Longrider

Consumer groups are calling for tougher protection of data and for consumers to be warned when such data is compromised.

UK data protection rules should be strengthened to stem a rise in identity theft, consumer representatives have said.

The National Consumer Council believes it should be mandatory for businesses to warn people if sensitive personal information is compromised.

In the UK there is currently no requirement to reveal, for example, when a database has been hacked into or computer records have been stolen or lost.

Consumer groups argue that if people are informed they can take preventative action to stop identity theft.

That seems fair enough to me. Perhaps one of the most effective management methods is for people to take charge of their own data; don’t give out more information than the other party actually needs in order to conduct a transaction. This, naturally means keeping the state out of it as they want far more than is necessary and to compound matters, want to put that information on a government database; possibly the most insecure place to keep it. Indeed, not giving any more information to anyone (particularly the government) that they do not need is a good start.

Identity crime already affects 100,000 people a year in the UK and costs the economy *£1.7 billion.

No it fucking doesn’t. That figure is a lie plucked out of the ether by disingenuous home office officials. The closest to an accurate figure is £27m - which isn’t even close to the quoted £1.7bn. I do wish people would stop propagating this lie.

Having said that, more openness about security breaches, giving consumers a chance to stop the theft as quickly as possible makes sense.

In the US, 34 states have already made it law to reveal breaches affecting identity security.

They took action because millions of people were being put at risk through security lapses by both business *and government.

Forcing the government to come clean when if stuffs up is a novel concept. The Data protection Act is already in place, but doesn’t cover notification in the event of breaches in security. Ed Mierzwinski consumer programme director of PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) concurs:

He told the programme: “You’ll need to upgrade even strong data protection acts to give consumers more control over their information so England, France, Germany, all countries should give consumers greater protection [and] notice [of] when companies lose their information.”

I suppose the question that springs to my mind – as someone with libertarian instincts – is this; why should we need laws to force companies (and government) to do what common sense tells them they should be doing anyway as a matter of good practice, that is in their interests as much as that of the consumer?

Or, in plain language; why do we need yet more legislation for people to do the right thing?

*my emphasis

(Un)Intelligent design has to be one of the daftest ideas to spring from the heads of the creationist lobby. Dafter, even than the silly creation myths invented by the ancient Hebrews in an attempt to explain the world about them. That supposedly intelligent people in the 21^st Century still believe this hokum is, in itself, pretty amazing. If amazing is the right word here… :dry:

Still, the idea that there is some “intelligent” designer creating life as we know it as propounded by the preposterous and silly watch explanation persists. Yeah, I know, these people are comparing apples with oranges; a watch, designed and created by human hands cannot reproduce so, therefore, cannot evolve, but you have to accept that these people are attempting to pervert science to match their own crazy view of the world. The outcome is childishly stupid arguments so laughable that defeating them with logic is impossible because that would mean we have to let go of our aching ribs long enough to point out the glaring flaws and circular arguments.

Not to be out done, the Pope is planning to embrace this pile of debunked bollocks  pseudo science it seems:

There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of “intelligent design” taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence.

I suppose that I shouldn’t be too surprised by this development. After all, this man believes that a man can die, stay dead for several days and come back to life again despite this being biologically impossible. Not to mention immaculate conception, manifestations of supernatural beings and talking bushes. Given his delusions, the idea of some supernatural designer isn’t much of a stretch. It does, however, make him appear to be even more of a crackpot than I first thought, though…:devil:

It will take time to convince other catholics, says Dominique Tassot:

A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week’s meeting was “to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if [the Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so.” In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin’s theories were “more than a hypothesis”.

Well, yes, that’s because the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports it. We have seen it in action – how else did MRSA become immune to the effects of antibiotics? Living organisms respond to their environment or they die; it really is as simple as that. To deny the facts of evolution is to be wilfully ignorant. Ah, well, we will see if Pope Benedict can reverse science and reality by a century or two… Will he, I wonder, manage to convince the “most Catholic intellectuals” who, doubtless will be dismayed by his embracing this pile of horse shit in favour of science, that this is the way to go? You know, the good old days, otherwise known as the Dark Ages when what the Church said went and anyone who disagreed was a heretic? And we all know what happened to them, now, don’t we?

