Just this morning
I was blocked from reading an article about the social risks of "family friendly" internet filtering, by O2's family friendly internet filtering.
106 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Dec 2007
Whether or not you keep your boss as a mate is largely dictated by how well you get on with your boss. In my case, I get on great with my boss so I have no problem having him on my friendy list. I am also, however, not a fuckwit, so I have nothing to fear from my FB posts.
The other half of this is the story about the increase in privacy settings by many users in the survey. This is a good thing, and I was pleased to read it. The FB settings can catch out those who don't stop to read a bit and take a moment to understand - so I'm glad that some people do.
I'm not sure from which orifice the educational status of Conservapedia's editors was pulled from, but as anyone who follows CP can testify, educated they certainly ain't.
In fact, Schlafly is pretty anti-education (check the Professor Values article, I dare you), and much prefers his "Best of the Public" approach - as championed on The Colbert Report.
The "killer app" for broadband was never copyright infringement.
Broadband took off because it didn't tie up your home phone line, because it was pretty much "always on", because it made your web browsing a hell of a lot nicer and easier, because it controlled the costs, because it allowed parents to work from home more effectively, and because it allowed better online gaming from both PCs and consoles.
In other words, it took off because it was it was better than the previous offering.
A common mistake in the popular press is to refer to the ACMD as "scientists".
Whilst Nutt is a very experienced and qualified scientist, the ACMD is composed of much more than just scientists.
The full list is available by jfgi, but the members include social scientists, teachers, therapists, police, and other professions too.
The ACMD's recommendations are provided after weighing up a host of evidence including social impacts.
Whilst I'd agree that guvmint interference is generally bad, the current state of music licencing is far worse, and for the most part this does not involve re-writing laws as much as novating contracts.
By analogy, lawyers are currently rummaging through customer bags to look for music purchased abroad at all of the sea- and air ports, to look for "unlicenced" copies.
"Welcome to back to Harwich sir; you seem to have a Dutch language CD in your car. You've not paid the licence for this music in your country, I'm afraid it's off to chokey with you."
"Thank you for travelling with Skytrain; whilst you may take your portable DVD player with you onboard, all British-purchased DVDs must be left here - they have not been licenced for use in Madrid."
If the EU can slap the content companies upside the head with a box of blank CD-Rs to make fairer and easier for Joe Schmoe to buy, with better pricing, then more power to them.
Just as long as it doesn't involve constant surveillance of our internets.
Some ancient BBS from the 80s, what a victory!
Great, RIAA, what next - you'll subpoena a TRS-80? With the world moving to encrypted peer-to-peer darknet technologies, anonymised networking, etc etc what a waste of time. Way to go.
Also on the hit-list, gopher and tftp...
...for my N95. It's currently in retirement in a drawer, but I've been secretly pondering bringing it out of retirement because it - if memory serves - just seemed better than the iPhone, Renoir and 6220c-1 I've had since. I may bring it back out of retirement after hearing some of the comments here.
With regard to Mac support, there's a great app which does a good job of managing yer Nok on OSX:
Why all this gnashing of teeth and wailing about "but what about parents who buy 18-rated games for kids"?
Who cares? Only those who are desperately "finkin' of the childrens" will care about that loophole.
For me, however - I like Grand Theft Auto games, and wish to buy them.
If a mandatory age-ratings system keeps them available in the shops and into my hands, I'm happy.
I hope the metrics, measures, and indicators for this "70% reduction" are very clearly defined.
Ben Goldacre has a wonderful write up of the content industries' feeble grasp of maths and statistics at www.badscience.net, and I fear that it will only get woollier.
70% of connections?
70% of data packets?
70% of a specific protocol traffic?
70% of customers?
70% of a specific file?
Given that there is no way of determining whether a connection / session is "infringing" or not (thanks to reasonable privacy expectations, https, ipsec, ssh, etc etc), is this going to be a "low hanging fruit crapshoot"?
Within 3 years everyone will have migrated to scrambled traffic anyway, given the current state of affairs.
I can't see how this is ever going to work.
When I were a mere strop of a lad, first discovering the ac.uk newsfeed, there were a collection of about 100 alt. groups named alt.o.o.o.X.o.o.o.X.o.o.X and alt.o.X.o.X.o.o.o.o.X and so on and so forth.
I spent ages wondering wtf these pretty much empty groups were for, until I looked at my wee green-screen terminal sideways and scrolled back and forth in the active list and the Xs spelled out
ATT MUST DIE
Who's laughing now, Usenet??! Oh....
Sony used to be a good electronics company (no self-respecting James Bond villain was without his Sony monitors to watch exploding helicopters on), now they seem to be more of a brand than an electronics company. Shame. As someone cleverer than me already commented, "too little too late".
