Posts by dan1980

I'm game to test your theory . . .

Re: The American Mirror?

@BillG

The 'Alt-Right' is very real and the name is one that they have used for themselves. The question is not whether something called the 'Alt-Right' exists but what set of preferences/beliefs/policies/opinions they hold and how much - if at all - their thinking influences Republican policy.

Within that group, there are people who would self-identify as 'alt-right' but not necessarily be classified as having all the same leanings and philosophies as others, just as there are Catholics who believe that abortion should be legal and that women should be allowed to be priests.

On the other hand, there will be those who share the views but reject the label - just as, say, Sam Harris rejects the label 'Atheist' but, by any estimation, he maintains fundamentally the same views as those other who do label themselves as atheist.

The religious analogy is apropos of nothing - it just came to mind.

@AC

"This is just more of the same wrong thinking as the ex-partner photo sharing law, there are no victims here only willing participants who think everyone else should pay for their lack of self control and stupidity."

You say 'stupidity', I say 'trust'.

Sometimes when you trust someone, that turns out to have negative consequences. The question is whether trusting that person was a was a reasonably good choice at the time. Relationships of whatever type* require a certain level of trust. If you were in a committed relationship with someone and lived together then is it really 'stupidity' and a 'lack of self control' if, due to you both being away from each other frequently (conflicting work schedules, for example) you occasionally keep the fires going with some 'intimate' webcam sessions?

This is not something I do but then I am not in that situation.

I'm not suggesting that everyone who has had their intimate shots/videos disseminated by ex-partners is in such a situation but you seem unwilling to accept that exchanging intimate images/videos with someone could ever be anything but 'stupidity'.

Part of trust, is, after all allowing someone else a measure of control over you - your happiness, your belongings, your secrets. Of course some people will break that trust, but that doesn't mean you should never give it.

* - This includes not just long-term relationships but more casual ones as well.

Re: ... to find the target's true location

@Schultz

The answer? Both.

They justify it by saying they need it for specific instances of identified crimes but the new powers are so ridiculously broad that there really isn't much of a limit to what they can do.

Re: I have to be a weirdo then

Rum is something of a force multiplier, when applied on top of beer. Unfortunately, much collateral damage results. Net effect largely depends on quantity of rum.

If we measure happiness over time, we find that beer provides a happiness such that H=B^1/2 - or thereabouts. Thus we see that happiness will asymptotically approach a moderate, finite value. At some point, however the size of b will be unmanageable.

Enter R.

R changes things. R affects H in complex ways, partially determined by B but also influenced by other factors such as time, location and company. R also seems to behave in utterly unexpected ways that cannot be accounted for by any of the previous variables.

Generally, however, R will re-establish a positive growth in H but, as it increases beyond a certain point, becomes dangerously unstable and can cause a sharp decline in H.

Re: The problem with this country

@Peter 26

"I don't have anything to hide . . ."

While I believe I understand what you are saying, I don't see that as a strong argument because the government line of "if you don't have anything to hide then you don't have anything to fear" is actually relatively straight-forward

The problem with that argument, however, comes in the two assumptions: first, that if you're hiding something then you are up to no good and, second, that there is nothing to 'fear' from having your secrets revealed.

What a load of rubbish.

It is entirely legal (at least for the moment . . .) to have an affair. If you are doing so, it is entirely logical that you should wish to hide it from everyone and it is entirely rational to be afraid of that secret being learned by anyone*.

In other words, it is entirely possible to have something to hide and something to fear but yet be entirely innocent of any crime.

I hide as much as I can, feasibly, from the government and indeed from anyone who doesn't need to know. I have no loyalty cards of any sort, I use no 'social media' (excluding these forums) and I buy things in person with cash as much as is possible. You don't need a foil hat to realise that you are being tracked and your personal information stored and collated and sold and processed and cross-referenced whenever you allow yourself to be.

In Sydney, Australia, our version of the Oyster card ('Opal') was originally only available by signing up and linking it to your credit card. F--k that. I waited until it was available anonymously before getting one and only ever top it up with cash. This is something that requires extra effort on my part and sometimes causes me to miss my train if I have forgotten to do so. But that is something I am willing to deal with to protect my privacy.