In the wake of Pluto’s demotion to a pluton ( lump of magma that has solidified, apparently), there’s a backlash building.

A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip Pluto of its status as a planet.

On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted Pluto to a lesser category of object.

But the lead scientist on Nasa’s robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the ruling, calling it “embarrassing”.

And the chair of the committee set up to oversee agreement on a definition implied that the vote had effectively been “hijacked”.

Quite right, too. I watched a BBC news item last week where an astronomer was discussing the three “new” heavenly bodies, Ceres, Charon and the imaginatively and memorably named UB313 and their status as “planets”. A the time, he said that calling them planets would confuse the public.

Oh, dear; poor, ignorant, stupid public, unable as we are to understand all this high fallutin’ astronomer speak. Or, in plain words, how bloody patronising. Now they’ve demoted Pluto. It seems this is a step too far:

Stern said like-minded astronomers had begun a petition to get Pluto reinstated. Car bumper stickers compelling motorists to “Honk if Pluto is still a planet” have gone on sale over the internet and e-mails circulating about the decision have been describing the IAU as the “Irrelevant Astronomical Union”.

Irrelevant Astronomical Union – luvvit! Meanwhile, Justin is equally dismayed.

Mike Brown seemed happy with Pluto’s demotion. “Eight is enough,” he told the Associated Press, jokingly adding: “I may go down in history as the guy who killed Pluto.”

Maybe astronomers really are as daft as these guys.

Back in May, I discussed a case of neighbours complaining about naked sunbathing.

Down in Wales the neighbours have been getting twitchy over nude sunbathing. Lynett Burgess has just been cleared of indecent exposure by a magistrates court. It seems that she was in the habit of walking about in her own garden while naked.

Remember? Well, Morien Jones, the neighbour who was reported to have filmed Ms Burgess has been in contact and I publish his comments in full below.

Reading this I would agree with you but ………..

The Press / Media outfit the papers bought the story from err…I’ll be kind and say they got it wrong. I’ve already had an apology from the BBC, The Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Mail, The News & Star, The Yorkshire Post, & the Independent.

I am Morien Jones - the neighbour who provided some of the police evidence that took Lynette Burgess to court.

I feel I must correct some facts.

1) The filmed naked incident happened on my property, in front of my house and down the path to the main road and absolutely NOT in Lynette Burgess’ garden as she claims, but the film proves this. This has been widely miss-reported by the National Papers, initially including the BBC Web-site. I’ve since had an apology from the BBC.

 2) I DID NOT SAY ” She walked back and fore completely naked - I went to get my video camera to record the incident.” as the BBC reports. The video was taken by the builder and not Mr. Jones (myself) and this is provable, as I can be seen in some shots . Originally we were filming the renovation of the house and she walked passed. We videoed from inside the living room, to protect ourselves against false accusations which she is prone to making. We were very wary of this neighbour who had accused us of “Controlling her water”, and had employed a builder to knock down our coal shed in the first few days of us moving there, and someone had pushed dead animals through our letter-box.

Lots of things had made the situation tense before Lynette’s naked wanderings. We had been advised by the police to keep a record and gather evidence.

 3) The naked walk was not an individual incident and adds to a long list of events that are being put together if ever a case for harassment is undertaken.

 4) The Crown Prosecution Unit originally took on this case as :- Harassment / Indecent Exposure and later dropped the Harassment charge because Harassment is notoriously difficult to prove. Therefore we were left with just the video incident to talk about, and no other events after. There is a long list of more sinister events to consider.

 5) I have no objection to her nude sunbathing on her own property; I draw the line at wandering my property.

6) L.Burgess was arrested last week for Criminal Damage.

It is very easy to create a stereotype and then knock him down, but is it not the responsibility of newspapers, to collect all the facts before printing a story or point of view?

What is particularly disturbing is the “over the neighbour fence” slurs and Lynette Burgess’ much quoted “how they were able to see me, I just don’t know.” – with tiny research it becomes quite obvious how she was seen.

The question in people’s minds should have been “How do you feel about naked, possibly disturbed people strolling through your own property?”

Some facts of this case have been blurred. In my opinion this blurring in the National Press has allowed Lynette Burgess to continue her campaign of harassment on a national scale.

