Only if you don't value time spent trying out both
And how is this worse than having to accept whatever version of Windows is supplied with the computer? They have to try it to find out whether they like it. At least with linux you have a choice.
People shouldn't have to have an interest in computers to use Linux
Again you are making a comparison which doesn't exist. People don't have to have an interest in either Linux or Windows to use them. If they want they can learn either by personal experience, or they can ask others for their advice, or they can read any number of journals on the subject. The point that I am making is that there is advice available from numerous sources for those that want it, for any OS, car or, in fact, almost any other consumable item. TFA is saying that the choice of linux distributions confuses potential users. I contend that it doesn't do so to any significant degree, or at least no more so than choosing any other product. People are not born with an inherent knowledge of any OS including Windows. They have to learn what they like about an OS by experience or gaining knowledge second-hand. This is the same for any OS and therefore has no place in a discussion on the differences between linux and any other OS.
I am recently retired, but I do have some knowledge in this area. You can either accept that statement at face value or not. There is nothing that I am allowed to say or do that will convince you otherwise.
Well, not quite.
My description of what they are trying to do is accurate. I cannot convince you otherwise so on this point there is little I can say that will make you feel any better.
This is not due process, innocent-until-proven-guilty stuff.
If you challenge it in court then you will have the opportunity to prove your innocence. However, most people believe that they will be found guilty in this particular set of circumstances (often either because they know that they were driving at the time, or to protect someone who was driving but was not eligible to do so e.g. was not insured or had no licence) and they do not bother to challenge it. If they do challenge it, then the weak point in their defence is often because they cannot explain who was driving the vehicle if, as they claim, they were not. I did mention that the law expects you to remember who you gave consent to if you, yourself, are not the driver. Simply saying "I wasn't driving but I don't remember who was..." suggests to the court that you are lying. But if you are being truthful and can point the finger at someone else, then you will be found innocent. If you are innocent you can have your costs refunded. But, as you say, many people just roll over. That is their problem.
Sure, after losing anything up to a month of it.
Many of those for whom there was no case to answer (and I hope I have typed it correctly this time) were never in custody. In some cases, they were arrested and released on bail. They were free to continue their life as usual. I did point out they were not in solitary on a diet of bread and water. In many cases they were not even detained although they were, of course, aware that they were part of a police investigation. I am not underplaying the effect of being arrested has on someone but they were never charged and there is nothing on their record. If the police did detain people and they were subsequently released without charge it is still covered by the normal rules of law. It is not as a result of camera surveillance in particular. And again, not being able to convince a court of someone's guilt does not mean that you do not have sufficient reason to believe that they are guilty of a specific crime, you simply cannot prove it so they are free to go. You will, of course, hear of the cases such as these. Unfortunately, because of the Official Secrets Act you will not be kept informed of successful police operations in anything other than the briefest of comments because of the need to protect ongoing and future investigations or sources of intelligence. There have been significant successes which have been referred to by politicians. (Liken this, if you will, to the Portuguese police saying next to nothing regarding the case of Maddie. They cannot for very good legal reasons, but it doesn't imply that they are not doing anything.) The result is that the public doubt that the threat is as serious as some would suggest and, therefore, the security measures are not justified. Alternatively, we can protect individual freedoms and then have the situation where known individuals were able to conduct attacks in London without being prevented. The police are then criticised for not having taken action sooner. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
... but they are building the database to keep that full record as well.
Yes, I know. It can be used to identify the movement of vehicles once it is known that a crime has been committed. There is no-one keeping records of personal movements. When a crime has to be investigated, it takes considerable man-hours and effort to compile the data. It is NOT simply a case of aski
So why not reverse the bias, and allow the police to designate vehicles of interest so they can be flagged and investigated further if the system picks them up?
That's EXACTLY what is being proposed here. If a vehicle that the counter-terrorist police have flagged up as being of interest appears in London, they will be told about it! That didn't happen until this change came into effect because the data was only used for congestion management purposes.
The police are deliberately building a nationwide network of ANPR-enabled cameras
Yes they are but ANPR identifies vehicles, you know, the things with wheels on. NOT people. They haven't got a clue who is in which vehicle unless they make the assumption that one of the people is the owner - and that is only a guess - or the vehicle is already under police surveillance using other assets. Nobody is tracking people to the extent that you believe they are.
I'm simply demonstrating that the suspicions raised by all these so-called anti-terrorist techniques are wrong, a lot.
