The UK courts do not allow [as a precedent] intelligence gathered through interception mainly because the security services do not want their sources/methods exposed. I am not sure it is 'illegal':
"Currently, use of intercept evidence is only allowed if it is necessary to obtain information which could not be acquired in another way, and any interception must be proportionate to what it seeks to achieve. Where it is used, appropriate protections are in place - such as closed proceedings - to safeguard national security."
"The interception of communications commissioner, a senior judge, oversees decisions on the use such evidence. An investigatory powers tribunal considers complaints from the public, and has powers to order "appropriate remedies"
In this case the US security services went to a US court to get Yahoo to give copies of the email. They did this and the emails were passed to the UK security services as evidence. In this instance the UK court/security services I assume saw this evidence as something which would not expose any sources/methods.
The key here again is using 'terrorism' to change our law and they way in which we conduct justice in this country.
People are trying to erode our justice system and the current lot are running out of time
This should not raise a debate about whether intercept evidence is admissible because it already is. This whole 'debate' is aimed to encourage the use of interception and to make it easier to convict people.
Convicting people shouldn't be easy. Sorry it shouldn't - you need evidence. Hard evidence. Intercept evidence is usually only hearsay evidence [even if it is me saying I did something] - this may help a conviction along with other 'real' evidence which has already been made admissible and proven in court. On its own it is worthless. With enough 'real' evidence I cannot see how intercept evidence needs to be used.
We are now thinking about locking up a 16 and 18 year for plotting to create a massacre at their school [though crime]. Oh they even had files on guns and bombs. This is like locking me up when I was younger for having a copy of they Jolly Roger cookbook and saying I hate school. The least we should be doing is probably trying to help this kids...
"The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack... These actions apparently arise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals."
This trial got quite a bit of attention when the verdict was given here in the UK and I found myself wondering why so much attention for a verdict in another country. Even if it is in the EU
-> HP/EDS/Microsoft/Accenture/$privateCompany have informed government 'advisers' they will be using more open source software. Many of these companies have 'open source' investment/business interests - Probably because there is less money being chucked at them from hedge funds/banks/gordon brown etc.
-> Government turns this into 'policy'
-> This get Spun to the BBC [UK Government back open source software]
-> I read it on slashdot
Back to private eye......
6. The Government's policy is as follows:
1. Open Source Software The Government will actively and fairly consider open source solutions alongside proprietary ones in making procurement decisions,
2. Procurement decisions will be made on the basis on the best value for money solution to the business requirement, taking account of total lifetime cost of ownership of the solution, including exit and transition costs, after ensuring that solutions fulfil minimum and essential capability, security, scalability, transferability, support and manageability requirements.
3. The Government will expect those putting forward IT solutions to develop where necessary a suitable mix of open source and proprietary products to ensure that the best possible overall solution can be considered.
4. Where there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products, open source will be selected on the basis of its additional inherent flexibility.
5. Non-Open Source Software The Government will, wherever possible, avoid becoming locked in to proprietary software. In particular it will take exit, rebid and rebuild costs into account in procurement decisions and will require those proposing proprietary software to specify how exit would be achieved.
6. Where non open source products need to be purchased, Government will expect licences to be available for all public sector use and for licences already purchased to be transferable within the public sector without further cost or limitation. The Government will where appropriate seek pan-government agreements with software suppliers which ensure that government is treated as a single entity for the purposes of volume discounts and transferability of licences.
7. Open Standards The Government will use open standards in its procurement specifications and require solutions to comply with open standards. The Government will support the development of open standards and specifications.
8. Re-Use The Government will look to secure full rights to bespoke software code or customisations of commercial off the shelf products it procures, so as to enable straightforward re-use elsewhere in the public sector. Where appropriate, general purpose software developed for government will be released on an open source basis.
9. Where the public sector already owns a system, design or architecture the Government will expect it to be reused and that commercial arrangements will recognise this. Where new development is proposed, suppliers will be required to warrant that they have not developed or produced something comparable, in whole or in part, for the public sector in the past, or where they have, to show how this is reflected in reduced costs, risks and timescale.
10. When suppliers are proposing a third party product there should be full price transparency. If there is a pan-Government agreement there should be the option to source through this where doing so would maximise overall public sector value. The Government will expect to be charged only the cost the supplier incurs unless the supplier can clearly and transparently provide evidence of the additional value created.
