| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#201
|
|||
|
|||
In message ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes "raden" wrote in message ... In message ews.net, ":::Jerry::::" writes So you would NEED to carry your ID card, just like most people remember that they need to take their house keys when they go out, if they are going to get back un that is. Not that I can see ID cards solving anything.... I presume you left out a "'t" there No, I don't think so Nor do I And I wasn't even ****ed last night Sorry I don't have an explanation -- geoff |
|
#202
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Owain
writes MM wrote: It's getting so that I am loathe to type the words "child rape in Essex" into Google for fear that some monitoring busybody somewhere might immediately jump to attention. You probably shouldn't type them into a newsgroup posting either :-) Owain bomb explosive terrorism gleneagles al quaida detonator missile nuclear G8 torpedo summit Fair point to consider is whether Echelon actually works in any way shape or form ? kidnap afghanistan bush lindis Percy -- geoff |
|
#203
|
|||
|
|||
|
These stories are from the much-visited and extremely popular
'Alternatve News' web page at http://www.nwointelligence.com.. We urge you to read and download them while they are available. The mirror news site, SurvivalistSkills.Com, has been 'blacked out' and we expect that this site will be knocked off the Web, too, shortly. We'll endeavour to bring both sites back up on a more secure server, but - in the meantime - take what you can from the stories and articles on this 'Current News' page while you can! You'll also see from them that the National I.D. Card is now a 'done deal' for Americans, thanks to the recent passge of the RealID.Act. Welcome to 'police state' America - efficient and remorseless surveillance and tracking of every single citizen, and databases that never forget. They also include a number of fascinating reports on the secretive and elite Bilderberg group, as well as news reports on the strange and intriguing connection between Pope Benedict and the Knights Templars.... You'll find a complete index of these and other essential news stories on the 'Current News You Need To Know On The Collapse Of The U.S. Dollar, The Declining U.S. Economy, The Rise Of China, And The New World Order' page at http://www.nwointelligence.com/newsitem.htm, which is updated daily. ____________________________ CFR Urges 'Deep Integration' - 'North American Union' Equals 'End Of America And Canada' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS182.HTM 'US Public Warms to The Idea Of American Civilian Concentration Camps!' (see photos of existing U.S. civilian camps at the bottom of this report) http://www.nwointelligence.com/CAMPCON.HTM 'How Britain Legislated Away 2,000 Years Of Rights And Freedoms' http://www.nwointelligence.com/LIBUK.HTM 'How Canada Lost Its Rights And Liberties - And Few Cared!' http://www.nwointelligence.com/LIBCAN.HTM 'Immigration - North American Elite Plan To 'Swamp' U.S. And Canada' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS131.HTM The End Of American And Canadian Sovereignty? 'Goodbye To Independence' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS128.HTM 'Immigration - And The Slow Destruction Of America' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS127.HTM 'The Blueprint For America's Destruction' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS120.HTM 'How Is the United States Being Destroyed?' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS118.HTM Paul Martin: Bilderberg In His Blood? Stephen Harper Attended 2003 Bilderberg http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS116.HTM 'Continental Union of the U.S. and Canada - the propaganda begins' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS11.HTM 'CFR plans to replace the United States and Canada with a new 'North American Union' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS23.HTM 'JPFO Alert: The End Of America - May 10, 2005' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS177.HTM 'Gun Control and the New World Order' http://www.nwointelligence.com/nwa.htm 'The Draconian U.K. 'Biometric' I.D. Card - A Model For The U.S. National Identity Card?' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS172.HTM 'RealID Act Passed - Americans Will Soon Hear 'Your Papers, Please!' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS178.HT 'U.S. National I.D. Card Now 'A Certainty' - Are Canada And The U.K. Next?' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS166.HTM 'Stargate: The Secret U.S. 'Remote Viewing' Espionage Program' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS170.HTM 'The Echelon Electronic Eavesdropping System: What You Need To Know' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS173.HTM 'The Echelon Global Eavesdropping System - It's Interception Capabilities' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS175.HTM Explosive European Parliament 2001 Report - 'The Echelon Global Eavesdropping System' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS174.HTM 'Global Electronic Eavesdropping - And On You, Too!' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS168.HTM 'Free Trade: The Deceptive Corporate Propagandists Promoting FTAA' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS171.HTM 'Globalist Elite Conspire To Destroy Western Culture' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS167.HTM 'Bilderberg Conference: Elite Masters Of The 'New World Order' Global Plantation Meet' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS165.HTM 'Russian President Putin Laments Death Of The USSR' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS154.HTM 'The Dark Side Of Soviet And Allied War History' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS158.HTM 'Russian 'Super-Capitalist' Billionaire Class Grows' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS153.HTM 'The China Job Drain: Thousands Of American Jobs Are Sent To China Every Day!' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS164.HTM 'The Coming Perfect Financial Storm - And Economic Shipwreck!' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS162.HTM 'The Chinese Gulag Is Still Full - Many Prisoners Jailed Without Trial' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS163.HTM 'Russian Bear, Chinese Dragon - U.S. Target' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS156.HTM 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: China in Cuba' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS159.HTM 'Chinese Communists Move Into Africa, Help Bug Media' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS152.HTM 'China Expands Spy System as Its Military Power Grows, U.S. Says' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS155.HTM North Korea: Nuclear Test Is 'Indispensable' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS160.HTM 'The CIA And Outsourcing - 'Dark side of outsourcing revealed'' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS161.HTM 'U.S. Media Begins The Push For CAFTA's Passage' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS157.HTM 'More On Pope Benedict, The Vatican, The Knights Templar, And Freemasonry' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS151.HTM '2005 Bilderberg Conference: Bilderbergers Nervous About 'Nationalism' And 'Protectionism' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS150.HTM The 'Peak Oil 'Crisis: No 'Plan B', Or 'C', Or 'D' - The Coming Global 'Resource Wars' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS149.HTM 'Oil: Is It About To Peak Or Is It An Endlessly-Renewing Resource?' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS147.HTM 'With Oil Production Near Peak, Analysts Worry About Meeting Growing Demand' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS148.HTM 'The End Of Oil Is Closer Than You Think: Oil Production Could Peak Next Year' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS146.HTM 'Iraqi Oil War: Big Corporations Make A Killing In Profits' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS144.HTM 'The Council on Foreign Relations ('CFR') and the War on Sovereignty' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS145.HTM 'The Pope, The Vatican, The Knights Templar, And Freemasonry' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS142.HTM PBS Documentary Reveals Existence Of 'The Secret Government' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS140.HTM The Depletion Of Global Oil Reserves - 'Over A Barrel' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS141.HTM 'U.S. Public's Support For Iraq War Plummets': 'Dutch Court Refuses To Arrest Bush' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS139.HTM 'Flood Of Western Wealth And Money To China Becoming A Tidal Wave' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS137.HTM 'Beijing Forges Ties In Africa, Latin America, At The Expense Of U.S' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS138.HTM 'China Dismisses U.S. Proposal For Military Hot Line' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS136.HTM 'China Rattles Arms At U.S. Asia Presence' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS135.HTM 'Russia Secretly Working On New Weapons' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS133.HTM 'Tsunami Bomb' Was Tested Off New Zealand Coast! http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS132.HTM U.S. Driver's Licenses To Become National ID Cards? http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS134.HTM 'Immigration - North American Elite Plan To 'Swamp' U.S. And Canada' a href="http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS131.HTM 'Does the Future Belong to China?' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS130.HTM National I.D. On The Way in U.S.? 'Tough Stand Likely on IDs' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS129.HTM The End Of American And Canadian Sovereignty? 'Goodbye To Independence' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS128.HTM 'The Iraqi Quagmi No End In Sight' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS126.HTM 'Global Tax Almost A Reality' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS123.HTM 'The World Tax Tsunami' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS124.HTM 'Global Taxes Are Back, Watch Your Wallet!' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS125.HTM 'Immigration - And The Slow Destruction Of America' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS127.HTM 'The Blueprint For America's Destruction' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS120.HTM 'How Is the United States Being Destroyed?' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS118.HTM 'How to Say No to the New World Order' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS117.HTM Paul Martin: Bilderberg In His Blood? Stephen Harper Attended 2003 Bilderberg http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS116.HTM Members of the Bilderberg Group - The New Globalist 'Elite' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS121.HTM The Bilderberg Group: 'Masters Of The Universe' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS115.HTM The Bilderbergers: 'Power players gather to run the world' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS110.HTM The Bilderbergers: The BBC on the 'Bilderberg Conspiracy Theory' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS112.HTM 'Banned Newspaper Article On The Bilderbergers' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS1122.HTM '2005 Secret Bilderberg Conference Venue Found!' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS109.HTM 'The Bilderbergers: The 2004 Bilderberg Conference Elite Attendees' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS111.HTM 'Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove, Vatican - Business the Bush Way' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS108.HTM The 2005 Trilateral Commission Meeting: 'Power pact meets quietly' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS114.HTM 'Media Blackout On Secret 2005 Trilateral Commission Meeting' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS113.HTM Jim Quinn Interviews John Whitley On 'The New World Order' http://www.nwointelligence.com/quinn-p.htm 'Brigadier shocks and awes: there is no war on terrorism' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS107.HTM Waco 'North American Union' US-Canada-Mexico Meeting A 'Failure' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS86.HTM 'Russia-China-India-Brazil Form Coalition Against U.S.' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS119.HTM 'It's Condi Rice Versus Venezuela's Chavez - Chavez Wins First Round' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS92.HTM China and India: 'Dragon and Elephant warm up to each other' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS91.HTM 'Iran Issues Nuclear Warning To US' - Offers U.S. 'A Punch In The Mouth' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS90.HTM 'Dereliction of Duty Regarding Iraq' - Scott Ritter http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS89.HTM 'British Military Chief Reveals New Legal Fears Over Iraq War' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS88.HTM 'Regime Change !s Illegal: End Of Debate' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS87.HTM 'Iraq, The Secret US Visit, And An Angry Military Chief' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS85.HTM The Secret Downing Street Iraq Meeting Memo http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS84.HTM 'Draft U.S. Paper Allows Commanders To Seek Preemptive Nuke Strikes' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS83.HTM Iraq, Iran, North Korea - The Wars Stretch On And On: 'Will Iran Be Next?' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS82.HTM 'PNAC - The Secretive Blueprint For War After War After War' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS81.HTM 'America's War for Global Domination' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS80.HTM 'The Plan is for the United States to rule the world' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS79.HTM 'Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS78.HTM 'Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS77.HTM As HAARP, Chemtrails and 'Own The Weather' Military Programs Multiply - 'Goodbye Sunshine' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS76.HTM After HAARP And Chemtrails - 'Climate Collapse: The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS75.HTM Iraq: The Secret Agenda -'The President's Real Goal In Iraq' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS74.HTM 'Global Oil Demand To Skyrocket!' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS73.HTM 'Bush And Blair Planned Iraq War 9 Months Before Invasion' http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWS72.HTM |
|
#204
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Mary
Fisher writes "raden" wrote in message ... In message , Mary Fisher writes Not that I can see ID cards solving anything.... Perhaps not but I can't see them doing any harm either. It's worth a try. I stirred this up in another NG too, here's an interesting response for you Mary: "I already had my credit rating shot to pieces once because of an admin error, I would not like to have me shot to pieces because of a similar error. " Well, Geoff, it's of no interest to me. It couldn't happen to me because I don't want credit. I've learned the hard way that debt is destructive and that I'd rather go without things than owe. It's of no interest because you missed or chose to ignore his point. It's nothing to do with credit rating per se, it's pointing out how easily it is for your life to get ****ed up by someone else's error -- geoff |
|
#205
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
I didn't suggest it, I merely offered the opinion that I don't object to it. Perhaps not in those exact words but I hold to it. That is perhaps the bit I am having difficulty grasping. Given the costs of them (both social and financial) are so large, it seems strange (to me) to simply accept those costs without objection and yet not be able to champion any rational purpose for incurring them. Oh, you mean let other people suffer first? That is, if they DO suffer. That's not a charitable outlook. Its a pragmatic one. It is the difference between wizdom and experiance... experiance says when you trip over a dodgy pavement, "I won't do that again", when you see someone else trip over the pavement and think "that pavement must be dodgy, I will remeber to not to do that" you have wizdom. No point in you both suffering! That paragraph isn't a good example of that. When you read good spelling do you remember to use the right ones in your posts? One of the odd things about dyslexia is the ability to read most text and be completely oblivious to the spelling contained therein (unless it is glaringly weak). It is also easy for me to write a paragraph, spell the same word four different ways within it, and have them all look "ok" when reading it back later. Alas not only is it difficult for me to improve my spelling by wisdom (i.e. observation), it is also equally difficult to improve it with experience, since a prerequisite of learning from experience would have to be recognising the failure in the first place. However, I am not sure how exactly this diversion into spelling helps further the discussion on national ID registers.... (there, I even spell checked that one for you) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#206
