On Apr 16, 12:45 am, Blah <B> wrote:
[..]
> further posts, agree to agree/disagree as a round up - nobody likes to
> be preached to.
>
> Consider this - I'd quite like the Labour party to leave governement
> soon (who to replace them with is another matter).
> Would it happen any faster if every day I posted 'Labour Party does
> this, Gordon Brown does that' - stories all copied from Google? No.
> If however someone posts a question, and a debate ensues and I move a
> little bit of opinion against Labour - great. If not, I get to call them
> a fuckwit for not agreeing with me..;-)

I am 23rd Century ;)

WM

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:10:28 +0100, Blah <Blah> wrote:

>Turk182 wrote:
>> This is important. It appears to be the first recognition by anyone
>> that Google and other companies are posing a problem for the future.
>>
>There are ALREADY plenty of cctv's on every corner for you to worry about.
>
>i suggest you wear a suitably fashioned hat made of tinfoil which will
>deflect their evil glare.

And if you find a burglar don't you dare take his photograph, you're
infringing his rights... I mean, until convicted, which will be much
more difficult, he's an innocent man, and probably has a good reason
for having your laptop and dvd player under his arm and having raped
your wife.

"Turk182" <digitalradiouk> wrote in message
news:f587
> This is important. It appears to be the first recognition by anyone
> that Google and other companies are posing a problem for the future.
>


>
> One company should not know everything. But Google are snatching,
> grabbing and stealing images before the world decides about controls.
> Are we to allow them to continue?
>

I agree one company shouldn't know everything, they more they publish, the
greater likelihood others will know as well.

If you're doing something you shouldn't be, such as cheating on a loved one,
then perhaps you deserve to get caught.

I don't like the idea of just the government knowing either, where they can
choose which snippets of information are released to further their cause.

On 16 Apr, 09:42, "Fred" <f> wrote:
> "Turk182" <digitalradi> wrote in message
>
> news:f587
>>
> I agree one company shouldn't know everything, they more they publish, the
> greater likelihood others will know as well.
>
> If you're doing something you shouldn't be, such as cheating on a loved one,
> then perhaps you deserve to get caught.
>
> I don't like the idea of just the government knowing either, where they can
> choose which snippets of information are released to further their cause.

Thank Goodness Europe Steps In Where Our Invasive Government Fails:

It's the same problem as school bullying. We always here that a
school does not have a bullying problem, from the Head Teacher, who we
find out is a bully, so wouldn't recognise it. It's the same
situation with privacy in the UK.

EU to sue UK over Internet privacy.

The European commission has called for the UK’s privacy laws to be
tightened to protect web users, as the Guardian reported yesterday:

“In her weekly internet address, EU telecoms commissioner Viviane
Reding warned: “Do you want to turn the internet into a jungle? This
could happen if we cannot control the use of our information online.
There is an undeniable risk that privacy is being lost to the brave
new world of intrusive technologies.”

The commission’s legal action, which could result in the government
being dragged before the European court of justice, centres on the
handling of controversial online advertising technology developed by
UK-based Phorm which has been tested by BT in the UK and cleared by
the authorities.

That technology enables internet service providers (ISPs) to track
what a user does on the internet to create a list of their interests
which can be used to show them more relevant adverts on websites they
subsequently visit. While heralded by ISPs and media companies as a
way of making more money from internet advertising, a market dominated
in the UK by Google, it has been widely criticised by privacy
campaigners and the web’s creator, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, as
unjustifiable online snooping.

The commission said yesterday that the UK needed to tighten its laws
to ensure that consumers were required to consent before their online
activity was monitored for so-called behavioural-targeted advertising
services. The current UK law allows traffic to be intercepted if the
company doing the intercepting has “reasonable grounds for believing”
that it has consent.

A spokeswoman for the Home Office said it had received notice of the
infringement proceedings and would respond “in due course”. The
government has two months to put forward its defence.”

[url down]

Turk182

In article <74mt9jF14947pU1>, on Wed, 15 Apr 2009,
Blah <Blah> wrote
>Turk182 wrote:
>> This is important. It appears to be the first recognition by anyone
>> that Google and other companies are posing a problem for the future.
>>
>There are ALREADY plenty of cctv's on every corner for you to worry
>about.
>
>i suggest you wear a suitably fashioned hat made of tinfoil which will
>deflect their evil glare.

1. As you probably intended that as a joke anyway: they don't emit
light. (Except IR light at night.)

2. The wearing of any form of disguise is under certain circumstances
now illegal anyway. (Certainly at any form of demonstration etc.)

In article
<f93cbbe8-aaef-4c8d-b38c-fc5c3b00ab4a>, on
Wed, 15 Apr 2009, broadssailor <graham.trimmer> wrote
[]
>I find it somewhat perplexing that those (in the UK ) who object most
>strongly to 'Street view' are the very same group who welcome ID
>cards and the storage of genetic information by the Police, on the
>basis that they have nothing to hide.
>Could it be that the Daily Wail told them that one was good whilst the
>other was bad?

I do not "object most strongly" to StreetView, but I _am_ somewhat
concerned by the total lack of control of it (and the fact that under
existing laws, it appears to be totally legal). However, I certainly
don't welcome ID cards or the storage of genetic information - even
though I do actually have nothing to hide.

(Actually, it's not the ID cards I object to - I think the actual card
itself has considerable benefits, _as long as it is used with the
person's consent and is not compulsory_ - it is the underlying database,
and the use to which _that_ is put, that I am very uneasy about.)