So the police conduct an investigation, find that the person is innocent (i.e. their suspicions were unfounded), and the person is allowed to continue with their life. They weren't all incarcerated in solitary confinement on a diet of bread and water. What is being reported is a normal police activity and, when it relates to those accused of burglary, assault, shop-lifting, jay-walking, throwing stones through windows or whatever, it doesn't raise an eyebrow. If the police cannot find the evidence for a case the person is innocent. In this particular instance someone managed to spin it by pointing out the statistics when applied to those suspected of involvement with terrorism. Sounds much more important, doesn't it? But it isn't. And how does this figure compare with the number of people investigated for other offences and subsequently found to have to charge to answer? Is it more? Or less? Or is it just a sensational figure (even if accurate) that is meant to sell a particular viewpoint?
I think I've shown beyond any doubt that your denial of mass surveillance is wishful thinking.
But you haven't done anything of the sort. They are watching vehicles - NOT people. Re-read it a few times until you can understand the difference. And it does not provide a full record of every vehicles' movements. It flags up those that have irregularities (no licence, no MOT etc) in real time so that traffic police can stop the vehicle and take action. If you object to the police enforcing the law then you need to start another discussion because that is not what this thread is about in my view. If a vehicle is already identified as being 'of interest' then that is also flagged up so that the appropriate action can be taken. All other vehicles (and this is the point that I think you object to) are simply logged so that, in the event of one being subsequently linked to a crime, then the database can be searched to discover its movements at the relevant times. The police can at no point recognise the occupants of the vehicle (although that technology might be close it is not here yet) so the only assumption that they can make is that the legal owner is one of the occupants. That it is your vehicle, on its own and without additional evidence, is not sufficient evidence to prove that were in a certain place in a court of law - this has been tested and already thrown out. However, if the car is being driven with the owner's consent he is expected to reasonably know to whom he gave that consent and thus be able to identify the driver if asked to do so by a legally competent authority. So, unless you are continually telling the police that you were driving your vehicle today, they don't have the faintest idea where you have been. But they might know where your vehicle was.
But you don't have to choose between KDE or Gnome, you can have both. In fact, you have all options these available at no extra cost. But to counter your own argument, people are not born with an inherent knowledge of spoilers, turbos and big rims. They learn about these things over time and by having an interest in the subject. They don't have to be forced fed the information, but they pick it up by talking with other people who have the same interests and they learn from them. Why should software be any different? Until you have used both Gnome of KDE, it is difficult to know which one suits you personally. You can accept the advice from magazines or websites, you can talk to those who have an opinion or you can try them both and discover it all for yourself. That's not a bad way of choosing a car or a distro.
As well as cross-checking number plates against stolen and suspect vehicles logged in the Police National Computer, the camera network will also be used to check that vehicles are lawfully licensed, insured and that their MOT test certificates are up to date.
I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to your link. Where in the above does it state that each individual is being tracked? Vehicles are checked for legal compliance with the relevant laws. Vehicle movements will be recorded to show the movement of that vehicle but that does not identify the occupant(s). If my car was stolen and this assisted the police in recovering it, I would be quite content They still wouldn't know where I have been, only where my car has been. And this system is not new but it already has been invaluable for tracking the movements of the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers retrospectively i.e. the data has to be searched, it does not provide a list of the movements of every vehicle automatically. There is no legal justification for such a system nor has approval been given for one. The new addition that is being debated in the thread is the use of data from London's congestion cameras so quoting this is something of a red-herring although I can see its relevance to the topic under discussion.
That clearly isn't true: use of cameras for crime prevention unquestionably is in the public interest.
No, the committee decided that, although such a usage could be justified on the grounds of crime prevention, it would NOT be justified on the grounds of intrusion and invasion of privacy. One could take your argument further, surveillance via congestion cameras could be used to prevent many different crimes but this has been, at least for the time being, ruled out. It is not what the cameras were installed for and there is currently insufficient justification for misusing the cameras for such a purpose. This is, in my opinion, a balanced result.
Did you know that one of the recent leaks suggested that simply driving along in front of or behind a suspect's vehicle could put your own car on a watch list?
Yes I do. It is a known counter-surveillance technique and a way of facilitating communication between the occupants of two vehicles. However, simply being in that position does not automatically make your vehicle of interest simply because it will happen thousands of times unintentionally and it is clear that not every vehicle is associated with the potential terrorist. But, if your name was already on the database as being someone of interest (but the vehicle that you are driving is not connected with you) or if you carried out some other activity which appeared intended to prevent or confuse police surveillance then your vehicle ID could well be added to the list.
You make the flawed assumption that in such cases, someone will die if there is no time to convince a judge to award a warrant.
