Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Rewards the hacker (Score 2) 104

What I find incredibly offensive is that the charity's CEO didn't even apologise to the 10,000 innocent victims whose data was lost as a result of his organisation's failings. Instead he is trying to shift the attention onto the ICO and try to portray themselves as victims.

In all probablility burning tens of thousands pounds more of the charity's money in the process. If they do actually go to appeal, rather than just saying it in the heat of the moment. It's a she, by the way.

To be fair, they are victims in the sense that if they didn't get hacked, they might have got away with their negligence but that is often true. It's rather like blaming the guy that pulled out in front of you when you were drunk driving.

Comment Re:so they got an anti-abortion judge (Score 1) 104

Why is it a "heavy-handed" fine? It seems to me that when an organization endangers members of the public via negligence, they should receive a penalty that is sufficient to motivate them to change their practices.
>

It's less that 1% of their annual turnover, and could easily come out of their senior management's pay. Think that will happen? Me neither.

Comment Re:Of course it's "lawful" (Score 1) 169

What do you mean it didn't happen?

He was arrested and held for 6 months then allowed to go free by the UK government.

GP argued that the courts always sided with the elite. However, Pinochet lost the case, although some of the charges were dismissed. The government later decided to let him go on medical grounds.

Comment Re:Of course it's "lawful" (Score 2) 169

To paraphrase, when the government does it, it's not illegal. It would be absurd to expect any other outcome.

Not at all, the executive frequently acts unreasonably and gets slapped down by the courts. However, when parliament grants very broad powers (as in the case of a lot of anti-terrorism legislation) they are more likely to get away with it.

A fairly standard (but nonetheless shameful) case this morning: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-...

Comment Re:Iron curtain? (Score 1) 337

Because the vast majority Muslims who either enter or leave "the land of milk and honey" are not enemy combatants or terrorists or intending to fight any kind of war.

Yes, but that's not the point is it? We're not talking about the vast majority of Muslims, we're talking about the ones that have just returned form a war zone.

Comment Re:That's not what Godwin's Law is about (Score 3, Informative) 683

It doesn't mean you automatically lose a debate

Not as originally stated, although that is often assumed to follow. For example, the Jargon file has:

“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...