You didn't even read the slashdot summary, much less the article obviously. The newspaper gets paid for including the ad, not for you viewing it. Websites often get paid by impressions, so if the ads aren't received by the customers then the revenue isn't received by the site. Totally different from the newspaper, who gets an "impression" with every paper sold guaranteed. Maybe the issue to get to the bottom of is what you _actually_ pay for when you are buying advertising. If I have paid x pounds for y adverts to be displayed - then even if somebody is using ad-blocking software then it makes no difference [most decent ad-blocks don't even attempt to create an impression] - I will get a view the next time somebody who visits who doesn't have a ad blocker in place.
If an ad-blocker downloads the content and hides it - again nothing is wasted - the fact I didn't view it is irrelevant. People use ad-blockers because they don't use the adverts which are blocked [otherwise they wouldn't block them and they would click on them]
If you are marketing a product then any marketing costs money - anyways when did we work of the equation that x adverts = y profit?
How is using ad-blocking software different from immediately placing paper adverts straight in the [recycling] bin? Or skipping the adverts in the newspaper? Or ignoring all billboards etc..?
Why should people profit just because I clicked on a link? Because capitalism rocks? Because we all want to make money as easliy and quickly as possible?
Bandwidth costs have been always been around - a website is very rarely a beast which simply makes money by having a website - you need to provide something people are willing to pay - not something people are willing to read and click on a link - a website is really just another form of advertising in itself [even if you have an online shop and no brick/mortar] - advertising always costs money [whether that bandwidth costs or printing costs]. If you are selling something people must be willing to pay for it for you to make a profit- otherwise find something else to offer. Don't write a 'blog' and add some ad-words.
Oh and stealing resources? Pot calling kettle black? How much is a CPU cycle worth and a kb of memory? The amount of cycles and kb I have had stolen from me in my time by flash adverts...................
If I can just keep away from my bong I will bite - I pondered when I wrote the post whether to include the word advertising.
Agreed advertsing is needed in a free and democrtic society - the problem for me comes when a company begins to 'Market' their products/services. If I have a problem - I will pay somebody to solve it - thats how I get paid [open source developer] - I solve peoples problems. I advertise my services in areas where people are expecting adverts - I don't force my message into people's faces when they are looking at one of my customers websites or using a PBX I installed. I don't aim to manipulate people in order for them to purchase my services which they maybe don't need.
Investing and producing captial doesn't seem that open-source when a large chuck of said captial is not shared equally, your examples are more valid than compared to google - google does have real value attached to it through the services it provides - they do also keep a lot of _good_ developers producing outstanding code - this doesn't mean because they use 'marketing' that marketing is not evil
I am not a master of economics but more of a 'hippy type' - quite young and naive aswell - since I was a kid [maybe I have been scared] I have seen money and wealth as being nothing more than a tool of control - it is not needed for a society to survive yet offers efficiency and organization which helps survival - but people seem to be inherently greedy - and the darwin inside them wants to make more money than the next man.....
I have not RTFA but we have a system in use already here in the UK. It is linked with the Driving Vehicle License Agency [DVLA] and Insurance companies. Lazy cops just cruise the motorway and wait for the computer to bleep.
They also have a 'special' unit which drives around with this technology which is assigned purely to 'terrorism'.
Shrugs at memory of 3 days attempting to install windows 95 on a 386... finally got there after removing the co-processor. I was young........Happy days........
Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration... that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves
Is this the beginning end of the end for the 'average' home user PC?
Why do I get the feeling Bill Gates wants everybody to have a completly locked down Xbox in their living room running a web client/directX desktop and no other PC to speak of? All media/games content we know can be streamed - now live apps are looking quite promising.
I'm never throwing a PC away again...............
Great developer, have had my mail/web server running for over a year. it's magic [pun;)].
Installation/configuration is a breeze - and emerge works:)
feel free to congratulate him to his exam results
also
http://xbox-linux.sourceforge.net/
but seems to be down - haven't checked that out for some time.
I love gentoo and Freebsd and I have an xbox - my life is now complete.
Re:No ethernet? - Gentoox been going years
on
FreeBSD Ported to XBox
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I have happily been running web/mail server on my xbox for over a year:
http://gentoox.shallax.com/
This guy is dedicated and has an interesting history with the 'offical' xbox project. This distro kicks ass.....oh and he's done all this whilst at uni and just got his results A1/A1/A1/A2:)
Intersting, repoted VNC on mine aswell. I know my machine is clean [well....] but was wondering if anybody is daring running remote assistance and if that is detected as 'spyware/hacing tool'? Also was the VNC signature in the db before microsoft bought their souls?