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
Yup just like now, only without the safguards of multiple incompatible distributed and non connected databases that limit the scope of an error, and provide alternative routes to perform sanity checks and consistency checks on the data when something goes wrong. Can you put that into Plain English please? Seemed plain enough as it was... which bit are you having difficulty with? "Multiple / distributed" - there are lots of places where data are stored about us. These databases are not centralised. E.g. the information held on the passport database is not in the same place as that relating to your drivers license or your birth certificate. "non connected" - a change made to information in one place does not automatically propagate through to all the others. "incompatible" - data are held on various systems ranging from paper to electronic. Since this is not a monoculture, it impossible for a single type of activity / error to compromise all these systems in one go. Hence if an error were made (or someone tampered) with your passport details, you would have several options available to you to correct the error. The fallibility of the information systems is understood and abilities to deal with it are built into the processes. The database is not always right. Also don't forget the new scope for data mining exercises correlating your innocent behaviour to that of a known problem groups. And that. Data mining, is the process of running statistical analysis and AI/fuzzy logic pattern recognition techniques against large data sets with the intention of discovering previously unknown relationships and causalities within the data. More detailed descriptions he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining One novel example would be the suicide predictor used in some underground stations via their CCTV systems. By performing data mining exercises against CCTV footage of people who threw themselves in front of trains, they have produced algorithms that can detect patterns of behaviour the frequently preceded a suicide attempt of this nature. The computer system attempts to give early warning to staff that this may be about to happen. However the process can be used against any large data set to attempt to find a predicate for all sorts of behaviours or outcomes. Hence armed with your national ID register and its collected data of everyone's movements and transactions (financial or otherwise) you can set about identifying the predicates for all sorts of unwanted behaviour like benefit fraud or terrorism for example. You can see the tantalising prospects for the powers that be. The technology vendors will only help to encourage them in this line of thought. The difficulty however is this is not an exact science. Even if you do find a way of identifying some individuals who will go on to commit a crime (or have escaped detection in the past), you can't help but sweep many innocents into the net in the same action. You are also into the rather questionable process of arresting people for what your think they might be about to do (football hooliganism legislation anyone?). -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#207
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message . net... ":::Jerry::::" wrote in message eenews.net... "Mary Fisher" wrote in message . net... ":::Jerry::::" wrote in message eenews.net... I actually agree with the CORRECT use of speed cameras - and as you infer, if you break the speed limit and get caught - then tough and don't whinge about it... I've never heard of an incorrect use of one. Not one I believe anyway :-) I've got one not to far away from me now, the camera is positioned to catch the accidental speeding that might happen when pulling away from a roundabout, Accidental speeding when pulling away from a roundabout??? Sounds more like accidentally pulling my leg. You sound like a non driver (or one with little to nil experience).... LOL! I was probably driving before you were born! And I've driven (and still do) in all conditions and with a variety of vehicles you couldn't imagine. But you have, no doubt, only driven them the half a mile to the village shops or church.... Anyway, seeing that my 'trade' is within the motor trade I suspect *I* have driven more vehicles (and types) than you have probably seen let alone sat in - the fact that you completely missed the point I was making about the positioning of the said camera you really should just shut your ignorant, self opinionated, super-sized gob for once ! |
|
#208
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 21:32:36 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote: "Steve Walker" wrote in message ... BigWallop wrote: "raden" wrote in message news  Together with other recent pieces of legislation, we will end up wit a significant proportion of people just living outside the law Just like now you mean? So no change there then. :-) Except we'll have wasted £3bn on getting nowhere... Ah, not nowhere. All that hardware to be manufactured by people making a living, ditto designers, ditto software, ditto operators, dittor enforcers, ditto card makers, ditto ink... oh I can't be bothered. £3bn doesn't just go nowhere, it's spent on things and services, all of which keep the world busy and what goes round comes round. This is a completely risible argument. Why then don't we just spend the money on doing exactly that? Employ an army of workers and pay them money from the taxpayer to the tune of £3bn so that they all 'earn' a living! It'd keep the world busy, wouldn't it? One group of workers could design something, another group could put it into production, yet another would sort out marketing and sales, warehousemen would buy new forklift trucks, new roads would be constructed to cope with the demand, and before long, there wouldn't be enough space to accommodate all the extra staff and their families, and attempts would have to be mounted in order to secure greater living space. MM |