...then that's what South Carolina can have.
Conservapedia notes "The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism" (http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words), and is a fairly Republican and conservative state. If they want to ban hoeing on their turf in some way or another, that's up to them. If the populace don't want it de-listed from CL, they can vote in a new administration.
OK, so the IMP was a bad idea - guvmint with big feckoff database.
However, are ISPs any better at constructing the said database? Should the public trust an ISP more than their government? Will this monitoring work be subject to FOIA now it's no longer in the public sector?
"it's only a mater of time before you get a pop-up for something cp related"
People who abuse children don't buy pop-up adverts to announce the fact that they abuse children.
Conflating "adult entertainment" with child abuse simply means that resource gets thrown at targeting the wrong people, and fewer child abusers get caught.
Beyond there being evidence (which in this case, there is), the DPP requires a prosecution to be "in the public interest". Prosecuting the BBC will not be in the public interest. What will it achieve? It'll be a waste of tax-payers' money. I'd resent the CPS taking this one on. The BBC aren't perfect, by any means, but this one would be silly.
There's a news item on the BBC about the new elite union for musicians, the Featured Artists Coalition, who are banding together to kick the MAFIAA squar in the noots. I suspect the PRS may get some collateral kickage.
Unfortunately for the PRS, Gootube has plenty of unlicensed copies of these "premium" music videos, so the great British consumer isn't really losing out.
(And what defines "premium", anyway - for me "premium" would mean some lesser known footage of the Sex Pistols)
I have come to the conclusion that security is the result of good governance, not an end in itself. Noone protects a system for its own sake, but for the sake of what it allows access to.
For example, locking your car isn't a distinct activity, it's an integral part of the responsibility of owning and operating a car. In the same way, information access measures are now integral parts of owning a business and processing data.
Technology and IT security are tools to achieve ends, and it's down to the business to effectively govern, and pass those requirements to the technologists and IT security folks to implement that information governance.
When businesses can't be bothered to govern, and allow the tools to dictate the end result, they will - quite deservedly - get poor results.
Good spot sir on the broadcast standards analogy and sport...
BSkyB pissing and moaning about monopolies and control? There's a laugh.
Sky barely produce any content themselves anyway, the majority of their channels are either third parties', sending their content down BSkyB's infrastructure, or JVs of questionable quality ("The Wedding Channel" anyone?!).
Should the statement really be about "content THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE" rather than Gladiators rehashed?
As for AC@1126, you're right - what a joke.
My law knowledge doesn't extend to monopolies and whatnot, but I really very much hope that this can be appealed. Where would we be if early ISPs had been knocked on the head for clustering around a single technology for email? SMTP is too much of a monopoly...
Can we not just clear children off the internet altogether? It's been nothing but bother since they arrived. Maybe the ISPs can do a quick background check against ContactPoint or the ISOs of the HMRC disks, find the presence of children in the property and then disconnect the interpipe.
I am thoroughly fucking sick of a de-centralised computer network being turned into CBeebies. It won't work. It'll never work. Even Saturday Superstore couldn't withold the truth from Matt Bianco.
It's a damn computer network, and children have no place in it, or on it, or using it. I guess parents will have to go back to - I dunno - parenting.
Sex offenders do not equal those with a sexual interest in minors.
Stephen Hall is a "sex offender", and whilst you wouldn't want him at a dinner party, he likes goats. Not kids. Awesome punnage there.
Evidence shows time and time again that the majority of "predators" are known to the families.
Forget about MySpace, start looking at that nice fella who runs the gym club or takes the familiy photos.
I hope El Reginald's vitriolic correspondents will show this guy a little compassion in their commenting. He doesn't need to be told he's a chipstick, he has enough people round him reminding him of that fact. He could well see these comments.
Go easy. He is still the victim of a crime (as much as of his own naivete).
I can't stand the SE cameraphones simply because Sony are unwilling to implement the full features available on other, comparable handsets. Video recording is crippled simply to avoid risking their Cybershot camera range, no 3.5mm headphone jack, and it doesn't even feature a key lock feature.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Yeah cool so the IWF might have borked on a subjective evaluation of a level one image.
Something like that was ALWAYS going to be a tricky call, and as Struan's comments in the other article suggest, some of the culpability for mass Wiki-blocking falls on the ISPs themselves.
However, the majority of the IWFs blocks - not to mention their other work, is to be praised. I'd rather they were there than not, ya know?
Disclosing personal data without the consent of the data controller (in this instance the BNP) is an offence.
You *can* get two years in chokey for it, although the sentences for Goodman and others suggest that it'll be much less (a lass who smurfed the Police national computer looking for her mates was fined a piddly £450, and Goodman got 4 months...)