Slashdot Mirror
http://xkcd.com/570/
"Currently, use of intercept evidence is only allowed if it is necessary to obtain information which could not be acquired in another way, and any interception must be proportionate to what it seeks to achieve. Where it is used, appropriate protections are in place - such as closed proceedings - to safeguard national security."
"The interception of communications commissioner, a senior judge, oversees decisions on the use such evidence. An investigatory powers tribunal considers complaints from the public, and has powers to order "appropriate remedies"
In this case the US security services went to a US court to get Yahoo to give copies of the email. They did this and the emails were passed to the UK security services as evidence. In this instance the UK court/security services I assume saw this evidence as something which would not expose any sources/methods.
The key here again is using 'terrorism' to change our law and they way in which we conduct justice in this country.
People are trying to erode our justice system and the current lot are running out of time
This should not raise a debate about whether intercept evidence is admissible because it already is. This whole 'debate' is aimed to encourage the use of interception and to make it easier to convict people.
Convicting people shouldn't be easy. Sorry it shouldn't - you need evidence. Hard evidence. Intercept evidence is usually only hearsay evidence [even if it is me saying I did something] - this may help a conviction along with other 'real' evidence which has already been made admissible and proven in court. On its own it is worthless. With enough 'real' evidence I cannot see how intercept evidence needs to be used.
We are now thinking about locking up a 16 and 18 year for plotting to create a massacre at their school [though crime]. Oh they even had files on guns and bombs. This is like locking me up when I was younger for having a copy of they Jolly Roger cookbook and saying I hate school. The least we should be doing is probably trying to help this kids...
I have not used it but this seems to be a web developer clone, not sure if works on 10:
http://operawiki.info/WebDevToolbar
Quite a few nice articles on there
We are getting there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government
Quote from American Library Association:
"The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack... These actions apparently arise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals."
This trial got quite a bit of attention when the verdict was given here in the UK and I found myself wondering why so much attention for a verdict in another country. Even if it is in the EU
Obviously I didn't wonder for long.......
This world sucks.
Full document/info here:
http://www.cio.gov.uk/transformational_government/open_source/index.asp [Copy and paste of the actual 'policy' below]
The last update to this policy was 5 years ago,
Reads to me like:
-> HP/EDS/Microsoft/Accenture/$privateCompany have informed government 'advisers' they will be using more open source software. Many of these companies have 'open source' investment/business interests - Probably because there is less money being chucked at them from hedge funds/banks/gordon brown etc.
-> Government turns this into 'policy'
-> This get Spun to the BBC [UK Government back open source software]
-> I read it on slashdot
Back to private eye......
6. The Government's policy is as follows:
1. Open Source Software The Government will actively and fairly consider open source solutions alongside proprietary ones in making procurement decisions,
2. Procurement decisions will be made on the basis on the best value for money solution to the business requirement, taking account of total lifetime cost of ownership of the solution, including exit and transition costs, after ensuring that solutions fulfil minimum and essential capability, security, scalability, transferability, support and manageability requirements.
3. The Government will expect those putting forward IT solutions to develop where necessary a suitable mix of open source and proprietary products to ensure that the best possible overall solution can be considered.
4. Where there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products, open source will be selected on the basis of its additional inherent flexibility.
5. Non-Open Source Software The Government will, wherever possible, avoid becoming locked in to proprietary software. In particular it will take exit, rebid and rebuild costs into account in procurement decisions and will require those proposing proprietary software to specify how exit would be achieved.
6. Where non open source products need to be purchased, Government will expect licences to be available for all public sector use and for licences already purchased to be transferable within the public sector without further cost or limitation. The Government will where appropriate seek pan-government agreements with software suppliers which ensure that government is treated as a single entity for the purposes of volume discounts and transferability of licences.
7. Open Standards The Government will use open standards in its procurement specifications and require solutions to comply with open standards. The Government will support the development of open standards and specifications.
8. Re-Use The Government will look to secure full rights to bespoke software code or customisations of commercial off the shelf products it procures, so as to enable straightforward re-use elsewhere in the public sector. Where appropriate, general purpose software developed for government will be released on an open source basis.
9. Where the public sector already owns a system, design or architecture the Government will expect it to be reused and that commercial arrangements will recognise this. Where new development is proposed, suppliers will be required to warrant that they have not developed or produced something comparable, in whole or in part, for the public sector in the past, or where they have, to show how this is reflected in reduced costs, risks and timescale.