It is not a question of time. Under data protection laws the police would never know that the vehicle of interest had appeared in London, so they would never have the opportunity to apply for a warrant. If sufficient justification exists that I believe a warrant would be applied for and, subject to the judges consent, issued. But where there is insufficient evidence (as has been the case in 2 cases recently) then the police will not apply for a warrant. However, if a vehicle that is of interest (but for which no warrant is extant) travels, for example, from the Midlands to London and is parked for a period of time close to the home of a another person believed by the police to be linked to terrorism and then is parked in a London street there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to justify additional police interest. But, unless the ANPR data is passed to counter terrorist police, they will remain blissfully unaware that the sequence of events has actually taken place. I stress it is only for vehicles that are already on the database but, in those instances, then prudent intervention by the police to prevent a possible explosion is a wise precaution. And I am not suggesting that warrants should not have judicial oversight. On the contrary, it is an essential part of the overall system and does protect many innocent people from unjustified police interest. The issue here is a borderline issue where the police are building a case but where the individual concerned might be taking action before the police have sufficient evidence to apply for a warrant, either for an arrest or for surveillance. What is being proposed is not a blanket approval of future police abuse but simply ensuring that counter-terrorist police have all the data that is available on persons already of interest to them.
They are deliberately tracking everybody
You can repeat it as much as you like but it does not make it true. All vehicles that are identified by the congestion cameras in London are identified but, until today, that information was not made available to the police for any purpose other than congestion control. The system does not 'track' the movement of vehicles automatically. It is used to make sure that those who enter certain parts of London have paid for that privilege. But even everyo
You are expected to just drop rubbish on the ground.
No, you are not! Take it home with you and dispose of it the correct place. Just because you are a slob doesn't mean that we expect the whole of society act in the same way. Unfortunately, there are sufficient people who think like you that we have to hire an army of low paid workers who go around cleaning up after you. It's a little odd. No, its far worse than that, but I don't expect you to change.
Because the vehicles that were used were known to the police beforehand, but they didn't have (weren't allowed to know!) the fact that the vehicles had turned up in London. See my post elsewhere in this thread.
You are entitled to be paranoid, perhaps even justified. But you must also be prepared to think of alternatives to your existing beliefs.
The police have been criticised during recent cases because it has become apparent that the individuals concerned were known to the police before they conducted whatever attack they are accused of but the police had insufficient resources to maintain 24 hour surveillance on each individual it has in its database. The known individuals have associated data linked to them which includes any vehicle that they own or are known to be associated with.
Accessing the ANPR data in real time would mean that they would get alerted if a vehicle that is on the database is identified by any camera anywhere in London which, up to now, has been the prime target for most of the attacks. But the police have not been allowed to do so because they could not have the access without applying for a separate warrant for each individual. Having a name on a database is not the same as having sufficient evidence to persuade a judge that a warrant for surveillance should be granted. Now, what a dilemma. We have the information available but we cannot give it to the police because they haven't got a warrant until someone gets killed. But how do we protect people and try to prevent them from getting killed?
Well someone, in fact a whole committee, has sat down and used common sense. They accept that widespread use of the cameras for all crime prevention would be against the public interest. They have not approved such a use. But to have the information to save lives and not use it is negligence. Neither the police nor the Government should be guilty of negligence. The solution is a pragmatic one. It has been decided that the information will be limited to counter terrorist police and security forces but, if a vehicle of note is identified in London then those police authorised to receive such information should be notified immediately - without a specific warrant being required - so that they can try to prevent an attack from taking place.
They are NOT tracking everybody. This CAN prevent some attacks from being successful, but ONLY in London and ONLY for vehicles that have already been identified as being of interest. This is just about as measured a response as is possible taking into account everyone's rights and interests.
There will be some, perhaps even yourself, who will scoff and claim that this is a useless measure. If so, please enlighten us all as to your preferred solution to the problem. I think that this is an acceptable compromise which, if it proves to be of value, should be extended to all cameras in the UK, not just those in London. There are cameras at Glasgow airport. The vehicle was known several hours before the attack took place but there was insufficient evidence to apply for a warrant.
Anti-terror police includes officers from the Special Branch, which directly supports MI5. MI5 collects the intelligence, conducts the surveillance etc but arrests are conducted by Special Branch Officers.
How many different models/marques of cars (automobiles) are there? The good ones survive and get developed and the less popular ones disappear. I haven't noticed anyone crying out that everybody is getting confused regarding which model to buy. They look at what they want from a car, narrow down the field to a reasonable number of choices and then make their decision. But there will always be a place for a vehicle that has a specific role or function - farm tractor, fork-lift truck, armoured vehicle etc. It is the same with distros.
