidth and understand that the internet is a service not some god given right.
The thing that baffles me about this fraud is who the heck buys a house without first taking a walkthrough. The guy who lives there is going to tell you what is up, perhaps strung with profanity. Heck even if it wasn't fraud the guy could be storing toxic waste in the basement for all you know.
Thats crazy - when you typed in your search term into AOL you had an expectation of privacy and you did not for one minute believe that they would release that data. All webpages are copyright and the Wayback machine is using fair use to archive copies for educational use.
I am certain that when they published the site concern over the wholesale copying of it was about as high on their list as privacy is to a search engine user less so when most search engine's TOSs allow them to pull this crap. Regardless the use being educational in nature doesn't make something automatically fair use particularly when it's published publicly.
Missed this so my previous reply reflects that.
What I don't understand is you don't seem to be objecting to searches just when it happens on a laptop. What makes a laptop so special as to make it more private then the contents of my wallet and my underwear?
I am not addressing whether it is right or wrong to look at their laptop - the point is that even if we believe it is right, the contents of that laptop are still not public, so I don't see how it can be considered hate speech. There are some things that are only illegal if done in public - e.g., sex or nudity; if police burst down your door and find sex or nudity, then even if they have every right to do so and we decide it isn't a violation of privacy, that does not suddenly make it a public event, and mean they can arrest you for sex/nudity in public!
The laws of interest to the agent: Child pornography and hate speech are illegal regardless of if they are done in a public setting. He has every right to ensure that contraband such as child pornography and hate speech do not enter the country.
No, I am saying we shouldn't be searching everyone fishing for random crime, just like it would be wrong to search everyone's home just on the off-chance.
I mean, if someone searched your home and found evidence of a crime, are you saying you shoul be able to complain for being investigated for a crime you committed? If not, you think that searching everyone's houses and computers is okay?
No one's home is being searched I don't see where you get this from. However if you happened to roll your house up to a border crossing and petitioned entry to the country it is completely reasonable that the house be searched for contraband. Otherwise having one's house searched has about as much to do with this as the price of tea in china.
There have been numerous new security changes since 9/11, all in the name of fighting terrorism, which can end up being used for other things. Yes I realise there was security before then - were the Government open back then that any new security measures weren't actually for hijackers etc, but instead were just to fish for porn?
Custom officials have always had the ability to search those petitioning entry into the country's belonging this has not changed with whatever laws 9/11 spurred. If you want to start a rant about 9/11 laws then do so in an issue appropriate to this subject. After the bomb craziness ended this ceased having anything remotely to do with 9/11.
At any point you can say fuck you and go home.
I am a citizen too, and if I want someone to visit, I can say fuck you and keep your eyes out of their private life. Also, security measures apply to those who are citizens of that particular country. Or perhaps we can debate without resorting to xenophobia and personal insults.
What the heck is insulting or xenophobic about being able to return home if you feel you are being treated badly. When you withdraw your petition for entry to the country they lose any power to search or questioning. It is your choice to put up with the questioning and searching.
Right. And don't be surprised when there are people (yes, citizens and taxpayers, with just as much right to a say as you) object to such people and their jobs, as they have been doing so in this thread.
The ability for custom agents to search belongings has been around far longer then you or I have and has outlasted many, many, many governments. So forgive me if I don't take your word as Canadians as a whole. Until such time as people vote to have the law changed it is not unreasonable for the agents of the government to follow the law when an individual petitions entry into the country.
That's the part which concerns me most, actually. Cause it implies that the search is not made out of genuine concern for security or upholding the law, not because the agent is interested in performing his job well - but because he feels entitled to lord it over innocent people. This is not just humiliating and annoying, but it's also means that instead of doing his job he'll waste his time pursuing personal vendetas. He won't apply his time where he thinks he might find something, but instead spend it to extract respect which he doesn't deserve.