10. When suppliers are proposing a third party product there should be full price transparency. If there is a pan-Government agreement there should be the option to source through this where doing so would maximise overall public sector value. The Government will expect to be charged only the cost the supplier incurs unless the supplier can clearly and transparently provide evidence of the additional value created.
I also annoy myself by:
Not reading the drop down [html formatted] and not using the preview button.
Damn pesky kids and their fancy html.....
Removed the date now by switching to 'classic'
Dubai Is Building a Refrigerated Beach on Friday December 19 The date in the title annoys me...
tvlinksdb.com
There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact - Arthur Conan Doyle
If an ad-blocker downloads the content and hides it - again nothing is wasted - the fact I didn't view it is irrelevant. People use ad-blockers because they don't use the adverts which are blocked [otherwise they wouldn't block them and they would click on them]
If you are marketing a product then any marketing costs money - anyways when did we work of the equation that x adverts = y profit?
How is using ad-blocking software different from immediately placing paper adverts straight in the [recycling] bin? Or skipping the adverts in the newspaper? Or ignoring all billboards etc..?
Why should people profit just because I clicked on a link? Because capitalism rocks? Because we all want to make money as easliy and quickly as possible?
Bandwidth costs have been always been around - a website is very rarely a beast which simply makes money by having a website - you need to provide something people are willing to pay - not something people are willing to read and click on a link - a website is really just another form of advertising in itself [even if you have an online shop and no brick/mortar] - advertising always costs money [whether that bandwidth costs or printing costs]. If you are selling something people must be willing to pay for it for you to make a profit- otherwise find something else to offer. Don't write a 'blog' and add some ad-words.
Oh and stealing resources? Pot calling kettle black? How much is a CPU cycle worth and a kb of memory? The amount of cycles and kb I have had stolen from me in my time by flash adverts...................
If I can just keep away from my bong I will bite - I pondered when I wrote the post whether to include the word advertising. Agreed advertsing is needed in a free and democrtic society - the problem for me comes when a company begins to 'Market' their products/services. If I have a problem - I will pay somebody to solve it - thats how I get paid [open source developer] - I solve peoples problems. I advertise my services in areas where people are expecting adverts - I don't force my message into people's faces when they are looking at one of my customers websites or using a PBX I installed. I don't aim to manipulate people in order for them to purchase my services which they maybe don't need. Investing and producing captial doesn't seem that open-source when a large chuck of said captial is not shared equally, your examples are more valid than compared to google - google does have real value attached to it through the services it provides - they do also keep a lot of _good_ developers producing outstanding code - this doesn't mean because they use 'marketing' that marketing is not evil I am not a master of economics but more of a 'hippy type' - quite young and naive aswell - since I was a kid [maybe I have been scared] I have seen money and wealth as being nothing more than a tool of control - it is not needed for a society to survive yet offers efficiency and organization which helps survival - but people seem to be inherently greedy - and the darwin inside them wants to make more money than the next man.....
I have always thought marketing and advertising are evil :/
I have not RTFA but we have a system in use already here in the UK. It is linked with the Driving Vehicle License Agency [DVLA] and Insurance companies. Lazy cops just cruise the motorway and wait for the computer to bleep. They also have a 'special' unit which drives around with this technology which is assigned purely to 'terrorism'.
Shrugs at memory of 3 days attempting to install windows 95 on a 386... finally got there after removing the co-processor. I was young........Happy days........
Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration... that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves
Is this the beginning end of the end for the 'average' home user PC? Why do I get the feeling Bill Gates wants everybody to have a completly locked down Xbox in their living room running a web client/directX desktop and no other PC to speak of? All media/games content we know can be streamed - now live apps are looking quite promising. I'm never throwing a PC away again...............
http://www.uknova.com/
http://gentoox.shallax.com/
;)].
:)
Great developer, have had my mail/web server running for over a year. it's magic [pun
Installation/configuration is a breeze - and emerge works
feel free to congratulate him to his exam results
also
http://xbox-linux.sourceforge.net/
but seems to be down - haven't checked that out for some time.
I love gentoo and Freebsd and I have an xbox - my life is now complete.
I have happily been running web/mail server on my xbox for over a year: http://gentoox.shallax.com/ This guy is dedicated and has an interesting history with the 'offical' xbox project. This distro kicks ass.....oh and he's done all this whilst at uni and just got his results A1/A1/A1/A2 :)
Intersting, repoted VNC on mine aswell. I know my machine is clean [well....] but was wondering if anybody is daring running remote assistance and if that is detected as 'spyware/hacing tool'? Also was the VNC signature in the db before microsoft bought their souls?