So perhaps we do agree, after all. What is required is better Government accountability. The system of taxation can be fixed. If it could be based more fairly upon wealth and income then the burden would be the same across society even though we would all contribute different amounts. Some will argue that this is precisely what we have today; I do not believe that the balance is correct. Dependence upon charity is not reliable nor do charities have the resources to cope with health care. The argument regarding who provides the best service is, in my opinion, not quite on the mark. I am not arguing who should do the work but where the funding comes from. If charity workers could receive funding derived from taxes then we might be able to get the best of both worlds, or at least an improvement on the current situation. But it will not happen. Those who control the purse strings will impose too much bureaucracy which will either reduce the effectiveness of charity workers or simply dissuade them from even beginning in the first instance.
I think that we will never agree because we are approaching this from 2 entirely different points of origin. In the UK, where I was born and lived until recently, we have had a national health service since 1948. It has functioned well (not perfectly but no system I have seen is perfect) and provided treatment based upon need and not upon the ability to pay. The costs are borne by all taxpayers.
Within the last decade or so, the health bill has grown faster than inflation and it is proving difficult to meet the needs of all the demands placed upon it. There is considerable evidence that obesity is a growing problem and I have seen sufficient evidence from doctors (whom I will believe) that this is caused, in part at least, by incorrect diet and lack of exercise (you can Google for this as easily as I can). They also can show that several other medical conditions are directly linked to obesity. The solution for this is, to me, quite clear but it is unacceptable to you. On this point we must differ. However, your argument that, if we don't pay taxes, then we have more money to pay for our medical treatment might work for you because I assume that you are employed and can afford the treatment. What about those on low incomes, or the unemployed? Is it right that they should be denied treatment simply because of their situation? I don't accept this as necessary in this day and age.
Under the UK system we must strive to minimise the costs of the health service but the cost of running it should be borne by all of those who might expect to benefit from it according to their ability to do so. We think this is a fair system. The running costs can be reduced by reducing the costs of treating unavoidable conditions. This is not a matter of coercion but rather one of education. However, where there are those who simply refuse to accept commonsense, then the Government has the right to expect something from them if they wish to continue to receive health care. Plainly put - if they refuse to look after themselves then the NHS has the right to limit the health care that it provides because it cannot continue to throw money away needlessly. Every (decent) government makes a set of rules for its citizens to follow which provide a society which is acceptable to all and equitable, or at least as far as it is practicable so to do. This is not 'scary', nor do I believe that my mentality is 'scary'. The government must manage the health care system as best it can and it is trying to do exactly as you suggest i.e. make them accountable for their own actions.
You criticised me for making assertions that I haven't supported by a link to the evidence - precisely as you have done: In general, people who are overweight are healthier than those who BMIs are 'normal'. While I can be convinced that this might be the case in a few instances I would require far more evidence to convince me to accept your statement that it applies to the majority, or however you care to define "in general".
We must agree to differ. But thank you for the chance to discuss this with you and to hear another viewpoint. I hope that you have enjoyed it as much as I have.
You are the second person to ask that question. I can understand why, but I hope that you will understand why I am going to decline - if I answer you will then have an ID and my bank. Others who look at/. know my email address, where I live, and other personal details. I don't expect you to ask for my account number and password but someone else might use a little bit of knowledge to try to go one step further. It is very unlikely that you will be changing to the bank that I use. Paranoid, me? Yep, but I would expect that most people on/. would respond the same way.
What prevents both the local cable company and the local phone company from requiring the use of an approved and unmodified operating system, effectively Tivoizing any computer connected to the Internet through its last mile?
I don't live in the USA. It works differently here:-)
You are undoubtedly far more qualified than I to solve this problem. My limited search on 'teh interweb thingy' always seems to suggest a crop rotation which includes vegetables which, for reasons which I don't pretend to understand, don't mix with your type of farming. Perhaps you could leave a field fallow for a year? Not much profit in that, of course, but if you can't sell the corn anyway then the extra time that you save might be useful to you. But, as you can tell, this is most certainly not my area of expertise. Then again, since I've retired, I'm not quite sure what is.....
They could grow vegetables, I've heard that people eat them. They could grow soya beans. There is quite a demand for soya products. But if the farmers cannot produce anything that anyone wants, you might ask yourself why you need the farmers at all. As you said, you already have more than enough corn. Why not ask what the third world needs and try growing that? Then you keep the farmers employed and you have a product that somebody wants. As I said previously, I don't expect the farmers to like my suggestion and, in your quote you used 'we' and not 'they' Are you a farmer, perchance?
No, I looked at http://www.spreadfirefox.com/ and searched for "FX". It doesn't even appear on that page. Would you care to back up your claim, because I have only ever seen Firefox abbreviated as FF. I haven't a clue what Final Fantasy is - a game perhaps?
