Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
Australia

Australia Wants ISPs To Protect Customers From Viruses (sophos.com) 19

An anonymous reader quotes Sopho's Naked Security blog: In a column in The West Australian, Dan Tehan, Australia's cybersecurity minister, wrote: "Just as we trust banks to hold our money, just as we trust doctors with our health, in a digital age we need to be able to trust telecommunications companies to protect our information from threats." A companion news article in the same newspaper cited Tehan as arguing that "the onus is on telecommunications companies to develop products to stop their customers being infected with viruses"...

Tehan's government roles include assisting the prime minister on cybersecurity, so folks throughout Australia perked up when he said all this. However, it's not clear if there's an actual plan behind Tehan's observations -- or if there is, whether it will be backed by legal mandates... Back home in Australia, some early reactions to the possibility of any new government interference weren't kind. In iTWire, Sam Varghese said, "Dan Tehan has just provided the country with adequate reasons as to why he should not be allowed anywhere near any post that has anything to do with online security."

The West Australian also reports Australia's prime minister met telecommunications companies this week, "where he delivered the message the Government expected them to do more to shut dodgy sites and scams," saying the government will review current legislation to "remove any roadblocks that may be preventing the private sector and government from delivering such services."

Comment Re: Well that didn't take long (Score 1) 227

You're still not getting it. Let's try with a simple example.

There are 5 green people in the country. There is one act of violence committed by green people.

That does not mean that 5 green people committed the violence. One did, so 20% of green people are violent criminals.

Likewise, with the black population, it's a small percentage of them that commit violent crimes. It's just that it's a) a significantly higher percentage than is present in whites, and b) that they tend to commit more violent crimes.

If blacks are 14% of the population, and their rate is equal to the general population, they would be expected to commit 14% of the violent crime. If their offender rate is 2x the average, then they would be committing 28% of crimes. At 4x, it would be a hair over 50%, which is where we are.

That 4x includes both percentage of people that are offenders, and the higher likelihood of reoffending.

This is about rates - if the offense rate is 1% of the population size, that does not mean that 100 people commit every crime. It means that closer to 1% of the population are offenders.

Comment Re: idiotic (Score 1) 227

"they're making false reports by misidentifying race"

Well, yes, but part of that is because they didn't have any races other than white and black for some time in the crime reports. As such, a lot of the crimes were lumped in with white that shouldn't be.

They have gotten better about reporting, and that's part of why the white rate has gone down, and the minority rate has gone up. It's still an issue, though, because departments are still pressured to make it look like they are less racist, and not all departments have changed. That's why if you look at most wanted posters, they have large number of "white" criminals that clearly aren't. They cook the numbers to look like it's white people committing those crimes instead.

Comment Re: idiotic (Score 1) 227

The example I was replying to (eye color) was legal to discriminate against. It's actually illegal to discriminate on the basis of immigration status.

In the US, the I-9 form specifically states that even discrimination on the basis of a future date may be illegal discrimination, and employers are required to post posters saying "if you have the right to work, don't let them take it away".

It shouldn't be illegal, but it is.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You stay here, Audrey -- this is between me and the vegetable!" -- Seymour, from _Little Shop Of Horrors_

Working...