UK signs deal to share police biometric database with US border guards The UK has signed up to a US plan for sharing police-held biometric data about citizens with US border officials. According to a member of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), the body met "informally" with representatives of the US Department of Homeland Security this week …
"Here in Scotland the rules are different. Just arrested they must destroy."
Must - who checks that? I can assure you they don't, unless that is a recent rule change. I asked them why they'd stop taking my DNA swabs a decade ago - "We've already got it." "So why do you keep taking my fingerprints?" "That goes on the paperwork."
Let's require that this principal is applied to cell phones - make manufacturers guarantee that a phone works for three years and then allow users to request a further two years of functionality. LOL, yes, apply this idea to devices people buy and the governments will laugh.
I did not see anything along the lines of "US signs deal to share police biometric database with UK border guards". My expectations of the UK government are so low that I would have been shocked to see anything of the kind. Perhaps one day we will find out how much UK tax payers paid for the privilege of this one-sided deal.
I do wonder why the USA is so concerned about border security. I mean if they were concerned about innocent Americans being killed it would make sense to stop risky incomers, but then:
"Firearms deaths are a fixture in American life.
There were 1.5 million of them between 1968 and 2017 - that's higher than the number of soldiers killed in every US conflict since the American War for Independence in 1775.
In 2020 alone, more than 45,000 Americans died at the end of a barrel of a gun, whether by homicide or suicide, more than any other year on record. The figure represents a 25% increase from five years prior, and a 43% increase from 2010."
Problem they have is there are so many firearms (legal and illegal) that banning them would be ineffective even if they could as even in the best scenario only the legal ones and a tiny number of illegal ones would be handed over.
Those holding illegal firearms are unlikely to hand them over or stop shooting each other with them, likewise they will still continue to import them via the border anyway.
People like to compare UK and Australia to the USA in terms of firearms but it's not that straightforward, we don't have similar borders, neighbouring countries or culture when it comes to firearms.
Something could be done - secure the borders so you control the flow of illegal weapons into the country and gradually remove them, then look at the second amendment - I don't know how you get around that one though as it's an implicit right.
Long term view is the number of weapons will drop if people feel safer, since it's more likely an illegal firearm is used to commit crime anyway statistically.
There is no easy or quick fix, it's also not a left/right or racial issue, gun ownership in minorities has dramatically increased in the past couple of years and is growing faster than any other group.
Many of those invoking the Second Amendment entirely ignore the crucial phrase with which it starts:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
However not a few legal theorists have argued on its basis either that the right to bear arms is a collective, not individual right or that it is an individual right but solely in order to support a 'well regulated Militia', some indeed emphasising 'well regulated' by endorsing the view that this explicitly implies regulation of the right itself.
Until these various interpretations are resolved, there can be no progress towards resolving the problem of the civilian death toll from personally held firearms. Regardless of the actual final interpretation, certainty is what is needed before all.
Constitutionally, militias have the simple right to exist and be armed - This does not preclude local laws governing their operation.
If voters approve a law banning all firearms within their state except muskets for the militia (kept at the town armoury) then so be it, If you can't live with that, move to a state where they voted joe public anything his wallet can stretch too, squirrel hunting with tanks anyone?
Democracy is a two edged sword upholding the tyranny of the majority - an individuals rights are determined by and subject to amendment by the group, not you, not another individual.
If being part of a militia ever looked like becoming a requirement to bear arms then the NRA would simply have to arrange itself as a militia in every state and welcome the new members. The NRA Board could theoretically control over 100 million gun owners, it'd be interesting to see how that'd get integrated into the political landscape at county, state & federal levels.
A well regulated militia would be better than the current crop of chaos monkeys currently flinging shit in all directions whilst screaming something about freedums
The NRA used to teach gun safety and sensible behaviour. It got turned into a political pressure group a long time ago. There are other firearms groups which have stepped into the shoes it used to occupy and most of them have little tolerance for the kind of twat who thinks you need a semi-auto carbine with huge magazine to go target or varmit shooting
"However not a few legal theorists have argued on its basis either that the right to bear arms is a collective, not individual right or that it is an individual right but solely in order to support a 'well regulated Militia', some indeed emphasising 'well regulated' by endorsing the view that this explicitly implies regulation of the right itself."
