Posts by Graham Marsden

@Lighten up

Ivana Chagalot:

There is a difference between him being entitled to hold an opinion and him calling for "discouragements of homosexual practices after the style of warnings on cigarette packets. Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed..."

The right to hold an opinion comes with the attendant *responsibility* not to express that opinion in a way or advocating behaviour that infringes on the right of others to live their lives in a manner that doesn't harm others.

We do not equate the public interest with whatever the public is interested in...

... so says the Press Complaints Commission's own guidelines for editors.

What Max Mosley did had *nothing* to do with his job as head of F1, nor did he do it in a public place or display it for public consumption. What we did have, however, is a gutter tabloid rag which decided that invading someone's privacy for a bit of salacious scandal mongering would boost their circulation figures.

Unfortunately, whilst I entirely understand his reasoning, it's very unlikely that his requests will actually be acted upon because that would tip the balance too far away from the ability of the media to publish stories which are "in the public interest" ie *of benefit* to the public.

What he would, IMO, be better advised to do, is to get the PCC changed from a toothless watchdog which is stuffed with newspaper editors whose only interest is covering each other's backs to an organisation which can actually require editors to be dismissed or journalists sacked if they publish prurient tittle-tattle like this with no real justification other than "it will sell more papers".

Perhaps that will then make the press less inclined to do this sort of "expose".

The other question is...

... as with EULAs (which are generally unread or made unreadable!) are these Privacy Policies actually legally enforceable parts of the implied contract between the business and the customer...?

And what happens when...

... someone presses the wrong key or mis-spells a name and some poor (but perfectly alive) sod finds that his credit cards have all been cancelled because "the computer says you're dead"!

Hmm...

So a company that makes a security product "cracks" the protection of a different security product (well, only in the sense that you need an older image of the disk, which is surely a bit unlikely) and says "use our product instead"...?

@Paul M

I don't live in a cave, but, unlike you it seems, I do know that the amount of DRM free music legitimately available out there is only a *fraction* of the total output available from music producers.

I'd be quite happy to pay for the music I wanted if I could actually buy it and, of course, at a reasonable price, instead of paying inflated "rip off Britain" charges.

And, no, I don't want to buy a ten quid CD simply to get one track either.

"Consumers want...

... greater control over their privacy online"

Right, so when people are browsing my site, selling affordable leather products (ie BDSM gear) they *really* want Phorm snooping around and checking what they're buying...!

I've just added the "Phorm Prohibited" text to my T&Cs.

"the Home Office actively pursuing plans..."

"...to block material that is not actually illegal to possess."

Not forgetting, of course, their plans to criminalise possession of material of acts that are not actually illegal to do!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/30/scotland_extreme_pr0n_law/

http://www.caan.org.uk/

@The easiest way to stop premium rate abuse ....

> is to make it so that phone subscribers have to explicitly "opt-in" to be able to make premium rate calls

Back in 1994, during the days of 0898 chat/ sex lines, there was an attempt to do exactly that which virtually killed the income of the businesses who, perfectly legally and legitimately, operated these lines, because nobody wanted to phone up an operator and say "please let me access these numbers". Eventually the system was quietly dropped.

@Steve Swann

> if you are telling a story that involves such a scene, then its fine because it isn't simply for 'sexual gratification'

Yes, but if you take a clip from a TV show or BBFC classified film and, in someone else's *entirely subjective opinion* you did it "for sexual gratification" then you will have committed an offence.

Of course this will be judged partly by the "context" it is in, although whether that means it's in a folder marked "porn clips" or both are in the My Documents folder or both are on the same hard drive or both are on the same computer or both are in the same house, nobody knows!

There's also the point that the BBFC have given an R18 classification to a pr0n film called "Girls with Guns" that features women "forcing" men to have sex "under firearms duress", but that will still be entirely legal because it's not a clip from a film, it's the whole damn film!!

Still, apart from that, I agree entirely with your main point :-)

PS @NT - Nice rant!

Consolation prize...

... of course the real reason they seized his computer is so they can check for anything they could consider to be "extreme pornography" on it and, if so, chalk up another brownie point to make their arrest figures look good!

@David Rollinson

> UK Top Secret = Give to Journalist?

1) Hand in to the Police. They hand it back to the MOD. MOD says "Phew! That was lucky, good job nobody noticed" and does nothing about it.

2) Hand it to the media. They hand it back to the MOD with publicity and the MOD are then at least then aware that people know they screwed up and will maybe do something about their data security.