That could be the case but it's far more likely they see that as a suspicious act. The fact that he was allowed into the country lays backs up this, if this was just a power thing the guy could have been held overnight or indefinitely, strip searched or denied access to the country out of hand. You sort of have to look at it from the agent's perspective this guy caused probably a huge mess most reasonable people would probably be embarrassed and cooperative someone behaving with passive aggressive hostility will raise some red flags as if having an airplane grounded due to you isn't already going to have raised flags.
And even if, you'd need dictatorial powers to restrict such a basic right and at that point you don't really need to care about the law anyway.
You speak of the freedom of speech as if it is absolute; it isn't and never has been. If it was said to an individual instead of a group it could be Terroristic threatening, slander, or libel. This law simply applies similar laws that have always applied to individuals to groups so long as the group are targeted specifically in the same manner that one would target an individual. Hate speech is something very specific in Canada, we are not just talking about speech that may be hateful.
This is about as dictatorial as not being able to firebomb a government office is somehow abridging one's right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". Regardless a person would have a far easier time using slander laws against someone saying things they don't like then they would hate ones and this is true for virtually all countries including the US and Canada.
First: Canada wants tourists who will not cause problems in the country that is why there are borders and border and customs agents. Don't believe me? Try telling the border agent you had a felony conviction.
Second: In case you are unaware sales tax is refunded on most items you return to your country of origin.
I didn't question the privacy, I asked how it can be hate speech in the first place. Drugs are illegal whether or not they are hidden; I was saying that surely illegal hate speech much be published or distributed to others in some way by its definition?
You said it was a violation of one's privacy. Regardless if the person did have such material on their laptop and the officer believed he individual would spread it the person should be denied entrance to the country, after all entrance to a foreign country is not a right.
I know that, but I was questioning the system in general. Increased checks are brought in on the basis of combatting terrorism, yet they are used to enforce drugs or even people's private sex life. Is that right? is what I am asking. Shouldn't the Government at least be upfront about what any new security procedures are going to be used for, rather than going "Blah blah War on Terrorrr"?
Customs agents have been pulling people aside for suspicion of contraband way before any war on terror this has nothing to do with any war on terror. I don't understand why you keep playing that card. He was pulled aside likely because of his attitude toward the police and other customs agents which even relying on his side of the even was quite aggressive.
In some contexts, yes, but I was arguing against the principle of "If it's illegal, you shouldn't complain if they investigate and charge you for it".
I am not following are you saying you should be able to complain if you are investigated for a crime you committed? Sure you can I guess but you would sound sort of foolish I guess. Regardless we aren't talking about a crime investigation anyway you are petitioning access to the country. At any point you can say fuck you and go home.
Then perhaps we should have more people to deal with security instead of more to browse through people's porn collections?
Or perhaps they can do their job and ensure contraband does not enter the country and leave security to those who's job it is ensure.
First of all entering a foreign country is a choice and not a right. Secondly the salaries of custom agents are paid for by the citizens of the country. Finally this has nothing to do with police or authority in general it has to do with customs agents when entering a foreign country.
I think that a case can be made that something could be brought onto the plane which could endanger the flight. So checking whether a laptop contains explosives is a reasonable thing to do. There is really nothing reasonable about looking at people's private files without suspicion.
I don't see it as any more unreasonable as searching my car (which can involve removing parts of the car) or my luggage for contraband and certainly a heck of a lot more reasonable then strip searches that can be preformed. I don't particularly like having it happen but I certainly don't draw attention to myself by talking back to agents the way he had.
Tomorrow, it may apply to someone who doesn't like paying for a legislators yacht.
I wouldn't get too concerned at this point. The law is very specific and really spells it out as either avocation of Genocide or hatred based on color, race, religion or ethnic origin and only if it falls to the level that it is likely to incite violence. And of course there are a lot of exceptions.
I don't see how an accident somehow makes it unlikely that someone would be a smuggler. Granted I don't think it makes him more likely. If he talked back to anyone the way he talked back to that agent however would trigger further investigation regardless of the situation.