--And those that read the text as an individual right have no foot to stand on since the day when they stood and cheered while unmarked federal officers in unmarked federal vehicles started arresting peaceful protestors.
--And as if that was not enough, on January 6, those same gun-toting idiots tried to end the american democracy and install a halfwit king.
Regarding the second amendment - it's not really "an implicit right" since it is, after all, an amendment to the original. Clearly therefore, it could be amended further or even removed entirely. So constitutionally, it would seem to be a straightforward process to change.
Politically, however, anything but.
As you say, no easy or quick fix.
That's not how the constitution works. While technically amendments, the bill of rights (the first ten amendments) were always intended to be part of the constitution. The base constitution, pre-amendments, describes the structure and functions of government and the relationships between the states. The bill of rights then adds a set of restraints on what the federal government can legislate over it's citizens.
Any part of the constitution may be amended or removed but it takes 2/3 of the states to bring a proposal forward and 3/4 to pass it. That simply isn't going to happen for the 2nd amendment.
"but it takes 2/3 of the states to bring a proposal forward and 3/4 to pass it."
It's a good idea to read "It can't happen here" - and reflect upon the thought that it very nearly DID both in the late 1930s and in the late 2010s
When the novel was turned into a teleplay in the 1970s, the producers felt that audiences would find the idea of a fascist takeover eagerly assisted by wide swathes of the American public to be so outlandish that they turned the sedtionists into flesh-eating lizard alien invaders. In reality the USA Nazi party was _larger_ than the German one and had Nuremburg-style rallies (complete with swastika flags) at Madison Square gardens as late as 1940.
American fascists didn't go away after WW2 and the USA didn't actively denazify like other countries did. Instead the people involved rebranded themselves as anticommunists and carried on. What we're seeing is 80 years of failure to deal with a problem that's resulted in a resurgence of an old problem (Nazis loved the American south, Hitler raved about Jim Crow policies and Eugenics in Mein Kampf). The gun issue is merely a symptom of much deeper problems that need dealing with
Regarding the second amendment - it's not really "an implicit right" since it is, after all, an amendment to the original. Clearly therefore, it could be amended further or even removed entirely. So constitutionally, it would seem to be a straightforward process to change.
It's not "an implicit right" at all. It's an explicit one. The question is what that right actually constitutes, not whether it's there. (JFTR, I'm sympathetic to interpretations that emphasize the "well-organized militia" party myself; but given the extensive arguments by constitutional scholars and legal experts, I don't think any interpretation is prima facie correct.)
Amendments to the US Constitution have exactly the same status as the original text. Both can be changed by amendment – that's what "amendment" means. The fact that the Second Amendment is an amendment has no bearing on how it would be changed.
The process (processes, actually; there are two, though they differ in how amendments are proposed to the states, not in how they're ratified) of amending the US Constitution is not "straightforward". And for a hot-button political issue like guns, the chance of getting three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify any change is vanishingly small.
So much illegal material of all sorts is transported in containerized shipping boxes (aka "Connex boxes") ... and no country has the money and/or enough well-trained people to inspect each one, that the game is over right there, regardless of ministerial posturings contrary.
"look at the second amendment - I don't know how you get around that one though as it's an implicit right."
It's also an amendment - i.e. it's a change to a document. You just need another one, and there is precedent for an amendment to overrule an earlier amendment.
The way to "get around" it isn't to get around it at all, but to update the constitution in line with the modern world.
@Barry Rueger, SundogUK
What if you're both right? While the vast majority of firearm murders are inner city gang related, they are still outnumbered by accidental shootings by acquaintances and family members using legal weapons.
Is there a name for subtly changing the category of a statistic to claim your debate opponent is wrong?
Be careful. Given that breaking news as I write this is yet another mass shooting, this time at a 4th July parade in Chicago... some of the more extreme nutjobs might take your suggestion a little too seriously.
Because quite clearly, if mass shootings are still happening, then there aren't enough guns to stop these bad things from happening, so maybe foetuses ought to be carrying? Just got to teach them to shoot out the hole, and not just aim forwards...
American gun-related deaths are not a problem - recipients are almost exclusively American.