The point is that you shouldn't have to earn your right to privacy by proving you're not doing anything wrong.

grrrrr . . .

* - Just think back to the 'Ashley Madison' hack and recall that some people went so far as to end their own lives once what they were "hiding" was made public.

@Codysydney

Exactly. It's arrogance and, once you see that, you realise that the failure of the online census and the decision to retain personally-identifiable information were both the result of this - they weren't isolated issues.

In both cases, they made their decisions by themselves and neither sought nor accepted input from those outside the process. In the case of the retention of identifiable information every action (and inaction) points to them deliberately trying to avoid anyone from providing input.

So let's add it up:

• They investigate retaining private information despite every previous report rejecting it
• They commission a report, which, again, says not to
• They ignore it and decide to push ahead anyway
• They make no big annoucements and do not involve Parliarment
• Once people find out, there is a large swell of concern, with many academics and experts in IT, Law, Privacy and even Statistics voicing deep reservations and outright condemnations
• The ABS ignores them
• The criticisms kept coming, with several of the peoples' democratically-elected representatives requesting reviews and even announcing boycotts
• The ABS again largely ignores this and simply asserts that there is nothing to worry about, refusing to reconsider or even engage in any dialogue

What does that say about the organisation? The short version is that they wanted to do something and ignored anyone and everyone who questioned them, be they citizens, experts or even politicians.

With that as their stance when it comes endangering the privacy on millions of Australians, it would have been more surprising had it gone smoothly.

Re: Conclusive proof

@Big John

Obviously, this thread is getting away from the ornament itself (meh), but I have always wondered at the assertion that Trump being very wealthy is proof that he can't/won't be swayed by financial interests.

Personally, I don't have too strong an opinion one way or the other. BUT, I think it should be patently obvious that an equally valid argument can be made that someone like Trump got so rich be valuing financial reward very highly.

Whenever he has been challenged with his alleged business failures, these have been re-framed to show how smart he is at making money. It is a matter of fact that investors in certain of Trump's ventures have lost rather a lot of money while Trump protected himself or actually made money.

This may indeed be very clever, business-wise. But it does not go to show that his wealth makes him not care about financial benefits.

So, while I understand the argument that Trump's existing wealth is evidence that he won't seek wealth as President, the converse cannot be discounted: that he will seek to enrich himself while president because his life has been the pursuit of exactly that.

Re: As opposed to...

@Trevor_Pott

While I don't doubt your assessment, at least the US has the right to silence enshrined in the constitution. That is absolutely critical because it means that you have a clear option: just say nothing. I'm not saying they won't threaten you because it is a simple fact that the police are fully allowed to outright lie to a suspect to pressure them. BUT, compare that to the UK and Australia, where the right to silence is more a legal tradition that a codified right.

In Australia, if you don't spill to the cops and later spill to the court (e.g. provide a alibi on trial that you didn't give to the police) you can - and will be - judged negatively for that.

Re: I am Mad

@Big John

"You have this exactly backwards. It's the libs in charge that are changing things, and it's the conservative people voting against them that want it stopped."

No - you have misunderstood.

I am not talking about liberal vs conservative at all. In the UK, Cameron staked his leadership on staying in the EU and the head of the official 'Remain' group - Stuart Rose - is a conservative peer in the House of Lords. And there were, of course, Labour members who supported the 'Leave' campaign.

In the US, it's not so simple as saying that the Presidential race was a choice between a Republican and a Democrat. Donald Trump's first major victory was in securing the party's nomination - something he did with a platform of not being 'one of them'. His big push against the other Republican candidates was that they weren't to be trusted because they were part of the system. Similar too was his dismissal of the views and assertions of experts or academics - they, too, were part of the system and not to be trusted. Trust him, instead, and trust your own instincts.

Donald Trump did not run, primarily, as a 'conservative' against a 'liberal'; ran ran as an anti-establishment outsider against the establishment. That he ran, also, on traditional 'right' issues does not make him 'conservative'. His message was not just to limit immigration but to actively round-up and kick people out and build an impossible wall to keep them out. His message was not just to resist pressure from the UN and NATO but threaten the US's involvement in them.