Does it count has hate speech even when you aren't publishing it to anyone? I can't see it's what people would think of as "hate speech" when you only find it by violating someone's privacy. What if it's encrypted, and hence not even readable?
What if I dissolve (without a prescription) methadone tablets in my water bottle prior to crossing the border in order fool the border guards? You know your bags may be checked. You know you will be asked questions when crossing the border. How are the contents of one's laptop any more private then one's luggage? Myself I don't bring anything that may be illegal in the country I am traveling to and if I am unsure I check.
Anyway, whether or not certain things are illegal though - should security measures brought in supposedly to combat terrorism (e.g., making sure it's a working laptop, not a bomb) be used to search people for every other possible violation (e.g., they have a picture of their girlfriend in some kinky situation which happens to be illegal under the country's authoritarian laws, even though that person never intended to distribute the image to anyone)?
I think you are misunderstanding what went on. He was no longer investigated for planting a bomb the agent who searched his stuff was doing so to grant him access to the country. Sure he got the full treatment but he got nothing that someone who an agent had a feeling about might get. The same things (personal use) can be said about drugs unless it's a large quantity it's likely for personal use but the question becomes do we really want people don't make an effort to follow the law in the country.
I mean, if the Government decided that everybody's houses had to be searched, and everyone's computers searched, I'd imagine many would oppose it, whether or not they were only after the technically illegal material.
There is a big difference between being search on the border and choosing to take that risk anyway and being forced to a search with no aspect of choice. There is a world of difference between the two.
Maybe if security kept to security rather than harrassing and locking people up for naughty images of consensual sex, or having speech the Government disapproves of, maybe we'd actually have a chance of safer flying?
The problem is a customs agent has nothing to do with flying planes or even largely secuirty their job is to allow or deny people into the country. The job of security falls to border guards not customs agents.
"Child porn I can understand, that's illegal. But hate propaganda is protected speech."
Now he looked up. "What country do you think you're in?"
"Oh, it's illegal in Canada?"
Yes hate-speech is illegal in Canada allong with certain types of non-child pronography where people or bound or depicting rape.
Immigration offers aren't really told what is illegal and what is not they are just given a list of things that cannot enter the country. That includes firearms without prior permission and large amounts of alcohol and tobacco all of which may be legal in Canada but not legal to transport over the border.
Re:It's harder than you might at first think
on
Diebold Flops in Alaska
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If the first link describes how the system operates then it seems almost the exact opposite of what the parent was looking for. The system is centrally (per station) tallied. Doesn't offer paper receipts nor does it use tokens to identify people. About the only think in common with that device and what he proposing is that they count votes.
Granted I think tokens are a bit of an overkill both in complexity and expense I think a better idea would be to use a drivers license (with a magnetic strip) as a token and those who do not have a drivers license would be issued a one-time use swipe card. Hashing the data would keep it anonymous yet be verifiable for audits etc.
Seriously. Most of that stuff can be done with two mice. Why hasn't anyone implemented that yet? Just grab the image from the ends and drag to resize, or drag one end to rotate, or whatever. Two mice would be much more natural. Sure, you'd probably use the one in your good hand more, but for some stuff it would be great (perhaps handling 3D models?).
It probably hasn't been implemented yet because it would be quite confusing to keep up with which pointer does what. There isn't that problem with these displays as the pointer is under your finger and it's hard to lose. But there are a bunch of advantages to this over 2 mice, the most obvious being it allows more then 2 pointers. The second the display could allow physical tools to be used on the display instead of simulating the tools. Third it's touch sensitive allowing command modifications by force. I have to disagree with it being more natural, how more natural can you get then actually touching the object on the screen the only thing I could think more natural would be touching the physical object itself.
Well.. You don't exactly help with this statement. Comparing a rape with a stolen bike and at the same time implying, that the victim did something wrong shows, that you probably have that kind of morale that Jack Idiot blames on computer games.