No civilised people are even injured in this process.
The next step in the NRA's Master Plan will be to arm all school children .... what could possibly go wrong?
It's a business opportunity that also results in Species Improvement
WIN WIN
I do wonder why the USA is so concerned about border security.
Two reasons.
One, it's a dog-whistle to the howling nitwits. "Border security" gets you Republican votes.
Two, it's one of the DHS's fiefdoms, and they'll seek to acquire more power in it regardless of any justification. DHS is a bureaucracy and it contains multiple police forces, and both of those types of institutions will try to increase their power just for the sake of power.
That's why ICE now has one of the biggest domestic-surveillance operations in the US. That's why CBP has jurisdiction over most of the US and eagerly exercises its powers of warrantless search. These are organizations that exist primarily to exercise power.
The age of the constitution or its amendments shouldn't be an issue. In fact some US court decisions even take English Common Law and the Magan Carta into consideration. A greater problem is the selective blindness of the most recent decisions: states rights behind the decision to uphold bans on abortion, states rights ignored over firearms legislation. The fetish for textualism which chooses to ignore context and indeed other text: the right to bear arms is about the right to raise a militia against an unjust monarch and not a general right to waive them in public.
At some point the legislature should do its job and pass relevant laws and even constitutional amendments. But this will only happen if they can get past their football fan partisanship. So don't hold your breath.
However, I have too many American friends to want to let that get in the way and it wouldn't stop me visting the country.
The data grab is illegal under existing data protection law and the UK and EU countries should be doing everything in their power to stop it.
re: "states rights behind the decision to uphold bans on abortion, states rights ignored over firearms legislation" it's almost as though the US Constitution mentions one of those things and not the other.
How dare the US Supreme Court uphold the US Constitution.
re: "The data grab is illegal under existing data protection law and the UK and EU countries should be doing everything in their power to stop it."
This I do agree with, but good luck holding the current UK Government to account :(
Clarification: The US Supreme Court did not remove any rights. It clarified them, based on an improved reading of the law.
The US Constitution supports States choosing their own laws, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court has said should happen. Instead of boycotting the US, you should research the law in the individual State(s) to which you might travel.
Also avoid Ireland, who ban abortion outright.
The US Constitution supports States choosing their own laws
Given that the US had an entire civil war resulting from exactly that and that it's still a matter of contention, it may not be quite as clear cut as you make out.
Add to that, various states have professed an intention to make it illegal to visit other states for purposes that are legal within that state and you end up with a conflict of territorial scope.
In practical terms, it's very difficult to have a country in which different regions have diametrically opposed legal frameworks - a bit of elasticity around the edges is manageable, but a fundamental clash of values really isn't.
In the absence of an agreed method for secession, that's a potential recipe for armed conflict. Again. At least there's no shortage of arms.
“n practical terms, it's very difficult to have a country in which different regions have diametrically opposed legal frameworks”
You have just described Scotland and England. Very much so post Devolution. But then that one is under current legal scrutiny as we, finally, seek a means to leave this septic union.
I think it will come down to a plebiscite election. But first we have to demonstrate to the watching world that WM is utterly intransigent wrt another indyref.
It’s win-win, we get a S30 referendum we win. We have to go to a plebiscite with that fact as an extra goad we also win.
I know Scotland has traditionally not been best known for it's healthcare - hence all the jokes about fruit and vegetables (or lack of) from other areas of the UK, but I didn't think it was so bad that a generation was only 8 years.
The last referendum was based on a once in a generation vote, not a once in a generation vote unless those who want independence lose and so get another vote every few years (based on the Sturgeon harping since the last one) until they get what they want, then stop any further votes no doubt to re-join the union.
As a regular traveller to Scotland to see family I suggest instead of spending shed loads of money demanding then (legally or otherwise) running Indyref2 Scottish Parliament spend the money on things that matter - healthcare, economy etc. or even fix some of the potholes that plague the country. It is amazing how even on the A74(M) there are potholes that have been there for months that still haven't been repaired.
I joke with my wife that it is just as well the Scottish get free prescriptions. They need them so they can save money up for the repairs to cars going to pick them up. It would also be useful if Sturgeon explained how she will pay for it all since Indyref1 was all going to be paid for by oil money, then the oil prices promptly collapsed.
