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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Forward planning (Score 1) 396 396

If you fail to plan you plan to fail. I wouldn't be surprised if the BoE had teams of people working on plans for all sorts of possibilities, some in partnership with the military. I used to think the US government and military did the same thing for all sorts of possibilities involving national security until Obama kept saying that they had no strategy for dealing with IS/ISIS/ISIL (choose your favourite initials here) and admitted they didn't see the mass influx of illegal immigrants/criminal gangs/terrorists before it happened.

Comment: The greatest danger (Score 1) 241 241

The greatest danger to people in law enforcement and related areas) is not the violence they face every day (directed at them or others) but in a warped view of the world. After dealing with so many criminals it's very easy to fall into the mindset that everyone is a criminal in some way or other. What the people see as protecting their rights and liberties these people all too often see as suspicious behaviour with probable criminal intent.

Comment: Unlawful intrusion of the privacy of the people (Score 1) 562 562

Statists like Obama and Cameron don't care about the freedoms, liberties and rights of the people. We have the right to live our lives in peace and privacy and free from the intrusion of the state unless they have reasonable suspicion and probable cause of either criminal activities or the intent to carry them out. If they have that they can get a warrant from a judge to investigate further but do not have the right to monitor everything we do. Comments I may place on here or YouTube where they're open to the public are one thing but personal e-mails and text messages to another private party are another.

Comment: Jurisdictional creep (Score 1) 226 226

I wonder how the US would take it if a judge in another country made use of that claim for their benefit? It might be claimed that because company X chose to operate in their jurisdiction they accepted their jurisdictional boundaries. Various governments have already claimed jurisdiction in other countries for years, which is why they may claim tax on money earned by people working abroad, even though they may have done none of that work in that country...

Comment: Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (Score 1) 1034 1034

I read they (the FBI) changed their priorities recently and no longer consider law enforcement a high priority. They instead choose to focus an increasing amount of resources towards 'National Security' and leave many crimes uninvestigated. I suppose there are always resources available to intimidate and strong-arm someone for wearing the wrong kind of glasses. I wonder how much this lunacy cost.

Comment: Re:That's a tiny number (Score 1) 464 464

Ignoring the president of the day, there are four reasons I wouldn't open start a company in the US, at least not until the situation's resolved:
  1. I don't want to deal with the kleptomaniac, kiddie fondling perverts in the TSA (See YouTube for examples).
  2. I don't trust American police (see YouTube and countless news articles for examples).
  3. HMRC are known thieves but the IRS seem to be even worse, based on cases of people I know of and the proven abuse of position within the IRS as exposed this year.
  4. Because I'm not American I know your government would treat me like a common criminal (even without any evidence) and monitor and record everything I did (digitally).

Since the TSA (or someone like them are not going away and I see the situation only getting worse, the quality of officers in the Police there isn't going to improve (not when the recruits have gone through government indoctrination/schooling), the IRS will still keep stealing from and abusing people (just like HMRC will), and the intelligence contractors that run the US's intelligence services will make sure they steer things towards bigger contracts for them I don't see it ever happening.

Comment: Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (Score 1) 519 519

As a contractor, I've studied contract law. When they told her about it they were making an offer to contract and if she ignored their offer suggests implicit consent. If she replied though and refused their offer and made her own counter-offer the call situation would be different. This way, if they ignore her counter-offer and say nothing it would be they who agreed to her terms. If she rebutted their offer and made her own through an affidavit they'd have to do the same, rebutting each of her statements, point by point.

Comment: Re:Hint taken. (Score 1) 519 519

It already is, under Common Law which is the law of the land in both the US, UK and other countries. Defamation, libel, slander, etc (depending on the method of abuse). All she has to do is to write an affidavit, get it notarised and send it in to them along with demands of her own, including damages for the harm they caused her. If it was me, I'd go on the offensive as it seems they're the guilty party after all. But saying that, it's always best to study the full facts before taking action.

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.

Working...