First of all where the heck do you see a comparison? Just because things (with one being far worse then the other) happen to be in the same paragraph doesn't mean the author is comparing them. Furthermore his point is even truer with rape then anything. A lot of the emotional damage of a rape stems from the complete and utter loss of control during the event, a self defense class, while not a magic wand, does a lot to give the person some of the sense of control that they lost in the rape.
Slashdot Mirror
On the side having worked at an ISP the elderly are probably some of the easier people to support and offer services to, most often they are articulate on the phone, they use quite little bandwidth and understand that the internet is a service not some god given right.
Again... There were 2 other occurrences mentioned in the article in which the house was occupied by those defrauded.
I suggest you take your own advice, there are 2 others cases in that article that were not rentals.
The thing that baffles me about this fraud is who the heck buys a house without first taking a walkthrough. The guy who lives there is going to tell you what is up, perhaps strung with profanity. Heck even if it wasn't fraud the guy could be storing toxic waste in the basement for all you know.
This is the last time I will reply to a topic without looking at the comment tree. *lol* My appologies.
Missed this so my previous reply reflects that. What I don't understand is you don't seem to be objecting to searches just when it happens on a laptop. What makes a laptop so special as to make it more private then the contents of my wallet and my underwear?
This is about as dictatorial as not being able to firebomb a government office is somehow abridging one's right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". Regardless a person would have a far easier time using slander laws against someone saying things they don't like then they would hate ones and this is true for virtually all countries including the US and Canada.
First: Canada wants tourists who will not cause problems in the country that is why there are borders and border and customs agents. Don't believe me? Try telling the border agent you had a felony conviction.
Second: In case you are unaware sales tax is refunded on most items you return to your country of origin.
Customs agents have been pulling people aside for suspicion of contraband way before any war on terror this has nothing to do with any war on terror. I don't understand why you keep playing that card. He was pulled aside likely because of his attitude toward the police and other customs agents which even relying on his side of the even was quite aggressive.
I am not following are you saying you should be able to complain if you are investigated for a crime you committed? Sure you can I guess but you would sound sort of foolish I guess. Regardless we aren't talking about a crime investigation anyway you are petitioning access to the country. At any point you can say fuck you and go home.
Or perhaps they can do their job and ensure contraband does not enter the country and leave security to those who's job it is ensure.
First of all entering a foreign country is a choice and not a right. Secondly the salaries of custom agents are paid for by the citizens of the country. Finally this has nothing to do with police or authority in general it has to do with customs agents when entering a foreign country.
I don't see how an accident somehow makes it unlikely that someone would be a smuggler. Granted I don't think it makes him more likely. If he talked back to anyone the way he talked back to that agent however would trigger further investigation regardless of the situation.
I think you are misunderstanding what went on. He was no longer investigated for planting a bomb the agent who searched his stuff was doing so to grant him access to the country. Sure he got the full treatment but he got nothing that someone who an agent had a feeling about might get. The same things (personal use) can be said about drugs unless it's a large quantity it's likely for personal use but the question becomes do we really want people don't make an effort to follow the law in the country.
There is a big difference between being search on the border and choosing to take that risk anyway and being forced to a search with no aspect of choice. There is a world of difference between the two.
The problem is a customs agent has nothing to do with flying planes or even largely secuirty their job is to allow or deny people into the country. The job of security falls to border guards not customs agents.
Immigration offers aren't really told what is illegal and what is not they are just given a list of things that cannot enter the country. That includes firearms without prior permission and large amounts of alcohol and tobacco all of which may be legal in Canada but not legal to transport over the border.
Apperently you've never tried processed cheese.
If the first link describes how the system operates then it seems almost the exact opposite of what the parent was looking for. The system is centrally (per station) tallied. Doesn't offer paper receipts nor does it use tokens to identify people. About the only think in common with that device and what he proposing is that they count votes.
Granted I think tokens are a bit of an overkill both in complexity and expense I think a better idea would be to use a drivers license (with a magnetic strip) as a token and those who do not have a drivers license would be issued a one-time use swipe card. Hashing the data would keep it anonymous yet be verifiable for audits etc.
Bah dyslexia rears it ugly head again.