Sturgeon doesn't care. She just wants to go down in history as the person who righted an alleged ancient wrong and freed brave Alba from the clutches of evil Albion, and one-upped Salmond to boot. There'll be someone else to blame for the subsequent economic collapse; her successor, or Boris, or Brexit, or COVID, or whatever the bogeyman (sorry, bogeyperson) of the month is. It won't be her fault, be sure of that.
One upped Salmond? Come on, he had literally NO answers to people's questions. It seemed like he held that big TV debate with zero preparation. What currency? What healthcare? What army? What...
And now, there's the added complication of the possibility of rejoining the EU, and more importantly how to cope with some sort of border between the two countries in that case. God knows Scottish firms (I'm thinking Baxters and the like) are going to be pissed if trucking their product thirty miles down the road suddenly involves customs and duties and a couple of hundred pages of paperwork.
So, yeah, Salmond buggered it up badly. I don't think Sturgeon has anything to prove in that respect. But will she have any coherent answers to the same questions?
L
I guess, should the once twice three times a charm IndyRef actually win, then somehow Scotland becomes an EU candidate state, then conditions of membership require Scotland adopt the Euro within X years, they could build a bridge to ROI (or ask Senor Musk for a tunnel) to enjoy a customs free link to somewhere.
To adopt the Euro you must
1. Have an independent currency (Sterling doesn’t count)
2. Put that currency in ERM II and have it be stable for at least 2 years.
3. If you think a new currency (which we must have to join the EU) would be stable in a very short time you are more optimistic than I am.
4. There is no compulsion to put your currency in ERM II. Denmark has committed to join the Euro but has not put It’s currency in ERM II and is not being made to. IScotland can do the same.
"The last referendum was based on a once in a generation vote"
Or, as can also be noted - a once in a generation vote until that lot down south not only moved the goalposts but set fire to them, then ground up the charred remains.
Looking back, it seems rather amusing all of this "better united" stuff, when the government in Westminster were more than happy to walk away from an even bigger and more important union (the difference? they didn't get to call the shots, unlike the so-called devolution).
So, whatever you might think of the annoying person taking about yet-another-referendum, you have to at least grant that with respect to the political and social upheaval that the English (mostly) have foisted upon the UK in recent years, she does have a point.
Nope, she doesn't.
Once in a generation.
No conditions. just once in a generation.
The people of Scotland voted on that basis - that the issue would be decided for a generation.
That there would not be another referendum on the question for a generation.
It's the loser in the referendum that is trying to move the goal posts.
"Once in a generation"
Not sure your argument is particularly useful if you're solely depending upon a very literal interpretation of a meaningless madness mantra...
...or are you okay with allowing Scotland to vote on being a part of the UK every, what, 22ish years? What if they vote out, and then want to vote back in? The whole "once in a generation" thing just doesn't make sense.
Given that Scotland voted against Brexit, but it was forced on them by the English (& lets not even get into the useless politicians deciding an advisory vote should be treated as binding when it was so close) and Brexit has massively impacted the economy (its taken a while as a lot of the nasty effects delayed due to the transition period ) then they have legitimate reasons to go for a vote again as political landscape massively changed.
I am not a Scot (though some amount of Scottish lineage in the family tree), nor do I live there, but it seems fair enough that the change in circumstances where Britain has exited from a union should give the Scots the chance to decide if they want to exit from a different union and reinstate union with the EU.
Thank you, Yes. We voted 67% to Remain. Every SINGLE council area voted to Remain. Edinburgh voted over 70% to Remain. It also voted heavily No in the indyref. Those two positions are no longer compatible since we are out of the EU.
It’s a matter of priorities of course but also how we campaign. I’m sure Yes will be Europhilic. Though for various reasons including speed of entry we should join EFTA first. Also best to let the EU woo us instead of going cap in hand the day after Independence Day. We would be in customs union and single market.
The Scottish border has few crossing points so is easy to control. Modern tech can and ANPR can be used to make it easy for folk in Coldstream for eg.
We have the best performing NHS in these islands, by a long way. I just had an MRI, less than two weeks for the 1st appointment. Equipment malfunction, rebooked for just 3 days later. Excellent efficient and friendly staff.
