Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:They are still allowed 12 books in their cell (Score 1) 220

by radio4fan (#46584043) Attached to: UK Bans Sending Books To Prisoners

Given the comment below about Islamic gangs it is probably about restricting the materials read. If this counts as some kind of censorship, then it seems to me to be an acceptable form, provided it is limited to prisons.

The new ban includes underwear and stationery. It's not about restricting what inmates read, it's about enforcing the new 'earned privileges' regime.

Books and magazines sent into UK prisons are already censored. For example, porn is now banned.

+ - Bitcoin's Mt. Gox Shuts Down, Loses $409,200,000 Dollars->

Submitted by satuon
satuon (1822492) writes "Mt. Gox’s shutdown is circulating like wildfire. Its repercussions are being felt throughout the world. Mt. Gox was the most public and well-known brand that represented Bitcoin’s exchange market. The company’s shutdown is rumored to be caused by a “hack” or “security breach” that resulted in a loss up to 744,000 BTC or $409,200,000 Dollars. (Based on the approximate value just hours ago from Coindesk.com) This is truly an unfortunate event that has caused the international community to shake its trust in Bitcoin as evidenced by the massive price drop. This is par the course, when a pillar in the community falls in such a funeral pyre. The best parallel would be the Bear Stearns’ failure during the 2008 global financial crisis. Hopefully, Bitcoin won’t follow in the financial system’s footsteps post-Bear Stearns."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 3, Insightful) 437

by radio4fan (#45201287) Attached to: TSA Airport Screenings Now Start Before You Arrive At the Airport

I think he was more pointing out that that huge crowd of people that can't evacuate the area easily or quickly is actually a pretty prime target for terrorist mayhem.

Absolutely. If I was a suicide bomber, this is exactly where I'd explode my bomb. I reckon I could get a devastating quantity of explosive in a carry-on bag and detonate it in the snake-line. Also get an accomplice to do the same in a check-in line with a full-size suitcase packed with HE.

While it might not have the glamour of bringing down an aircraft, no matter where the TSA or local equivalent move the security line to (pre-security security, pre-security security security...), passengers are still vulnerable to this attack. I can't see a practical defence against it.

It's truly chilling that they could do this trivially, tomorrow.

Comment: Re:Farce royale (Score 2) 524

In the UK, there are legally sanctioned surveillance cameras (with a great deal of public support) in public places and on public transport -- where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

In the US, the government illegally bug everyone as though the constitution doesn't apply to them.

And illegally holding David Miranda for nine hours and demanding that the Guardian smash a few laptops is hardly on the same level as what the US government is up to.

Comment: Re:Idiots (Score 1) 350

by radio4fan (#44640547) Attached to: Info Leak Wars To Get Messier

However he was _required_ to answer all questions, no matter how irrelevant to a case, asked by the police.

While this has been widely reported to be the case, it's not technically true.

From the statute:

2 (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).

40(1)(b) says:

40 Terrorist: interpretation.

(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

So the officer is allowed to ask any questions in order to determine if the detainee is a terrorist, and the detainee is compelled to answer those questions.

But the officer isn't given the power to ask any questions on any matter he likes, and the detainee is therefore not required to answer them.

Obviously, the schedule 7 powers are ripe for abuse, and have been abused in abused in this case. MIranda claims he wasn't asked any questions about terrorism at all.

Miranda says he's going to sue, and he has a good case.

Comment: Re:It was a myth (Score 1) 986

by radio4fan (#44640407) Attached to: Joining Lavabit Et Al, Groklaw Shuts Down Because of NSA Dragnet

Yeah, Scotland isn't known at all for having any nationalist pride.

It's not like they made a fucking movie about it or anything.....

Oh yeah! I've seen that one:

TOMMY: Doesn't it make you proud to be Scottish?

RENTON: I hate being Scottish. We're the lowest of the fucking low, the scum of the earth, the most wretched, servile, miserable, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some people hate the English, but I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. We can't even pick a decent culture to be colonized by. We are ruled by effete arseholes. It's a shite state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any fucking difference.

;-)

Comment: Re:Should be fining the contractor, not the client (Score 1) 186

by radio4fan (#44275825) Attached to: NHS Fined After Computer Holding Patient Records Found On eBay

Except amongst your quotes from TFA you omitted one:

The NHS body didn’t sign a contract with the provider and failed to determine whether the hard drives have been wiped, the ICO said.

Thanks, I must have glossed over the fact that they can't prove that they instructed the contractor to destroy the data.

But still the issue remains that verifying that the data has been destroyed is more work than destroying the data, so is the ICO really saying that responsibility for data security cannot be subcontracted?

Personally, I hope so. But like I say, it flies in the face of privatisation dogma.

Comment: Should be fining the contractor, not the client (Score 4, Insightful) 186

by radio4fan (#44275753) Attached to: NHS Fined After Computer Holding Patient Records Found On eBay

I don't really get this. The NHS contracts out the disposal of the machines to a private contractor, who then royally screws up, and it's the fault of the NHS?

Surely the responsibility lies with the contractor?

FTA:

“Should they [the contractor] be accountable? Definitely not, because NHS Surrey have been entrusted with the welfare of their patients. Should the contractor be responsible? Absolutely, yes,” Jones added.

This seems to me an argument that the NHS cannot outsource or subcontract anything.

What is NHS Surrey supposed to do in this scenario? Use in-house people to analyse the machines to make sure there is no data remaining before disposing of them?

Or just keep data-disposal services in-house? Personally, I think this would be a great idea, but it goes against the dogmatic 'privatise absolutely everything possible' trend in the UK.

“We should not have to tell organisations to think twice, before outsourcing vital services to companies who offer to work for free.”

Except they didn't work for free: they worked for the salvage value. I can't really see how the low value of the contract proves fault.

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)

Working...