'People should be free from Peeping Toms' snapping pics of them! This was the week when a top US senator laid down the law with Google and Apple over their Maps apps. Or actually, he didn't, he just laid down his suggestion that maybe having "military-grade spy planes" flying around snapping pics of the whole world was less than desirable. He thundered: Barbecuing or sunbathing in your …
Has the reg's attempts to highlight the grammatical errors of others backfired terribly or has mine?
Surely when talking about privacy, my privacy is my own and therefore "one's privacy" is a possessive and therefore correct. Similarly, it is fine to talk about my privacy when visiting your home.
I always thought that the use of '[sic]' was to highlight the errors of others in quoted material, or is it more efficient to now only use it where the person being quoted has used apostrophes correctly?
Ahh, it feels good to have produced my quota of pedantry so early in the day :)
The editorial team must have gone to the pub _really_ early. Either that or they're still out from the night before. What's worse is that I look at the "your home" bit and I'm starting to convince myself it's wrong even though I know it to be right.
[sic] comes from "thus was it written", implying not just typos and grammar errors, but meaning and content too.
But it's political rhetoric: start from the general and work to the specific in three steps. It introduces the reader or listener to the problem, then it's turned towards the individual to make them feel threatened by some non-threat.
That said, it sort of sounds like he's saying he wants privacy in your home. I didn't say it was _good_ rhetoric.
Mmm, not so sure. Switching from "one's" to "your" isn't exactly classy itself, but the damage was already done earlier because the sentence starts off with "People" which is plural and shifts to "one's" which is singular.
"People should be free from the worry of some high-tech Peeping Tom technology violating their privacy when in their own homes." would have been better.
with Apple and Google?
With the advent of the FAA allowing various government forces in the US of A to use UAV's for law enforcement then Google and Apple will be the least of their worries. With the optics and other sneaky beaky tech on these, they could phone you up and tell you your sausages and burgers are done.
Never mind the burgers, at risk of lowering the tone some of us occasionally enjoy outdoor activities with girlfriends or wives that while not illegal would be somewhat inappropriate to feature on Apple or Google etc. never mind embarassing. Simply causing amusement to a law enforcement official we can live with.
> People should be free from the worry of some high-tech Peeping Tom technology
But isn't that exactly what all these american drones (UAVs, not people) do in all the countries they're currently bombing the crap out of? He should be glad that the likes of Apple and Google are only taking photographs.
Since when are the council empowered to tell someone to stop doing anything online? Isn't that the job of the judicial system? (i.e. prove it's illegal?)
I'm confused as to why anyone would even listen to them.
Council : "Hello little miss, I'm from the local council and you are not to put any more pictures of your cat online because the colours are all wrong and it's sitting on a bin and could easily 'fall in'."
Little miss : "Please tell me the Police case number so I can pass it on to my solicitor"
Council : "We'll let you off this time"
Which would be fine if they hadn't made it clear that it was to 'protect' their catering staff rather than the pupils. Since she wasn't actually photographing anything but her plate of food, they basically made themselves look like twats.
Anyway, whatever, thanks to the council, she's raised nearly £100,000
Classic Analysis of a Cretinous Clan - Caught with his skirt up... (over his head apparently)
For some unknown reason, Argyll and Bute councillors did not think that banning something for being popular in the press might lead to some negative attention, but that's exactly what happened, leaving the council head Roddy McCuish to issue the following statement the very next day:
There is no place for censorship in this council and never will be while I am leader.
Or in other words: "There is no place for censorship in this council after people have noticed we're censoring stuff and given us a load of negative press about it, causing us to give up on the plan for censorship we formulated just yesterday". ®
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