|
#209
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 20:56:20 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote: Up to the point this camera was erected I respected there use and the given reasons for there positioning, that has all gone now - and no I don't speed and thus have never been caught. I agree. Until I moved to where I now live I was ambivalent about speed cameras. But here in the Fens they are everywhere, often in ridiculous places where there is a good road, no blind bits, no schools nearby etc. There's one in particular that pops up out of nowhere, and of course many drivers slam their brakes on because they are unsure at that precise point whether they might be in a 50 mph zone. I have seen several situations where the braking has led to quite dangerous avoidance action. That camera is doing nothing, in fact it's probably contributing to road danger, not lessening it. But some jobsworth somewhere thought it was a good idea. MM |
|
#210
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: I didn't suggest it, I merely offered the opinion that I don't object to it. Perhaps not in those exact words but I hold to it. That is perhaps the bit I am having difficulty grasping. In the same way as I have difficulty grasping unsubstantiated objections. They are merely opinions, just as mine are. Given the costs of them (both social and financial) are so large, it seems strange (to me) to simply accept those costs without objection and yet not be able to champion any rational purpose for incurring them. I was far more inflamed about the invasion of Iraq. I can be passionate. .... That paragraph isn't a good example of that. When you read good spelling do you remember to use the right ones in your posts? One of the odd things about dyslexia .... However, I am not sure how exactly this diversion into spelling helps further the discussion on national ID registers.... It doesn't. But it seems to me that nothing I've read on this thread helps further that discussion. I'm enjoying it but haven't learned anything yet. (there, I even spell checked that one for you) Thank you. It's not difficult to do it for every post to avoid misunderstandings. Mary |
|
#211
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... These stories are from the much-visited and extremely popular 'Alternatve News' web page at http://www.nwointelligence.com.. Just because something is much visited and extremely popular doesn't make it either universally appealing or authoritative. I understand that porn sites are much visited and extremely popular. Mary |
|
#212
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: Yup just like now, only without the safguards of multiple incompatible distributed and non connected databases that limit the scope of an error, and provide alternative routes to perform sanity checks and consistency checks on the data when something goes wrong. Can you put that into Plain English please? Seemed plain enough as it was... which bit are you having difficulty with? It was like a Russian novel, I turned off at the first line. Communication is about getting across your message, if it doesn't do that, no matter how fancy the language, it's worthless. As for my having difficulty with it, do you honestly think that everyone else reading this thread would havean instant understanding? The underwhelming response doesn't sugges tthat. "Multiple / distributed" - there are lots of places where data are stored about us. These databases are not centralised. E.g. the information held on the passport database is not in the same place as that relating to your drivers license or your birth certificate. No, but in Our Glorious Leader's Joined up Thinking every gets going it could be. "non connected" - a change made to information in one place does not automatically propagate through to all the others. You sound like a politician. "incompatible" - data are held on various systems ranging from paper to electronic. Since this is not a monoculture, it impossible for a single type of activity / error to compromise all these systems in one go. Ah - I understand 'monoculture'. But I can'tsee what OSR has to do with this thread ... Hence if an error were made (or someone tampered) with your passport details, you would have several options available to you to correct the error. The fallibility of the information systems is understood and abilities to deal with it are built into the processes. The database is not always right. And there isn't always a reluctance to investigate the reported error and a refusal to correct it. Also don't forget the new scope for data mining exercises correlating your innocent behaviour to that of a known problem groups. And that. Data mining, is the process of running statistical analysis and AI/fuzzy logic pattern recognition techniques against large data sets with the intention of discovering previously unknown relationships and causalities within the data. Oh, I see! Crystal clear :-) More detailed descriptions he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining One novel example would be the suicide predictor used in some underground stations via their CCTV systems. By performing data mining exercises against CCTV footage of people who threw themselves in front of trains, they have produced algorithms that can