@AC Re: Lib Dems

> the chances of them winning the next election are unfortunately slim to none. Voting for them in certain constituencies risks handing power back to Labour for another term.

And as long as people keep saying (and believing) this, there isn't going to be the chance of any change!

Unfortunately too many people vote for Party X because "my parents voted for them and so did my grandparents" or they don't look further than their wallets and purses and so we're left with a two party state that operates on the principle of Buggins' Turn and neither of those parties have any inclination to change the system that keeps them in power.

@Gareth Dart

Yeah, but unless there's an M&S nearby, you have to spend time travelling to one, shopping for a chocolate bar etc wheras "Here's a choccy bar" gives instant gratification!

@Ru

Re: MIRVs

This is a flawed analogy, if you set off all those nukes in one place it would not have the same effect as a big asteroid.

Consider, instead, someone about to fire a double barreled shotgun at you. One barrel is loaded with a solid lead slug, the other with a similar mass of shot. The first will make a small hole going in and a bloody big hole coming out the other side, the second will make a lot of small holes but may not hit something vital.

Which barrel would you prefer to be fired?

That is why breaking up an asteroid before it hits is a good idea.

@GF

> the parents most likely had already taken the steps in trying to establish/maintain trust with their daughter

"Most likely"? Got any proof of that?

> If someone consistently lies to you about something, is that trust still there? No

"We don't trust you, so we're going to spy on you for your own protection". Hmm, sounds familiar, do you work for the Government...?!

The point is, however, there are better ways of doing this than installing spyware on your child's computer.

> Several items to consider: 1. Anyone under the age of 18 years old (at least in the US) is a juvenile,

This was in the UK, not the US.

> it would be very bad parenting to not provide an environment of trust where the juvenile should become a responsible family member, but that trust is earned, not given.

Is that the child trusting the parent or the parent trusting the child?! And how about a little *respect* from both sides?

> The juvenile is not mature enough to think for him/herself

So the parent *guides* the child and *teaches* them. They don't *snoop* on them.

And your Point 4 sounds like classic "Won't someone think of the children!" hyperbole.

@The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

> Surely the number of failed attempts is largely irrelevant?

No, it's entirely relevant because you neglect to factor in whether, once they'd "got it right", they could replicate those results sufficiently to make this a truly viable threat.

> Which proves what exactly? That it was a sod to get right?

Exactly! Yet, because it was *possible* (but not necessarily by any means probable), millions of passengers have had to suffer disruption and hassle.

> Well, I for one would prefer not to have been on one of those planes when they gave it a try, how about you? Would you risk your family or anyone else's on that supposition?

Why didn't you add "Think of the children!" whilst you were at it?

This is exactly the same sort of argument that is being used by your Chief Police Officers etc for ID cards, taking everyone's DNA and so on because "would you want to risk us *not* catching the terrorists/ criminals/ paedophiles/ bogeyman of the month?"

Yes, there's a potential risk, but I also take a risk every time I go out on Britain's roads where around 3,500 people die each year. Do you risk your family's lives on the supposition that it's not likely to be *you* in that number of deaths?

I don't deny there's a threat, but there's also such a thing as a sense of proportion and not getting caught up in the hype.

> I obviously can't talk about the extent of the physical evidence save to say that WE found it overwhelmingly conclusive. I can't say what would convince you or anyone else for that matter. [...] still Jury's have acquitted for reasons known only to themselves.

Again, exactly my point. With all due respect to you and your colleagues and your experience and your feelings, you are *not* impartial nor objective viewers of the evidence.

>>Not 45 minutes...?!

> An irrelevant cheap shot my friend.

A "cheap shot"? Definitely. "Irrelevant", however? Nope.

> We all understand the legal Presumption of Innocence, but that is, in reality, a very different concept than your personal knowledge of events, or mine in this particular context.

Yes, I don't deny that. The question is, however, what happens next which is why, of course, we have an independent judiciary and why we don't let the Police determine guilt or families of victims determine sentences.

> I only wish my pay reflected my constantly being on duty.

On that you will get no argument from me. Whatever else we may disagree on, the way successive Governments have treated the pay of Police, Hospital Staff, the Fire Service and other such groups is nothing short of shameful.

> Oh and If we weren't able to determine the guilty party [...] Okay, potential guilt then, but in reality it means the same thing.

No, it doesn't. Ask the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and many others who were victims of over-zealous Police Officers in the past.