Bloody hell, it's people like you who spread a false information
Slashdot Mirror
And how is this worse than having to accept whatever version of Windows is supplied with the computer? They have to try it to find out whether they like it. At least with linux you have a choice.
People shouldn't have to have an interest in computers to use LinuxAgain you are making a comparison which doesn't exist. People don't have to have an interest in either Linux or Windows to use them. If they want they can learn either by personal experience, or they can ask others for their advice, or they can read any number of journals on the subject. The point that I am making is that there is advice available from numerous sources for those that want it, for any OS, car or, in fact, almost any other consumable item. TFA is saying that the choice of linux distributions confuses potential users. I contend that it doesn't do so to any significant degree, or at least no more so than choosing any other product. People are not born with an inherent knowledge of any OS including Windows. They have to learn what they like about an OS by experience or gaining knowledge second-hand. This is the same for any OS and therefore has no place in a discussion on the differences between linux and any other OS.
I am recently retired, but I do have some knowledge in this area. You can either accept that statement at face value or not. There is nothing that I am allowed to say or do that will convince you otherwise.
Well, not quite.
My description of what they are trying to do is accurate. I cannot convince you otherwise so on this point there is little I can say that will make you feel any better.
This is not due process, innocent-until-proven-guilty stuff.
If you challenge it in court then you will have the opportunity to prove your innocence. However, most people believe that they will be found guilty in this particular set of circumstances (often either because they know that they were driving at the time, or to protect someone who was driving but was not eligible to do so e.g. was not insured or had no licence) and they do not bother to challenge it. If they do challenge it, then the weak point in their defence is often because they cannot explain who was driving the vehicle if, as they claim, they were not. I did mention that the law expects you to remember who you gave consent to if you, yourself, are not the driver. Simply saying "I wasn't driving but I don't remember who was..." suggests to the court that you are lying. But if you are being truthful and can point the finger at someone else, then you will be found innocent. If you are innocent you can have your costs refunded. But, as you say, many people just roll over. That is their problem.
Sure, after losing anything up to a month of it.
Many of those for whom there was no case to answer (and I hope I have typed it correctly this time) were never in custody. In some cases, they were arrested and released on bail. They were free to continue their life as usual. I did point out they were not in solitary on a diet of bread and water. In many cases they were not even detained although they were, of course, aware that they were part of a police investigation. I am not underplaying the effect of being arrested has on someone but they were never charged and there is nothing on their record. If the police did detain people and they were subsequently released without charge it is still covered by the normal rules of law. It is not as a result of camera surveillance in particular. And again, not being able to convince a court of someone's guilt does not mean that you do not have sufficient reason to believe that they are guilty of a specific crime, you simply cannot prove it so they are free to go. You will, of course, hear of the cases such as these. Unfortunately, because of the Official Secrets Act you will not be kept informed of successful police operations in anything other than the briefest of comments because of the need to protect ongoing and future investigations or sources of intelligence. There have been significant successes which have been referred to by politicians. (Liken this, if you will, to the Portuguese police saying next to nothing regarding the case of Maddie. They cannot for very good legal reasons, but it doesn't imply that they are not doing anything.) The result is that the public doubt that the threat is as serious as some would suggest and, therefore, the security measures are not justified. Alternatively, we can protect individual freedoms and then have the situation where known individuals were able to conduct attacks in London without being prevented. The police are then criticised for not having taken action sooner. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
... but they are building the database to keep that full record as well.
Yes, I know. It can be used to identify the movement of vehicles once it is known that a crime has been committed. There is no-one keeping records of personal movements. When a crime has to be investigated, it takes considerable man-hours and effort to compile the data. It is NOT simply a case of aski
Sorry - that should read "... have no charge to answer?". Previewed it, read it, and still managed to get a mistake in there :-)
That's EXACTLY what is being proposed here. If a vehicle that the counter-terrorist police have flagged up as being of interest appears in London, they will be told about it! That didn't happen until this change came into effect because the data was only used for congestion management purposes.
The police are deliberately building a nationwide network of ANPR-enabled camerasYes they are but ANPR identifies vehicles, you know, the things with wheels on. NOT people. They haven't got a clue who is in which vehicle unless they make the assumption that one of the people is the owner - and that is only a guess - or the vehicle is already under police surveillance using other assets. Nobody is tracking people to the extent that you believe they are.