Cheers,

Morien Jones

Thanks for that, Morien and I apologise for any hurt caused.

And while I’m in full rant mode, this pissed me off no end.

Children’s TV channel Boomerang is to edit scenes from Tom and Jerry cartoons where characters are shown smoking.

The move follows an investigation by media watchdog Ofcom into a viewer’s complaint that the vintage animations were not appropriate for young viewers.

The watchdog recognised the “historic” cartoons were made at a time “when smoking was more generally accepted”.

However, Boomerang will only edit those cartoons where smoking appears to be “condoned, acceptable or glamorised”.

So, it’s started; rewriting history…  That is, instead of responding to the complaining viewer with a sharply worded retort to the effect that they should grow up and take some personal responsibility and stop wasting everyone’s time. Oh, no, far better to pander to such abject inanity and rewrite history rather than be sensible about it and give the viewer a well deserved verbal kicking. Make everyone else suffer the consequences of this viewer’s over sensitive constitution, why not? Doesn’t this fuckwit have an “off” switch on the television?

Already the Scottish executive stopped a play’s producers showing Winston Churchill smoking a cigar during a production about his life. Now this. Slowly, but surely, smoking will be airbrushed from history.

You might think this no bad thing, but it is exactly what the Soviet Union did to history that it found inconvenient. Smoking today, what will it be tomorrow?

The other thing that bothers me is the dumbing down aspect - the assumption that children are just soooo stupid that they must be protected from knowledge for their own good. They can be told by parents and guardians that this “glamorising” is just that and that in future they will need to be discerning about messages that they come across in the media. It’s how my parents taught me and, despite “glamorising” of smoking I never felt inclined to try it.

It looks as if that egregious busybody Mary Whitehouse scored a posthumous victory (although she was obsessed by the cartoon violence rather than smoking) over Tom and Jerry. The narrow minded, petty, mean spirited (in Whitehouse’s case, self-appointed) censors of our entertainment will decide for us, and our children, what is good for us and what we may be allowed to see. They assume that we are all too stupid to manage to educate the next generation or cope with the “wrong” knowledge. Unfortunately, many of those interviewed yesterday by the BBC were only too willing to think that this is a good idea. The censors may be right, some people are too brainless to recognise that it’s just a cartoon and that cats don’t really smoke and that it doesn’t mean that we should all rush out and buy cigars. Some people like the idea of legislation and regulation of every aspect of their lives because they are too lazy and half-witted to take some personal responsibility and do it for themselves

Frighteningly, in the minds of these bureaucrats who are the guardians of the future generation’s wellbeing, and education this, it seems, means not educating. I recall watching cartoon cats in Tom and Jerry smoking huge cigars. At no time did I feel tempted to try one for myself. There must be something wrong with me… :dry:

Following on from yesterday’s rant, more evidence via Matt that the stupid really will inherit the Earth.

This is getting ridiculous. He works as an airline pilot, he checks in to his company’s parnter airline, gets on the plane, falls asleep in business class. Then he gets woken up and told to leave the plane. Now, of course, he may be being paranoid, but when he gets off the plane, the police are there to question him.

As I said yesterday, Chris pointed out the day before, and as Matt says today; terror is winning. That is because we are suffering government of the stupid, by the stupid for the stupid, with everything reduced to the lowest common denominator and headline grabbing sound-bite. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see this and, doubtless, is tearing their hair out in frustration. Just as well I’ve got plenty. :dry:

I see that in the wake of last week’s hysterical, knee-jerk over reaction to the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic flights, the dimwitted numskulls at the BAA continue their hard of thinking campaign by banning cosmetics from passengers’ hand luggage.

Britain’s main airport operator yesterday banned all cosmetics from passengers’ hand luggage unless the items were bought at shops in the departure lounge.

Under the new restrictions, imposed by BAA, travellers are forbidden to take talcum powder, lipstick, eyeliner and mascara through security control.

These items had been exempted from the ban, while other cosmetics such as lip gloss had been banned from the start of the terrorist alert. The move was designed to end confusion, said a spokesman for BAA which owns Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports.

Transatlantic passengers found their position unchanged with all cosmetics and liquids banned from the flight cabin, even if they were bought at duty free shops before boarding.

