Cookie conundrum
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Graeme on 4 Feb 2010 03:06 In message <7sub6mFsq6U1(a)mid.individual.net> James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: [snip] > > And this is where I start to disagree with you. The level of > surveillance is excessive, and I question how much crime is solved that > couldn't be solved another way. Apparently less than one per cent according to a news report a month or so back. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Feb 2010 11:11 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > If you want anonymity, go to an Internet cafe. > > > > Anonymity is exactly what you will be denied if you do that. > > Really? How so? I've no idea of the mechanisms used in the UK. In China, they just put spies in the internet cafes and spy on them remotely in any case. I've heard about a lot of people who have found themselves behind bars because they did criminal things using UK internet cafe computers, thinking that they were anonymous when doing so. They turn up on the news, you see. If you've done something seriously criminal at an internet cafe computer in the UK, the cops will nab you: this is the message I've got. It's like murdering someone - if you've done it and you've not done it carefully, following your careful plan to hide your tracks, the cops *WILL* get you in the end. The traces are there, all they have to do is put the effort in to dig 'em up. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Feb 2010 11:11 Graeme <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > And this is where I start to disagree with you. The level of > > surveillance is excessive, and I question how much crime is solved that > > couldn't be solved another way. > > Apparently less than one per cent according to a news report a month or so > back. Although the rate for murder is /very/ much better than that. .... which rate has been unaffected by the installation of CTTV, which is not actually hugely useful at stopping crime or in crime detection. What CCTV has given British society is the hooded teenaged thug - the hood worn to keep the face out of sight of the cameras. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 4 Feb 2010 11:21 On 2010-02-04, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > What CCTV has given British society is the hooded teenaged thug - the > hood worn to keep the face out of sight of the cameras. And, by extension, a truly awful remake of the 'Robin Hood' legend. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK "Get over here. Now. Might be advisable to wear brown trousers and a shirt the colour of blood." Malcolm Tucker, "The Thick of It"
From: Geoff Berrow on 4 Feb 2010 11:26
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:11:04 +0000, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >The computer you were using can be traced, and the user of that computer >at the time identified. > >You think that doesn't matter - from which point of view does it not >matter? It's all relative isn't it? It's not affecting my life unduly as far as I can see. > >> No one forces any of us to use the Internet. > >You need to study sociology and psychology, you do. > >We are not /forced/ to use the internet, no - we are pushed and harried >and `encouraged' to do so by all sorts of things, though. We're >continually brainwashed to `do it online' and `you can trust us'. Etc. I would not wish it on anyone, but I've had a life changing experience that helps me keep things in perspective. In the end it's all about weighing positives against negatives. It's a no brainer for me. >I use the internet for shopping because it's nigh on impossible for me >to buy what I want by visiting shops in person, for example. Not forced >to use the internet, no - but it's nearly impossible for me to get by >any other way. Well the Internet has improved the lives of many in many ways. The question is does the improvement justify your perceived loss of privacy. As you haven't gone away I guess that's a yes. -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker |