Re: Is it just me...
"either that she's an idiot and she left it open to public viewing"
It seems to be a comment left by her on her colleague's status update, so if anything it would be her colleague's privacy settings which are to blame.
47 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Dec 2007
"a person of foreign descent (asian, african etc) being attacked by a group of "white youths" is immediately branded as being racially motivated, whereas the reverse is *never* true."
Hmm. What about the Kriss Donald case, for one? (five Asians convicted for the racially-aggravated abduction and killing of a white boy). The BNP were quite keen about making political capital about that.
"has anyone managed to find an image of a policeman anywhere on Street View?"
Plenty of them about (well, the ones not hiding inside cars). Here a couple of Strathclyde's finest, staring suspiciously at Google:
"Why does the law see it as perfectly safe and reasonable to transport thousands of commuters in those conditions at speeds approaching 100MPH every day on one of the busiest rail lines in the country, but take a dim view of someone carrying a dozen people in similar circumstances in a volvo travelling at 20MPH on a back road in Wales?"
Because there are thousands of road accidents every day (many involving back roads in Wales...), whereas trains almost never crash (and where they do, I doubt it makes much difference if you're standing or sitting). And the family were from London - were they really going to stay at 20mph all the way home?
"Try taking pictures of my kids for sexual gratification and while you're on the floor catching my boot you can think about who's getting harmed..."
I think you're missing the point. Even if I was taking photos for sexual gratification (and I don't know how you would determine that), it isn't illegal. So why harrass everyone who has a camera in public and is within 100 yards of kids?
Out of curiosity - does anyone have any real-life examples of terrorists carrying out photographic reconnaissance prior to an attack? I don't think the IRA were well-known for it, I'm not aware of the 9/11 hijackers taking pics of their targets, and if the 7 July bombers took any photos then nobody spotted them (and I'm not sure what purpose it would have served).
As for the peeeedo concern, I can understand it's at least distasteful to think that someone's taken pics of your kids in public for sexual gratification, but I'm not sure what harm it does anyone.
Why do you think that it would help security? It's not as if your name can be checked against a list of people who have said they plan to hijack the next plane they board.
The main reason airlines ask for ID is economic, not security. They want to make sure your e-ticket hasn't been resold.
The number is normally noted down, so in theory ballot papers could be linked up to names on the register in order to investigate allegations of criminal goings-on. But in this case I think the data is "which parties people told the Tories they would be voting for" rather than who they actually voted for.
"If some of the people I've lied to about giving up smoking (parents) were to check my office on streetview, it would be pretty obvious that it was me still."
Mmm, yeah. Or they could just go to your office. IMHO all this is doing is enabling people to see something which was in the public domain in the first place, but without having to get off your butt. It's not as if it's searchable by people's names.
"In the UK, data protection law allows the taking of photographs in public places without the permission of people who will appear in the photo, but that does not apply for photos for commercial purposes. For those, subjects should be notified."
Utter nonsense - have a look around a news site and ask yourself how many people in the photos would have had their permission sought.
"a few injuries and deaths / year on average due to terrorism"
Yep, that's what confuses me too. As far as I know, there was only one terrorism-related death in Britain last year - and that was the rubbish suicide bomber at Glasgow Airport.
I think there were zero deaths in 2006.
In 2005 there were the July 7th bombings (and the de Menezes shooting I suppose), but even those numbers are the equivalent to what - a week's worth of road accidents?
"Not saying that being gay is the same as being a paedophile, but it's the closest equivalent"
Surely as most paedophiles are attracted to children of the opposite sex, heterosexuality is the closest equivalent?
Anyway, this isn't about paedophiles, it's about people registered on the Sex Offenders Register - which in theory could arise from relatively minor offences (having a pee in a public place, teenagers on either side of the age of consent having sex, etc).
"Back when we were prepping ourselves for the invasion of the falkland islands, the MoD lost a laptop then as well. This one also contained vital information, THE invasion plans!"
Er...I didn't think we were the ones who invaded the Falklands, were we?
And I think anyone using a "laptop" in 1982 would probably have risked injury.
"That would seem unlikely, given that they're on every cheque you hand out."
And companies typically give out their bank details to their customers - have the look at the back of a utility bill for example, and then wonder why BT etc aren't scared of having their accounts cleared out by fraudsters.