We can easily afford to run an election campaign. Which is what a plebiscite election would entail so not even a stand alone referendum. You have misunderstood.
"Given that the US had an entire civil war resulting from exactly that and that it's still a matter of contention, it may not be quite as clear cut as you make out." - The US civil war was hardly about "exactly that" although a factor was disagreement on bounds of authority of states and the federal government.
"Add to that, various states have professed an intention to make it illegal to visit other states for purposes that are legal within that state and you end up with a conflict of territorial scope." - Unless a statement on record as having been made by a state governor or state level legislative representative is cited (which, considering the uneven caliber of persons occupying those positions, I would not be surprised exists.), anything to that effect is pure troll promulgated claptrap. States have no authority to prosecute persons for their actions while physically in a state where they are legal but illegal the state they reside.
And I have to say that most of it seems designed to bugger up the country. Why should different states have different election laws. You could end up with some states banning non whites from voting whilst other states think it is ok.
And although this is said in jest the fact is that some states are getting close to that. (whatever they profress to say)
I guess you didn't hear about the vote to legalize in Ireland in 2018.
"The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 is signed into law by President Michael D Higgins on the 20th December 2018. The Act provides the legislative framework for the provision of abortion care in defined circumstances from 1 January 2019. So long as a 3-day waiting period has elapsed, abortion care is lawful on request up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion is also lawful for reasons of risk to a woman’s life or of serious harm to her health and in cases of fatal foetal anomaly. Abortion remains criminalised in all other cases. However, the criminal provisions do not apply to a woman in respect of her own pregnancy. Abortion is free to persons normally resident in Ireland."
https://www.ifpa.ie/advocacy/abortion-in-ireland-legal-timeline/
"Also avoid Ireland, who ban abortion outright."
Abortion in Ireland is regulated by the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018. Abortion is permitted in Ireland during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and later in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk, or in the cases of a fatal foetal abnormality.
Your earlier part about the states rights is correct, it's laid out in the Bill of Rights and ratified by the tenth Amendment
The US Supreme Court did not remove any rights. It clarified them, based on an improved reading of the law.
This is partial and factually incorrect. To state that the recent decision was somehow better than in 1973 actually undermines the court's authority: why would the constitution be better in 1782 than in 1973? And removing a "constitutiional" right to abortion is still a removal even if it's based on sound legal reasoning. The same goes, just the other way, for gun laws in the states: the judges decided to limit states' ability to legislate over gun ownership. In a sense, this is both having a cake and eating it. Both decisions also blithely ignore the importance of precedent in the US legal system, which is well established.
*Cough* - From wikipedia:
"On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion."
The only thing that the reversal did was pass responsibility back to the US states to regulate. I'm not making any judgement on if it's right or wrong (I am not USAian) but facts actually do matter.
and: "thinking a law written in the 18th century on the right to have a gun, has any relevance in modern society."
It's not an 18th century law it's part of the US constitution. The process of changing the US constitution is not exactly easy (especially for this issue). From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/
"An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification."
Given that one side of politics has control over >50% of the state legislatures even if they can pass the proposed change federally they aren't going to get 75% of the states to agree.
If it was a law I expect that it could have already been repealed**
**But probably not since the democrats had a super majority during at least some of the Obama years and had control of the house and senate for the last two years and have always promised to actually codify Roe v Wade into law but never actually did it. You almost think that they continually ignored as a future wedge issue to fire up the base if ever reversed (they are politicians you know).
If that happened the supreme court could not have reversed Roe v Wade - or would probably have refused to look at it as it would have been moot if there was a federal statute that codified it.
Cough … also sourced from Wikipedia.
The first 10 amendments were long completed only by the original 13 colonies/states that were founded after Independence. Go see Louisiana Purchase, Mexican-American War, Alaska Purchase - links provided.
The rest signed up to them after they were added to the assembling United States and I guess the ratification thresholds/criteria were perhaps not given enough thought at the time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
well, for many people visit not the US is going to be made for them, as they can no longer afford it. Had a look the other day, out of curiosity, picked mid-July to mid-August flight (London - Washington), virgin, etc, return is around 1.6K quid. And this is the _cheapest_ option, i.e. no luggage and standing room only. That said, some can afford it, as next option up (around 2K+) was 'sold out'. Yes, this is peak season, but it's not a f... round the world, or even London-LA route, it's eastboard US. I suppose, it'd be somewhat cheaper to paddle, but then, it's probably been made illegal by now.
Have you heard of this thing called COVID that's restricted travel the last 2 years? Would you have guessed all of a sudden people want to travel (hence chaos at airports that fired their staff and now struggling to hire anyone). Airlines know this and know they can increase their prices somewhat as people want/are desparate to travel and so will still book, partly gaming the market, partly understandable as they are trying to recoup their losses of the past 2 years. Don't forget fuel is somewhat more expensive these days so that doesn't help either.
If you can't afford to travel then sorry about that, but let's just hope the world gets back to normal soonish...
Far too many commenters assume this is reactive - don't apply for a visa and you won't have a problem.
It's not.
The program is proactive. It's meant to identify future threats. As such I assume ALL police records will be slurped and added to the US databases, not just those of people who have applied for visas.
Writing from the Emerald Isle, I have suspicions that the ROI might be one of the three EC countries agreeing to go along with this plan. After all, Ireland has two preclearance sites for US customs and immigration in Shannon and Dublin Airports. (One of only six countries in the world to have them). And considering how compromised the Irish Data Protection Commissioner already is at enforcing rights against private operators, that's a scary thought. The Irish government historically has tended to align its policies (and enforcement thereof) with US governmental and private interests. If I'm right, our only hope is that the rest of the EU will save us from ourselves.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/ireland-is-worst-bottleneck-for-enforcing-eu-data-privacy-law-iccl-1.4672480
For the EU countries concerned.
I mean, it does rather take the piss to say "we don't want your stinking tracking cookies, but here, take all the personal and unchangeable biometric data that may have been collected by the rozzers regardless of whether or not the person was actually found guilty of something.
Fuckwits.
View from the USA: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/
View from the UK: https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/30/uk_electronic_health_records/
More from the UK: https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/14/ndg_covid_data_store/
So.......if Palantir is slurping lots of personal data in the USA.....and Palantir is right in the middle of slurping UK medical records.................
...............who might be in pole position to aggregate "police biometric databases" from the UK?
Thinks.......Palantir.......Peter Thiel please take (another) bow!!!!!
....and then there's the "shopping bags full of cash"......a favourite artefact in certain privileged circles.......
Privacy???.......We are royally f**ked!!!!
No I don't care. The UK police doesn't hold a copy of my fingerprints or DNA data. I wouldn't care if they did have my DNA and fingerprints on record either as sharing them with the US would pose no harm to me.
Oddly the US border guards "might" have my fingerprints and hand geometry on record as pre 9/11 I was a frequent visitor and signed up to INSPASS so I could skip the immigration desk queue at JFK.
I believe Russia has my fingerprints on record too as they were taken for a visa application. Again I struggle to see how this might be harmful to me.
The USCIS tends to treat an 'arrest record' as a 'criminal record'. Just a FYI.
We're often told that if we're innocent then we have nothing to fear. Now define 'innocent', bearing in mind that the everyday definition we all take for granted may not be the usage envisaged by someone else. (We're currently finding out the hard way in the US that commonsense interpretation of concepts is no match for motivated lawyers. It pays to spell everything out in painful detail.)
@Persona - lets hope you do not have anything personal / private on your phone and have enabled fingerprint id.
.. if the authorities (of whatever country) have your fingerprints on file then its relatively trivial to create a fake & unlock a phone ... and I'm sure nation states have far more effective methods than those widely mentioned on the internet.
.. Basically, even if some personal data may seem unimportant, if a bad actor has access to it then possible that bad things could happen.
If in doubt, assume someone having access to your biometrics is a bad thing as there's no need for it.
You can change a password, not exactly the same with biometrics
.. I'm the one without fingerprint id, face detection etc. used on my phone.
America does not seem to be a nice place to visit at the moment. They appear to be working through some issues, hopefully they will catch up with the rest of the planet in a few decades.
