The B&B Question Of The Day
-
Is it just me or does that make no sense?adkm1979 wrote:Who's business is it but mine and the people I'm writing to? Well, it's the authorities business if you're writing to criminals about your criminal activity. Otherwise, nobody cares. -
It's definitely not an answer to the question. I know that much.
-
It is an answer, and it does make sense. It's about as simple as it gets, so your apparent inability to understand is baffling.
Monkey, I'd rather you didn't call me a dope, thanks. You seem to be suggesting that an improvement in technology would somehow overrule the laws in place about when an authority can actually read a person's email. No. All better technology would do is ensure that less emails are flagged up.
The laws and rules that I'm talking about are, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Regulation ofInvestigatory Powers Act 2000 (in Scotland we also have RIP(S)A) and the Data Protection Act 1998. -
Matt_82 wrote:
Well, if you want to get technicalI'm falling apart to songs about hips and hearts... -
Your answer as to who's business it is is "Nobody cares." That's not a good answer. And I'm pretty sure it isn't an answer at all. Just a dismissal of the question.adkm1979 wrote:It is an answer, and it does make sense. It's about as simple as it gets, so your apparent inability to understand is baffling.
Nope. I'm suggesting that the defence of this behaviour that it is highly limited due to technological considerations may be invalidated. It's important to stop spying becoming normalised before this point is reached. Otherwise, every email I send will be scanned, interpreted for meaning and then the state decides whether what I'm sending is acceptable to them or not. If you can't see how someone might have a legitimate problem with that, there's really no point carrying on here.adkm1979 wrote:Monkey, I'd rather you didn't call me a dope, thanks. You seem to be suggesting that an improvement in technology would somehow overrule the laws in place about when an authority can actually read a person's email. No. All better technology would do is ensure that less emails are flagged up.
The Human Rights Act is a thorn in the side of the previous two govts and the Tories will scrap it if they're re-elected. The Data Protection Act exempts national security agencies from having to comply. RIPA is deeply flawed.adkm1979 wrote:The laws and rules that I'm talking about are, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Regulation ofInvestigatory Powers Act 2000 (in Scotland we also have RIP(S)A) and the Data Protection Act 1998.
According to the documents, the certificate authorises GCHQ to search for material under a number of themes, including: intelligence on the political intentions of foreign governments; military postures of foreign countries; terrorism, international drug trafficking and fraud.
The briefing document says such sweeping certificates, which have to be signed off by a minister, "cover the entire range of GCHQ's intelligence production".
"The certificate is issued with the warrant and signed by the secretary of state and sets out [the] class of work we can do under it … cannot list numbers or individuals as this would be an infinite list which we couldn't manage." -
Way to ignore the first part of my answer which addresses whose business it is.
Again, you're continuing to assert that advancement in technology would somehow overrule the law. Improved technology will allow a more sophisticated filtration which makes it even less likely that innocent emails are ever read by an actual person.
The Human Rights Act is so heavily interwoven into our legislative system that scrapping it is not so simple as you make out.
The Guardian article uses a lovely bit of rhetoric with its use of 'last century' to support it's suggestion that the legislation was written without the understanding that the amount of data flying about internet would explode, when actually it was the knowledge of that that underpinned the requirement for the legislation. -
Sometimes, the term history can just refer to human events. Depends what Reg meant, really.
Edit: wow, didn't think it to me that long to read and post. This tasty sandwich must be very distracting. -
I'm not ignoring it. It doesn't apply to me since my emails don't contain any reference to criminal activity. Leaving me with 'Nobody cares'.adkm1979 wrote:Way to ignore the first part of my answer which addresses whose business it is.
adkm1979 wrote:Again, you're continuing to assert that advancement in technology would somehow overrule the law. Improved technology will allow a more sophisticated filtration which makes it even less likely that innocent emails are ever read by an actual person.
The first sentence is wrong. I agree with the last sentence. Improved technology would make that irrelevant. The only reason a human needs to look at it is because it can attach semantic meaning to content that a computer can't. If a computer can, then, yeah, less humans. But more analysis. Humans will just end up looking at the meta data. No law changes are required for this to happen and no further breaking of the rules or spirit of the rules than has already happened.
adkm1979 wrote:The Human Rights Act is so heavily interwoven into our legislative system that scrapping it is not so simple as you make out.
I don't think it will be simple. I'm saying the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, are all on record as saying they will get rid of it in a future Tory government.
A single minister being able to sign something off to enable the security services to spy on an 'infinite' number of people is not effective oversight. The phraseology in the article is unimportant.adkm1979 wrote:The Guardian article uses a lovely bit of rhetoric with its use of 'last century' to support it's suggestion that the legislation was written without the understanding that the amount of data flying about internet would explode, when actually it was the knowledge of that that underpinned the requirement for the legislation. -
The easy thing to say is that things like this automated surveillance need to be mirrored by equal transparency for people to see what's going on inside the government, which it's currently not (AFAIK).
-
-
You guys are shit for not doing my question, violating my human rights
-
I would go back to when that question was asked and live my life the same way, sticking myself in a temporal loop forever
-
I'm between the birth of Christ, Battle of Killiecrankie, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Thermopylae, the sinking of the Titanic, the moon landing, any event at the Coliseum, the building of any of the pyramids, the building of Stonehenge, the Great Fire of London, Abe Lincoln's Gettyburg address, any of Hitler's addresses at any of the Nuremburg Rallies, any of Churchill's famous speeches in the House of Commons, and the Battle of Endor.
-
I'd like to stand on the grassy knoll at just the right time.
I'd really like to have seen any of the Saturn V launches - they must have been fecking awe inspiring.
The Liberation of Paris was supposed to have been quite a night too.
Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
Historic not fictional.adkm1979 wrote:I'm between the birth of Christ,
That's better.the Battle of Endor. -
End of the Dinosaur, it would be one hell of a light show and it would briefly have dinosaurs.
Or
The Big Bang.
Both are assuming I am an untouchable on looker. -
Tempy's birth.
Just to see if the rumours are true -
I imagine the Big Bang would actually be pretty boring to watch.
-
Either the discovery of ayahuasca or the orgy that preceded the rape of the Sabine women."Better than a tech demo. But mostly a tech demo for now. Exactly what we expected, crashes less and less. No multiplayer."
- BnB NMS review, PS4, PC -
How long did the big bang take? Maybe ffw the boring bits.
This reminds me of the Futurama with the one way time machine. -
Did the big bang even make a bang?
Actually, I don't care. -
Good point. Fuck it I'll stick with giant thunder lizard light show.
-
Would like a wander around the Great Exhibition.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009.
-
I'm sure some of those world's fairs they used to have in America would have been interesting to walk around.
-
The Chicago one pls
-
WOD FIR
-
Think there was one in Tokyo too. Something about 1950s Tokyo that appeals - no idea why. Hmmm.. Wiki says no - Osaka had one in 1970.
Wasn't the Eiffel tower built for an expo in Paris?
Crystal Palace for the Great Exhibition was built in 9 months....
Apparantly there is still a fund that was set up from it's profits - it built the V&A , Science and Natural History Museums....and the fund is still used today for scholarships etc. Feck me.
Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
Inspired by MK's shop thread but didn't want to clog it up.
Who is your favourite in game shop keep?
A couple of mine
Residnet Evil 4
"Whadaya Selliiiiing?"
"Whadaya Boyiiiiing?"
This creepy guy was always a welcome sight if for no other reason than you were safe for a moment.
Zelda: Wind Waker
How can a man be so French without even an accent.
-
The twogay guysflamboyant gentlemen in Shadow Hearts.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,718
- Games1,881
- Off topic837