And, I never suggested that the 'libs' weren't 'changing' anything. Of course they are, but so are conservatives. Every party and president makes changes and they nature of government most usually means they are slow (which is not necessarily a bad thing). I said that one side wanted to 'stay the course' - not 'stand still'.

That the two sides, in the US, were labelled as 'Republican' and 'Democrat' is not insignificant by any stretch but far more important was the core difference in their position in relation to & attitude towards the institution of government. That, after all, is why Trump was there in the first place.

You say it is 'the libs in charge that are changing things'. Why then didn't the 'conservative people' make an established 'conservative', with a proven history of conservative voting, the Republican nominee? If people were really wanting their conservative representative to resist changes then why didn't they choose Ted Cruz, who has a career-long history of arguing conservative cases as a lawyer and proposing and voting for conservative bills in the Senate? Most particularly, he openly criticised other republicans for insufficiently resisting changes by Obama. If anyone of the Republican candidates could be said to be dedicated to resist liberal changes, surely it would have been Ted Cruz, rather than Donald Trump who has a provable record of agreeing with 'liberal' policies.

Neither the US election nor the Brexit vote was about conservative vs liberal ideology; it was about one side/candidate pointing to the established order and telling everyone that that is the problem - all those politicians and economists and academics and journalists and scientists who sit in their towers and tell you how the world is and how it should be - they are the ones who are wrong and you are the ones who are right.

For the Brexit Leave campaign it was sometimes absolutely out in the open, with people like Gove outright saying that people had had enough of trusting experts, like the economists clearly pointing out the cost/benefit numbers of EU membership.

I want to be clear, at this point, that I don't actually reject that line of argument.

There is a large part of me that really feels some affinity for some of the underlying concern and push-back. Ignoring the undeniable xenophobia that both the Trump and Leave campaigns harnessed, there is a purer, more defensible argument that must be grasped by the 'establishment' if there is to be any hope working towards a society that is cohesive and happy.

That argument is that the well-being of the population is just not being properly considered. The establishment - which consists of the majority of politicians, economists, bankers and business 'leaders' - are just not using the right metrics or working from the right assumptions. The prevailing logic has been, and continues to be, that globalisation is the way to go and that the measurement of sucess is whether the 'economy' benefits.

There is no room in this model for the real, everyday concerns of the average citizen and people are, quite frankly, getting rather sick of it. It is entirely possible for an educated individual to understand that a particular law or deal or tax will improve the economy but be against it.

The 'establishment' has constructed their 'system' as this precarious, complex, inter-connected, gigantic house-of-cards whose only protection is that they have made it so that it is too complex, too inter-connected and too gigantic to fail. Or, more accurately, to fail without taking down rather a lot else.

The 'system' is, essentially, trickle-down economics writ large but it has become like a sword of Damocles over us all, ready to fall if we make too sudden a move.

Many people have accurately observed that our economies result in a small number of people controlling the vast majority of wealth but it's actually more problematic than that because it's not simply a result of the system; it's the inherent design of it.

So yeah, with that tangent, I understand one part of the frustration that has led to both Trump and Brexit and my hope for the future is that our politicians, collectively, hear the wake-up call and understand - really understand - the deep feelings of disappointment, distrust and even betrayal. People really believe that their governments have not just let them down and ignored them but sold them out.

It is not about 'conservative' vs 'liberal'.

@YAAC

"The TPP was a bullshit trade deal designed to fuck China."

Not quite. the TPP was a bullshit trade deal designed to benefit the US*. I don't think that negatively impacting others is its raison d'etre, but it is not about a fair deal or about everyone winning.

Trade deals are important but can really only be fair and reasonable to both sides when they are a one-to-one (not many-to-many) affair with relatively narrow scope.

That one deal contains provisions for weakening emissions regulations in Japan (so the US can sell more cars there) as well as for reducing wage protections for foreign workers in Australia (so Chinese mining companies can operate a staff of fly-in-fly-out workers in their mining operations) is insane.

It's like some ridiculous uber omnibus bill that bundles in an amended bill weakening privacy with a budget that has taken years to hammer out.

I actually even understand some of the reasons for secrecy because trade is sensitive. BUT, again, that is far more acceptable in a limited, one-to-one deal than this giant cover-all monster.