It emerged last night that the BAA directive was its interpretation of the instructions issued last week by the Department for Transport.

What with stupid, Hollywood style pseudo exploding drinks bollocks, this once more demonstrates that the British authorities are hell bent on handing the terrorist a victory on the proverbial plate. Just how, exactly, is a potential hijacker going to hold up an aircraft with cosmetics, eh?

“Okay, give me the controls to the plane or the lips get it!”

Give me a break. Terrorism works by terrorising society into a state of fear and paranoia. The evidence so far suggests that it is working extremely well, thankyou very much; thanks, indeed, to the buffoons in government and the unthinking sheep who believe every outpouring from the intellectually challenged on the government benches and their media mouthpieces. We may as well roll over and play dead. Why not just introduce an Islamic theocracy and shari’a law while we are at it? They might as well for the massive propaganda coup they have handed to these people.

It’s simple. So simple even a government minister should be able to grasp it. You carry on as normal. This, effectively, gives a two finger salute to the terrorist. We will not be bowed, we will not change our society, we will not be terrorised. Yes, investigate, yes, take reasonable precautions – and, if necessary, use that cross-bench support and introduce intercept evidence in court. But do not indulge in the hysterical over reaction and disruption we’ve witnessed in the past week. Osama must be wetting himself.

Over at Samizdata, I’ve been getting a bit pedantic with Perry. What? Me? Surely not! It was during the discussion of Inigo Wilson’s Lefty Lexicon that Perry made the following comment:

“I have no intention of being anything less that Islamophobic and proud of it.”

As is usual for me, I got the dictionary out. A phobia, when used as a suffix, i.e. arachnophobia, claustrophobia, agoraphobia and so on is an intense, abnormal, or illogical fear of whatever is in the prefix. Arachnophobia; spiders, claustrophobia; closed or confined spaces, agoraphobia; open spaces.

So, therefore, Islamophobia is an intense, irrational or illogical fear of Islam (and, presumably, its acolytes). The problem I have with the liberal use of the word is this; just how many of the people who criticise Islam are actually suffering from a phobia? An intense dislike on its own is not necessarily irrational.

Consider this; if you come across someone who expresses extreme dislike of others on the basis of their racial origins; to the point of wanting to kill them or at the very least, wipe their country off the map, would you not consider this person racist? Would you feel obliged to smile and tolerate their views or would you roundly condemn them? Islam is rabidly anti-Jew. Islamic politics seeks to wipe Israel off the map. In decrying this are you displaying Islamophobia; or is it a reasonable response to an unreasonable viewpoint?

Do you consider the genders as equal partners in all things, be it the workplace, friendship or marriage? Would you not look upon someone who treats women as inferior; as property to be subjugated and hidden away; as somewhat medieval in their outlook? Would you smile quietly or would you express distaste? Islam treats half its population as second class citizens on the basis of nothing more than their gender. In Islamic theocracies they are denied things we take for granted; the right to choose their spouse, the right to go about unaccompanied, the right even to drive in some countries. Islam discriminates openly against women. Is taking exception to this Islamophobia; or is it a rational reaction to backward and medieval behaviour?

If your workplace discriminated against someone for their sexuality they would find themselves before an industrial tribunal for discrimination. If people openly express anti-gay rhetoric do we not frown and purse our lips with disapproval? Islam goes one step further, it kills homosexuals where it has the authority to do so. Why, then, do we not censure it for this behaviour? Would doing so be Islamophobic?

Frankly, a distaste for Islam – and I’m not talking here about the spiritual aspect, rather the political – is a perfectly rational response for anyone who holds enlightenment values dear. The word “Islamophobia” is nothing more than a mechanism developed to shut down dissenting opinion and avoid reasoned debate. This is much the same as the way that the word “racism” has been hijacked and is used to shut up anyone who dares to raise issues about immigration control.

I’ve yet to come across anyone – or any evidence of anyone – who suffers from a clinical condition that may reasonably be described as Islamophobia. I have, however, come across plenty who find Islam deeply repugnant. If Islam’s apologists find this distaste offensive they need to bear in mind that freedom of speech includes saying that you don’t like things and not having to worry about who may be offended by it. No one has any right to be shielded from offence.

So, is refusing to tolerate the intolerable “Islamophobia”?