I'm simply demonstrating that the suspicions raised by all these so-called anti-terrorist techniques are wrong, a lot.So the police conduct an investigation, find that the person is innocent (i.e. their suspicions were unfounded), and the person is allowed to continue with their life. They weren't all incarcerated in solitary confinement on a diet of bread and water. What is being reported is a normal police activity and, when it relates to those accused of burglary, assault, shop-lifting, jay-walking, throwing stones through windows or whatever, it doesn't raise an eyebrow. If the police cannot find the evidence for a case the person is innocent. In this particular instance someone managed to spin it by pointing out the statistics when applied to those suspected of involvement with terrorism. Sounds much more important, doesn't it? But it isn't. And how does this figure compare with the number of people investigated for other offences and subsequently found to have to charge to answer? Is it more? Or less? Or is it just a sensational figure (even if accurate) that is meant to sell a particular viewpoint?
I think I've shown beyond any doubt that your denial of mass surveillance is wishful thinking.But you haven't done anything of the sort. They are watching vehicles - NOT people. Re-read it a few times until you can understand the difference. And it does not provide a full record of every vehicles' movements. It flags up those that have irregularities (no licence, no MOT etc) in real time so that traffic police can stop the vehicle and take action. If you object to the police enforcing the law then you need to start another discussion because that is not what this thread is about in my view. If a vehicle is already identified as being 'of interest' then that is also flagged up so that the appropriate action can be taken. All other vehicles (and this is the point that I think you object to) are simply logged so that, in the event of one being subsequently linked to a crime, then the database can be searched to discover its movements at the relevant times. The police can at no point recognise the occupants of the vehicle (although that technology might be close it is not here yet) so the only assumption that they can make is that the legal owner is one of the occupants. That it is your vehicle, on its own and without additional evidence, is not sufficient evidence to prove that were in a certain place in a court of law - this has been tested and already thrown out. However, if the car is being driven with the owner's consent he is expected to reasonably know to whom he gave that consent and thus be able to identify the driver if asked to do so by a legally competent authority. So, unless you are continually telling the police that you were driving your vehicle today, they don't have the faintest idea where you have been. But they might know where your vehicle was.
But you don't have to choose between KDE or Gnome, you can have both. In fact, you have all options these available at no extra cost. But to counter your own argument, people are not born with an inherent knowledge of spoilers, turbos and big rims. They learn about these things over time and by having an interest in the subject. They don't have to be forced fed the information, but they pick it up by talking with other people who have the same interests and they learn from them. Why should software be any different? Until you have used both Gnome of KDE, it is difficult to know which one suits you personally. You can accept the advice from magazines or websites, you can talk to those who have an opinion or you can try them both and discover it all for yourself. That's not a bad way of choosing a car or a distro.
I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to your link. Where in the above does it state that each individual is being tracked? Vehicles are checked for legal compliance with the relevant laws. Vehicle movements will be recorded to show the movement of that vehicle but that does not identify the occupant(s). If my car was stolen and this assisted the police in recovering it, I would be quite content They still wouldn't know where I have been, only where my car has been. And this system is not new but it already has been invaluable for tracking the movements of the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers retrospectively i.e. the data has to be searched, it does not provide a list of the movements of every vehicle automatically. There is no legal justification for such a system nor has approval been given for one. The new addition that is being debated in the thread is the use of data from London's congestion cameras so quoting this is something of a red-herring although I can see its relevance to the topic under discussion.
That clearly isn't true: use of cameras for crime prevention unquestionably is in the public interest.
No, the committee decided that, although such a usage could be justified on the grounds of crime prevention, it would NOT be justified on the grounds of intrusion and invasion of privacy. One could take your argument further, surveillance via congestion cameras could be used to prevent many different crimes but this has been, at least for the time being, ruled out. It is not what the cameras were installed for and there is currently insufficient justification for misusing the cameras for such a purpose. This is, in my opinion, a balanced result.
Did you know that one of the recent leaks suggested that simply driving along in front of or behind a suspect's vehicle could put your own car on a watch list?
Yes I do. It is a known counter-surveillance technique and a way of facilitating communication between the occupants of two vehicles. However, simply being in that position does not automatically make your vehicle of interest simply because it will happen thousands of times unintentionally and it is clear that not every vehicle is associated with the potential terrorist. But, if your name was already on the database as being someone of interest (but the vehicle that you are driving is not connected with you) or if you carried out some other activity which appeared intended to prevent or confuse police surveillance then your vehicle ID could well be added to the list.
You make the flawed assumption that in such cases, someone will die if there is no time to convince a judge to award a warrant.
It is not a question of time. Under data protection laws the police would never know that the vehicle of interest had appeared in London, so they would never have the opportunity to apply for a warrant. If sufficient justification exists that I believe a warrant would be applied for and, subject to the judges consent, issued. But where there is insufficient evidence (as has been the case in 2 cases recently) then the police will not apply for a warrant. However, if a vehicle that is of interest (but for which no warrant is extant) travels, for example, from the Midlands to London and is parked for a period of time close to the home of a another person believed by the police to be linked to terrorism and then is parked in a London street there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to justify additional police interest. But, unless the ANPR data is passed to counter terrorist police, they will remain blissfully unaware that the sequence of events has actually taken place. I stress it is only for vehicles that are already on the database but, in those instances, then prudent intervention by the police to prevent a possible explosion is a wise precaution. And I am not suggesting that warrants should not have judicial oversight. On the contrary, it is an essential part of the overall system and does protect many innocent people from unjustified police interest. The issue here is a borderline issue where the police are building a case but where the individual concerned might be taking action before the police have sufficient evidence to apply for a warrant, either for an arrest or for surveillance. What is being proposed is not a blanket approval of future police abuse but simply ensuring that counter-terrorist police have all the data that is available on persons already of interest to them.
They are deliberately tracking everybody
You can repeat it as much as you like but it does not make it true. All vehicles that are identified by the congestion cameras in London are identified but, until today, that information was not made available to the police for any purpose other than congestion control. The system does not 'track' the movement of vehicles automatically. It is used to make sure that those who enter certain parts of London have paid for that privilege. But even everyo
No, you are not! Take it home with you and dispose of it the correct place. Just because you are a slob doesn't mean that we expect the whole of society act in the same way. Unfortunately, there are sufficient people who think like you that we have to hire an army of low paid workers who go around cleaning up after you. It's a little odd. No, its far worse than that, but I don't expect you to change.
Because the vehicles that were used were known to the police beforehand, but they didn't have (weren't allowed to know!) the fact that the vehicles had turned up in London. See my post elsewhere in this thread.
You are entitled to be paranoid, perhaps even justified. But you must also be prepared to think of alternatives to your existing beliefs.
The police have been criticised during recent cases because it has become apparent that the individuals concerned were known to the police before they conducted whatever attack they are accused of but the police had insufficient resources to maintain 24 hour surveillance on each individual it has in its database. The known individuals have associated data linked to them which includes any vehicle that they own or are known to be associated with.
Accessing the ANPR data in real time would mean that they would get alerted if a vehicle that is on the database is identified by any camera anywhere in London which, up to now, has been the prime target for most of the attacks. But the police have not been allowed to do so because they could not have the access without applying for a separate warrant for each individual. Having a name on a database is not the same as having sufficient evidence to persuade a judge that a warrant for surveillance should be granted. Now, what a dilemma. We have the information available but we cannot give it to the police because they haven't got a warrant until someone gets killed. But how do we protect people and try to prevent them from getting killed?
Well someone, in fact a whole committee, has sat down and used common sense. They accept that widespread use of the cameras for all crime prevention would be against the public interest. They have not approved such a use. But to have the information to save lives and not use it is negligence. Neither the police nor the Government should be guilty of negligence. The solution is a pragmatic one. It has been decided that the information will be limited to counter terrorist police and security forces but, if a vehicle of note is identified in London then those police authorised to receive such information should be notified immediately - without a specific warrant being required - so that they can try to prevent an attack from taking place.
They are NOT tracking everybody. This CAN prevent some attacks from being successful, but ONLY in London and ONLY for vehicles that have already been identified as being of interest. This is just about as measured a response as is possible taking into account everyone's rights and interests.
There will be some, perhaps even yourself, who will scoff and claim that this is a useless measure. If so, please enlighten us all as to your preferred solution to the problem. I think that this is an acceptable compromise which, if it proves to be of value, should be extended to all cameras in the UK, not just those in London. There are cameras at Glasgow airport. The vehicle was known several hours before the attack took place but there was insufficient evidence to apply for a warrant.
http://www.met.police.uk/so/special_branch.htm Sorry, I forgot to provide the link.
Anti-terror police includes officers from the Special Branch, which directly supports MI5. MI5 collects the intelligence, conducts the surveillance etc but arrests are conducted by Special Branch Officers.
How many different models/marques of cars (automobiles) are there? The good ones survive and get developed and the less popular ones disappear. I haven't noticed anyone crying out that everybody is getting confused regarding which model to buy. They look at what they want from a car, narrow down the field to a reasonable number of choices and then make their decision. But there will always be a place for a vehicle that has a specific role or function - farm tractor, fork-lift truck, armoured vehicle etc. It is the same with distros.