* - By 'the US', I mean 'those in power in the US'. And, by 'those in power in the US', I mean 'corporations'. It's in no way designed to directly benefit (North) American workers - if some few do benefit in some small way then that is just a side-effect.

Re: Meanwhile in the UK

@peter 45

Well, injuring someone who is fleeing and therefore who poses no immediate threat to you is not "self-defence" at all - proportionate or otherwise.

Whatever someone's position on protection of property, "self defence" is something entirely different and only applies when you are - logically enough - defending yourself. Attacking someone who is retreating just does not, by definition alone, qualify.

The level of force acceptable to defend your stuff is another question entirely.

For once I have some sympathy for Comey.

From the outside, it looks to be a bit of a rock-and-a-hard-place affair as it's easy to imagine the response had they kept it quiet.

The 'open government' side of me thinks they did the right thing in saying that what they were doing. If a politician is being investigated by federal law enforcement then I want to know. Deliberately keeping this information (just the simple fact that it is happening) from the public because it is close to an election make me uneasy.

I have serious doubts whether those who were intending to vote for Clinton would have been dissuaded by this.

Regardless, Comey's announcement of it was a mess.

Re: You keep using that word . . .

Ahh, right.

Re: Really?

@bazza

Really?

I think the measure of whether a contract is 'reasonable' or not is determined with due consideration to what the contract covers.

If you, essentially, sign up to test a new and potentially dangerous technology where there is an identifiable risk of injury and death that exceeds the risk associated with the more 'proven' option (i.e. a human-driven vehicle) then I think that a contract that states that you understand and accept that risk is not, necessarily 'unreasonable.

Would I do it? Hell no. But that's exactly my point - I can see that there is a real risk of injury and death involved.

Re: Musk seems to be losing it

"He might find a few loons . . ."

Perhaps, but what I think he will find is a strong field of very resourceful, very intelligent, and very brave people willing to devote their lives to the difficult, dangerous and demanding task of helping start the long and laborious process of attempting to gain the a foothold out in the solar system.

And it will be a long task and it will take many generations before any 'normal' people can ever hope to live in anything like comfort on another planet, but that doesn't make the inevitable pioneers 'loons' for helping get us there.

Those people who do accept this challenge will be helping to create a future that neither they nor anyone else alive today will ever experience and for that I will applaud their courage rather than question their sanity!

@Mark 65

At this point (and many others,) I am reminded of that lovely line from Jurassic Park: "life finds a way".

Well, money finds a way.

Complex laws - even if supposedly targeted at 'big businesses' - actually serve to further advantage the big end of town because they are the ones who have the resources to negotiate around them and make them work in their favour. Smaller companies just have to deal with it.

Re: Stupid questions...

@hplasm

That's close to the real point/question: what if you say: "I don't have one"?

By that I mean: how will they decide whether you are being honest or deliberately trying to hide your accounts from them? Will you 'qualify' for extra scrutiny if you say you don't have any SM accounts?

Another question is raised, which is: will they leave a bunch of blank space for free-text or list specific services (e.g. Facebook & Twitter)? If free-form, what if you have dozens and can't remember them all?

I wonder how the citizens of living in the 'home of the brave' feel about how cowardly and paranoid their leaders are.

@AC

It is certainly the case that in some companies you get the wrong end of every stick. People of the more self-righteous type* will tell you that it's your fault if the business doesn't listen to you. And some times those people are right. Other times, it's just a bad culture or overly head-strong string pullers and you're powerless.

And, again, in some of those instances, you could possibly improve the situation with enough effort but it's not always worth it; sometimes it's just better for your sanity to find another role.

Without knowing your situation I can't really make too informed a comment but I would suggest that the best way is to put forward a well-reasoned proposal. If you perceive a problem with the current system(s) and have concrete ways to address those problems then make your recommendations. But be aware that there may be angles to this you haven't considered.

Again, I don't know your situation but are these problems you see really a problem for the business itself? (Rather than the IT team.) Will fixing it cost more than it does to manage? Are there business processes or legal/tender requirements that dictate certain configurations as necessary and/or others as forbidden?