@AC - the difference between this and Phorm is the complexity of interpreting the rather woolly DPA in the case of Phorm. But I'm only talking about the DPA --- I think the RIPA element of Phorm is clearer.
Perhaps there's a s55(2)(d) "public interest" defence in there for the BNP leakers somewhere, although wikileaking the info doesn't quite seem proportionate....
So, you're outraged are you?
How nice - good luck with being outraged.
When you are able to contribute to this discussion, feel free to join in.
Furthermore, to allow the wider world to enjoy your contributions to this discussion, I recommend courses in law, mathematics, and statistics (but only after you've learned to subtract 5000 from 110000). You currently do not demonstrate sufficient understanding of these subjects.
I shall kick you off with:
One day I shall find a new banner to wave every time the government wades in to matters interwebical, but in the mean time ...
Repeat after me:
the Internet is not television
the Internet is not television
the Internet is not television
The internet is a scary place where sex, suicide and guns are available? Have they ever visited London? Or, for that matter, their own kitchens (in the case of suicide)?
What's most disconcerting is the hard link between a human's chosen act and the medium by which it takes place. It happens on the internet so therefore the internet is at fault and needs spanking. The BBC have an article about "are networking sites dangerous" because people can be mean to other people on them. Well, in those terms, yes, as are playgrounds, trains, buses, offices, churches, and pubs. Let's ban / over-regulate them. Now I come to mention it, a cab driver decided that my little green man meant "cabs proceed" when I attempted to cross Moorgate, and yelled "fuck off" out of his window. I am hurt, let's ban both cabs and roads.
As for that Kaboom nonsense, it's not "legitimate"? OK, that's as may be, in whatever fairy-tale world the MP is living in, but it's still real. Why isn't there a central authority regulating what can go on the internet?
Oh hang on, the Internet is not television.
The only lamentable part of the whole stupid business is the frenzy of bile-spewing psychotic sheep the press created with its coverage. Quite why the BBC is being talked to by MPs is utterly beyond me. If the Daily Fail hadn't kicked off over this, followed by The Sun et al, it would have remained a minor incident in radio history.
The wally that cleared it for broadcast (against Andrew Sachs' wishes) should have been disciplined for dropping the ball, maybe even fired for such a dip-shitted mistake, Andrew Sachs should have been apologised to in private (rather than appeasing the moronic public), and Voluptua of the Satanic Sluts (sexual preference: swinger) should have remained an obscure stripper and faced prosecution under the Criminal Justice and Immigration laws for publishing violent & homicidal sexual imagery.
As it is, the peon masses were whipped up into a marauding horde, demanding heads on plates and generally proving why mob justice should remain an uncomfortable historical relic.
Jeebus, I don't like paying my licence fee much either, but is it any wonder that the noisiest papers about this whole incident are also the ones which have interests which compete with the BBC?
Plus ca change... legislation is enacted - as this rather good author identifies - in and around both thought-crime, and criminalising the many to resolve the few.
However - y'know what? Sod it. Who cares. If this is what the peon masses vote for, let them have it.
I discussed this fellow with some friends and half of them agreed that he should be prosecuted and that such things shouldn't be published (or as one referred to internet publication on asstr.org - 'broadcast'). I could have mentioned American Psycho, or the Saw films, or any number of other 'culturally acceptable' works in counter-argument, but in all honesty, I couldn't be bothered. Why? Because there's no point. The majority of folk can't make the logical connection between criminalising the many to resolve the few, and even less realise that they're - in effect - turning themselves into criminals.
If this is what they want, let them have it. If it makes them feel better to unwittingly join the groupthink (a la Ross/Brand, or the Brasseye special) then good on them. I wish them well. I'll emigrate somewhere, sit back with my popcorn and watch it happen. I wouldn't want to be un-democratic.
There's a product, and people want it, so they have to pay what the seller asks, or go elsewhere.
That might suck, but that - currently - is the state of affairs. My analogy was less than accurate (although "bollocks" is a lot more succinct!), but nevertheless, the score is "pay up or shut up".
The football clubs' management and directors were ecstatically and furiously circle-jerking each other into fat, balding, Lexus-driving lemonparties of jizz-soaked board meetings when they were offered the money for exclusivity, and then patronisingly pull sad faces at the fans when they hear that their 'dealers and distributors' (that nice Mr Murdoch and his wee lad) are charging too much for their content.
If the football business feels that the fans are being hard done by, there's many a law firm who'd gladly take on the job of declaring the exclusivity contracts as unenforceable, so the rights can be sold at a fairer price to the BBC.
Keith Rupert is not a nice man, and his pay TV service is rubbish, but football directors make the RIAA look like a bunch of girl guides.