As for our government, which also appears to be working through its own issues, not least of which desperately seeking a partner to support us by agreeing to any stupid demand and not even thinking to make it reciprocal. Bunch of lame arse couch jockeys, not that any of the rest of them would be any better. Its about time we got rid of Career politicians, you get 2 terms and that is it, go and find a proper job.
There are many many lovely places (and people) in Amurka, but despite many mostly locally owned businesses in these places being heavily reliant on tourism our gubmint is not exactly making it easier or more welcoming for non-Murkins to visit (if this is how we treat the citizens of countries with whom we notionally have "a special relationship", how do we treat "mere" allies? everyone else?).
> if this is how we treat the citizens of countries with whom we notionally have "a special relationship", how do we treat "mere" allies?
"Special Relationship" means "is my bitch", while "Ally" means "can be useful but needs to be disciplined every now and then". Everyone else is an enemy.
That has been US foreign policy since ever, and you can observe it quite well in the international news, especially when there is some international tension going on... :-(
"....That has been US foreign policy since ever...."
It most certainly hasn't!
Quite apart from the small matter of the War of Independence (which certainly involved a 'special relationship' with the UK, but not as either a 'bitch' or an ally), as recently as following the First World War in the late 1920s and the 1930's, the USA saw the UK as a principal enemy, and many within the USA government and officialdom saw their next war being against the British, not with them.
It's July 4th in Scotland today, to be fair it's probably July 4th in a lot of places, but I'd like to Register my displeasure at my data being shared with the US. Not that I'd ever go there again voluntarily. The US was dodgy in the eighties but now it is Super Talibanistic Extradite Atrocious.
I had to fill a hot water bottle yesterday afternoon. That's not a complaint though I do miss summer, it's a boast when the rest of the world is suffering from deadly heatwaves and floods and we remain gray and windy. Our biggest threat from Global Heating is climate change refugees, and I think we should exclude Americans, Australians, Canadians, Chinese and Indians - they know why.
An American comic, Colbert, just asked Britain to take back America, but we can't, we have nowhere to put it.
Trump's Menie golf course is remarkable only for the environmental damage, the loathing of locals, and the broken promises on employment. The Samantha Bee show had a very funny expose called "The Original Trump Haters" which includes an angelic 7 year old stating, "Donald Trump is a c--t". I posted that far and wide online and was surprised to get a lot of criticism from New Yorkers who all claimed, "WE are the original Trump haters!"
Trump also bought Turnberry at the other end of the country, a reputable club until then. It was removed from the PGA tour and since then it's main income was secret service agents that Trump insisted stay there while he toured the UK.
An independent Scotland will keep Elizabeth as queen and head of state, so Balmoral, Holyrood and the various other estates will remain in her hands. Personally I hope we don't replace her with Charles when she goes, maybe Harry as he seems fun and his wife is fit.
I maybe coined the term 'disneyfication' to describe Edinburgh's council prioritisation of tourism over locals - in fact I certainly did about two decades ago but presumably other people did too independently.
If Scotland does get independence lets hope they bin the royals and let the people use the land and properties e.g. as the Hermitage shows, an old palace can make a good museum building (the interior decor over the top royal bling such as the huge malachite columns was almost as memorable as some of the artworks when I visited)
I've worked with our American cousins for 30+ years. There are some great people and there are some bell-ends - much the same as here in old Blighty.
WE might laugh at their strange ways, but hells teeth - we've still got a bloody monarchy !
This article is about our government giving away our data - don't blame the Americans - blame Boris, and remember this at the next election.
The reason we have a monarchy is Boris Johnson and all the other career politicians that would be awful as president.
I can't think of one Prime minister we have ever had that would have been a good President.They are all a choice between pointless or megalomaniac.
We have survived as country despite our politicians causing us to lurch from one crisis to another as we flip between two opposing ideologies and from one bunch of self serving muppets to another due to the archaic way we choose our parliament which only topped by the Murkans idiotic collage system.
So the US will get a copy of your data and will be able to do whatever it wants with it because your local laws don't apply in the US, and you have no rights in the US. Police also manage informants in their database, so it suddenly exposes you further. Additionally, any error in a police database suddenly get amplified as it is shared around the world. The first you could hear about it is when you try to enter the US for business or holidays.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
