Stuff! And Things!!

[denny]

Herding:

Pimms In The Park - this Saturday, 2pm-ish, Regents Park (this bit, roughly). Meeting at Sainsburys in Camden at 1pm to buy food/drink, then walking or catching the tube/bus up to the park from there. Feel free to phone me if you need help homing in on us, my number is 07815 150811. BRING PIMMS AND LEMONADE! (or don't, but we recommend it for the full Pimms In The Park experience)

My birthdays! - see previous post - fill in the polls, come out and play :)


Links:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/gatso_deaths_link/ - 'safety' cameras?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qa-dev/2006Jul/0011 - developer quits W3C rather articulately

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39279134,00.htm - 'ASBOs' for suspected hackers?

Comments

[mejoff.livejournal.com]

"intended to combat organised crime where the police do not have enough evidence to bring a criminal prosecution"

That's never, never, never something that should be allowed. Talk about the thin end of the wedge, I think we missed it!

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we did. ASBOs already work on this principle, as does the sex offender's register (you can be added by the police on their judgement, regardless of whether or not you are arrested, charged or convicted).

The thing that particularly worries me about ASBOs is that the standard of evidence required is lower than that in a normal court - specifically, 'hearsay' is allowed, so a clever neighbour or two with a grudge could really stitch you up.

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

If there's not enough evidence to bring a criminal prosecution, then in the eyes of the law, no crime has been committed! Surely? Also, "suspected of hacking"? I'm sorry; that phrase is too concise for New Labour's legislation. Could you make it a bit more woolly and ambiguous, please?

[hythloday.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but ASBOs aren't the result of criminal proceedings - in fact, they can be issued as punishment for things that aren't even illegal.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I think his point was the use of the phrase 'organised crime', although it took me a while to notice the discrepancy (if that's the word I want).

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

That's something else that has just jarred. I could be incredibly naive here, but aren't hackers some of the most disorganised people going? The idea of the Serious Organised Crime Act being targetted at a bunch of geeks is vaguely amusing...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

aren't hackers some of the most disorganised people going?

No. Not the ones they're talking about here. These people take over hundreds or thousands of 'drone' machines with trojans, then sell that network on as a spam-sending system, or a system which can be used to DDoS attack a competitor's website. It's big business these days, sadly, which is why the situation is deteriorating rapidly.

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay. *Moves thoughts into 21st Century*
That could explain the high cost of decent anti-attack software.

[mejoff.livejournal.com]

How's about this?
'Any person who may or may not have considered at some point in the last six months allowing the idea to posit the concept of crossing their mind to allow, or to have been perveived to allow themselves to look a bit dodgy, disagree with the policy of this or some affilliatied Administration or to have looked at a website containing material on any form of sexual activity not involving a man and a woman in the missionary position, not paying £97 pounds or whatever the new price is to have their privacy invaded and freedom restricted with a compulsory identity card, not killing Iraqis, not killing Afgans, not liking microsoft or some other party sponsor corporation or not owning a television may at any time at the discretion of the officer be subject to some penalty to be decided by phone in vote just after Big Brother.