The idea is that "virtual police officers" will be keeping an eye on you — for your own safety, you understand. Other ways in which users will be protected from themselves is through the use of filters.
And where there are laws, it must be OK for law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to ignore them and have content taken down on demand: "It must be legal for LEAs to make Internet companies aware of terrorist content on their infrastructure ('flagging') that should be removed, without following the more labour intensive and formal procedures for 'notice and take action'"
Due process, who needs it? The plans also require some interesting new laws, like this one criminalizing merely posting certain hyperlinks: "Knowingly providing hyperlinks on websites to terrorist content must be defined by law as illegal just like the terrorist content itself"
Incredible though it might sound, that seems to suggest that less common foreign languages would be banned from the European Internet entirely in case anybody discusses naughty stuff without the authorities being able to spy on them (haven't they heard of Google Translate?) You could hardly hope for a better symbol of the paranoid and xenophobic thinking that lies behind this crazy scheme.
But what is of most interest is this little nugget—perhaps added as a quick afterthought—right at the bottom of the post in bold: "PS if you can run the build verification scripts (in the github maintenance scripts repository), please do! Under UK law likely to be passed soon I could be forced to distribute corrupted builds, and on penalty of 2 years in prison not be allowed to tip anyone off about it."
A search of the net reveals little news about an applicable "UK Law". Is Toad trying to give us all a tip off about some incoming legislative storm? And what could this mean for the code integrity of Freenet and/or other (UK-based) open source projects?
Industry and regulatory groups have articulated best practices related to risk controls, but many firms fail to implement all the recommendations or rely on other firms in the trade cycle to catch an out-of-control algorithm or erroneous trade. In part, this is because applying risk controls before the start of a trade can slow down an order, and high-speed trading firms are often under enormous pressure to route their orders to the exchange quickly so as to capture a trade at the desired price.
Another area of concern is that some firms do not have stringent processes for the development, testing, and deployment of code used in their trading algorithms. For example, a few trading firms interviewed said they deploy new trading strategies quickly by tweaking old code and placing it into production in a matter of minutes.
Chicago Fed staff also found that out-of-control algorithms were more common than anticipated prior to the study and that there were no clear patterns as to their cause. Two of the four clearing BDs/FCMs, two-thirds of proprietary trading firms, and every exchange interviewed had experienced one or more errant algorithms.
To sum things up, the well being of the entire world economy is now in the hands of greedy, incompetent corrupt insiders who will do anything to achieve a profit. The regulators are all off on a permanent vacation. (The Federal Reserve does not regulate HFT.) What could possibly go wrong?
our 12.10 users." But are the "users" becoming products?