So perhaps we do agree, after all. What is required is better Government accountability. The system of taxation can be fixed. If it could be based more fairly upon wealth and income then the burden would be the same across society even though we would all contribute different amounts. Some will argue that this is precisely what we have today; I do not believe that the balance is correct. Dependence upon charity is not reliable nor do charities have the resources to cope with health care. The argument regarding who provides the best service is, in my opinion, not quite on the mark. I am not arguing who should do the work but where the funding comes from. If charity workers could receive funding derived from taxes then we might be able to get the best of both worlds, or at least an improvement on the current situation. But it will not happen. Those who control the purse strings will impose too much bureaucracy which will either reduce the effectiveness of charity workers or simply dissuade them from even beginning in the first instance.
I think that we will never agree because we are approaching this from 2 entirely different points of origin. In the UK, where I was born and lived until recently, we have had a national health service since 1948. It has functioned well (not perfectly but no system I have seen is perfect) and provided treatment based upon need and not upon the ability to pay. The costs are borne by all taxpayers.
Within the last decade or so, the health bill has grown faster than inflation and it is proving difficult to meet the needs of all the demands placed upon it. There is considerable evidence that obesity is a growing problem and I have seen sufficient evidence from doctors (whom I will believe) that this is caused, in part at least, by incorrect diet and lack of exercise (you can Google for this as easily as I can). They also can show that several other medical conditions are directly linked to obesity. The solution for this is, to me, quite clear but it is unacceptable to you. On this point we must differ. However, your argument that, if we don't pay taxes, then we have more money to pay for our medical treatment might work for you because I assume that you are employed and can afford the treatment. What about those on low incomes, or the unemployed? Is it right that they should be denied treatment simply because of their situation? I don't accept this as necessary in this day and age.
Under the UK system we must strive to minimise the costs of the health service but the cost of running it should be borne by all of those who might expect to benefit from it according to their ability to do so. We think this is a fair system. The running costs can be reduced by reducing the costs of treating unavoidable conditions. This is not a matter of coercion but rather one of education. However, where there are those who simply refuse to accept commonsense, then the Government has the right to expect something from them if they wish to continue to receive health care. Plainly put - if they refuse to look after themselves then the NHS has the right to limit the health care that it provides because it cannot continue to throw money away needlessly. Every (decent) government makes a set of rules for its citizens to follow which provide a society which is acceptable to all and equitable, or at least as far as it is practicable so to do. This is not 'scary', nor do I believe that my mentality is 'scary'. The government must manage the health care system as best it can and it is trying to do exactly as you suggest i.e. make them accountable for their own actions.
You criticised me for making assertions that I haven't supported by a link to the evidence - precisely as you have done: In general, people who are overweight are healthier than those who BMIs are 'normal'. While I can be convinced that this might be the case in a few instances I would require far more evidence to convince me to accept your statement that it applies to the majority, or however you care to define "in general".
We must agree to differ. But thank you for the chance to discuss this with you and to hear another viewpoint. I hope that you have enjoyed it as much as I have.
Whoosh.....?
Can you recall ever seeing a fight in the British Parliament? I can't, or have I missed the point of your post?
You are the second person to ask that question. I can understand why, but I hope that you will understand why I am going to decline - if I answer you will then have an ID and my bank. Others who look at /. know my email address, where I live, and other personal details. I don't expect you to ask for my account number and password but someone else might use a little bit of knowledge to try to go one step further. It is very unlikely that you will be changing to the bank that I use. Paranoid, me? Yep, but I would expect that most people on /. would respond the same way.
Yes, I know. I am not saying anything different.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59
I don't live in the USA. It works differently here :-)
You are undoubtedly far more qualified than I to solve this problem. My limited search on 'teh interweb thingy' always seems to suggest a crop rotation which includes vegetables which, for reasons which I don't pretend to understand, don't mix with your type of farming. Perhaps you could leave a field fallow for a year? Not much profit in that, of course, but if you can't sell the corn anyway then the extra time that you save might be useful to you. But, as you can tell, this is most certainly not my area of expertise. Then again, since I've retired, I'm not quite sure what is .....
I hope that you find a solution to your dilemma.
They could grow vegetables, I've heard that people eat them. They could grow soya beans. There is quite a demand for soya products. But if the farmers cannot produce anything that anyone wants, you might ask yourself why you need the farmers at all. As you said, you already have more than enough corn. Why not ask what the third world needs and try growing that? Then you keep the farmers employed and you have a product that somebody wants. As I said previously, I don't expect the farmers to like my suggestion and, in your quote you used 'we' and not 'they' Are you a farmer, perchance?
No, I looked at http://www.spreadfirefox.com/ and searched for "FX". It doesn't even appear on that page. Would you care to back up your claim, because I have only ever seen Firefox abbreviated as FF. I haven't a clue what Final Fantasy is - a game perhaps?
Bloody hell, it's people like you who spread a false information
Crop rotation can include things other than corn. Some countries don't grow corn at all but still manage to rotate their crops.