As a sysadmin of some years experience, I can sympathise with dealing with disconnect caused by a 'problem' that I am technically able to fix but am prevented from doing so due to reasons. Some times I agree with those reasons and sometimes I don't. Either way, when this happens, I ask those who have made the decisions exactly what they would like me to tell the person I am speaking with.

And yeah, sometimes you just have to take the knocks and press on.

* - I say MORE self-righteous because deep down (and sometimes not so deep,) we're all a little self-righteous.

Re: There few getting "rich".

@Paul Shirley

Calling out one problem doesn't mean that the others can be ignored. I think, as a journalist, Andrew may be more interested in and aware of the copyright side of things and so more 'qualified' to discuss it.

How thing have reached this point is worth discussing and it is certainly not just Google's doing. Indeed Andrew touches on this with his explanation of how radio has 'helped' shape this current landscape.

When it comes down to it, however, the problem really starts with artists being at the mercy of labels and being forced to sign un-fair contracts to get their music out there.

Re: Lawsuit?

@AC

While I find the behaviour detestable, ethically, I don't see how it is 'blackmail'. Blackmail is when you gain benefits (often money) from an entity by holding sensitive information that you threaten to release otherwise.

I.e.: you profit by agreeing to not releasing information.

As I understand this story, MedSec made their profit by making financial decisions based on the public reaction to the release of the information they held. Of course, they acted to maximise that reaction and so maximise their profit, but that's not blackmail.

Both are about selfishly and unethically utilising previously-secret information you hold for profit but there's a clear difference. At least I think so.

In this case, if the information is accurate then MedSec's actions have endangered lives but, so far as the legality of those actions are concerned, all they did was make market decisions based on research about a publicly-listed company.

If the information is false or exaggerated to a significant degree, then they have panicked people, which is less detestable, ethically, but on the legal side, they have committed securities fraud - specifically 'short and distort' - and will likely be arrested and fined and, potentially, do some jail time.

Treating people's lives as inconsequential in the pursuit of profit is one thing, but messing with people's money, well, that's just going too far. (Sarcasm.)

Re: Uh - how about a bonus of 20% of net pay after 5 years without a hack?

Merit bonuses are great, except governments have rather different ideas about what constitutes 'merit'.

Re: @ dan1980

@Commswonk

"In many respects the EU must accept a measure of responsibility for how things turned out."

While I understand and, indeed, accept many of your points, I have two comments on the above quoted passage.

First, when you say "the EU" - which specific people do you mean? Do you meant the populations of the countries that make up the EU, the leaders of those countries or the members of the EU parliament? The last of these seems the most likely but that reading of your words is undone by your statement that: "After all it [the EU] can ignore the EU parliament if it so wishes."

Understand that I am not arguing against your point here - just trying to understand what you mean - in that sentence - by 'the EU'.

Second, I think the majority of the 'blame' for the result comes from successive governments - on both sides - utterly failing the people. This lead to growing distrust of 'business as usual' and made conditions ripe for the likes of Nigel Farage, just as the same situation in the US led to Donald Trump gaining the Republican nomination. Similar circumstances are being played-out in many countries.

When I use the term 'blame', above, it is because regardless of any good, sane, economic and social reasons for leaving, even the staunchest 'leave' advocate cannot deny that there was a fair number of 'leave' voters who have been let down by the usual suspects, leaving them open to having the familiar buttons of xenophobia and racism pressed shamelessly by the likes of Farage. The racism that happened during the debate and since the referendum is evidence of that.

Are there people who voted 'leave' who understood the details and complexities and made an informed decision based on a sober assessment of the pros and cons - either for themselves or society as a whole? Absolutely. But it was a close vote and without this demagoguery it is nearly certain that the result would have been different.

And again, while there were certainly valid, sober reasons for leaving, argued by knowledgeable people through accurate data, there was a huge amount of exaggeration and outright lying, which was designed to whip up discontent in the population*. The results of this can be seen in the increase in racism and racist attacks that have followed.

Leaving the EU is one thing; whipping the populace into outrage at Johnny Foreigner taking their jobs and benefits is quite another.

* - Again, the parallel with Donald Trump is not unwarranted.