detect patterns of behaviour the frequently preceded a suicide attempt of this nature. The computer system attempts to give early warning to staff that this may be about to happen. However the process can be used against any large data set to attempt to find a predicate for all sorts of behaviours or outcomes. Hence armed with your national ID register and its collected data of everyone's movements and transactions (financial or otherwise) you can set about identifying the predicates for all sorts of unwanted behaviour like benefit fraud or terrorism for example. You can see the tantalising prospects for the powers that be. The technology vendors will only help to encourage them in this line of thought. The difficulty however is this is not an exact science. Even if you do find a way of identifying some individuals who will go on to commit a crime (or have escaped detection in the past), you can't help but sweep many innocents into the net in the same action. You are also into the rather questionable process of arresting people for what your think they might be about to do (football hooliganism legislation anyone?). Sorry, you switched me off several paras ago ... Pity really because I do respect a lot of your knowledge and opinion. Mary -- Cheers, |
|
#213
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Owain" wrote in message ... fredbloggstwo wrote: On the other hand consider this. The way our government works has not been changed for centuries. There are, IIRC, about 14 major government departments and on each of them you can have multiple identities. They do not communicate between them because of bureaucracy, so the maths says that the opportunity for fraud is proportional to Factorial 14. ... An alternative would be to close thirteen government departments. Hurrah! er - except that the one left would be all powerful. Hmm. Back to the drawing board ... Mary Owain |
|
#214
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MM" wrote in message ... Except we'll have wasted £3bn on getting nowhere... Ah, not nowhere. All that hardware to be manufactured by people making a living, ditto designers, ditto software, ditto operators, dittor enforcers, ditto card makers, ditto ink... oh I can't be bothered. £3bn doesn't just go nowhere, it's spent on things and services, all of which keep the world busy and what goes round comes round. This is a completely risible argument. Why then don't we just spend the money on doing exactly that? Employ an army of workers and pay them money from the taxpayer to the tune of £3bn so that they all 'earn' a living! It'd keep the world busy, wouldn't it? One group of workers could design something, another group could put it into production, yet another would sort out marketing and sales, warehousemen would buy new forklift trucks, new roads would be constructed to cope with the demand, and before long, there wouldn't be enough space to accommodate all the extra staff and their families, and attempts would have to be mounted in order to secure greater living space. It's done all the time. What do we really NEED? Certainly not most of the things we buy. Mary MM |
|
#215
|
|||
|
|||
|
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message eenews.net... "Mary Fisher" wrote in message . net... ":::Jerry::::" wrote in message eenews.net... "Mary Fisher" wrote in message . net... ":::Jerry::::" wrote in message eenews.net... I actually agree with the CORRECT use of speed cameras - and as you infer, if you break the speed limit and get caught - then tough and don't whinge about it... I've never heard of an incorrect use of one. Not one I believe anyway :-) I've got one not to far away from me now, the camera is positioned to catch the accidental speeding that might happen when pulling away from a roundabout, Accidental speeding when pulling away from a roundabout??? Sounds more like accidentally pulling my leg. You sound like a non driver (or one with little to nil experience).... LOL! I was probably driving before you were born! And I've driven (and still do) in all conditions and with a variety of vehicles you couldn't imagine. But you have, no doubt, only driven them the half a mile to the village shops or church.... In inner city Leeds? And travelling (and towing) all round the UK? You shouldn't make assumptions. Anyway, seeing that my 'trade' is within the motor trade I suspect *I* have driven more vehicles (and types) than you have probably seen let alone sat in - the fact that you completely missed the point I was making about the positioning of the said camera you really should just shut your ignorant, self opinionated, super-sized gob for once ! Oh, faced with such eloquence I promise that I'm beaten and shan't offend you by reading any more of your posts. I remain your very humble and obedient servant, chortle |
|
#216
|
|||
|
|||
|
All this bother when they could just tattoo your camp number on your arm
at birth... |
|
#217
|
|||
|
|||
|
MM wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 21:32:36 +0100, "Mary Fisher" wrote: "Steve Walker" wrote in message ... BigWallop wrote: "raden" wrote in message news
Together with other recent pieces of legislation, we will end up wit a significant proportion of people just living outside the law Just like now you mean? So no change there then. :-) Except we'll have wasted £3bn on getting nowhere... Ah, not nowhere. All that hardware to be manufactured by people making a living, ditto designers, ditto software, ditto operators, dittor enforcers, ditto card makers, ditto ink... oh I can't be bothered. £3bn doesn't just go nowhere, it's spent on things and services, all of which keep the world busy and what goes round comes round. This is a completely risible argument. Why then don't we just spend the money on doing exactly that? Employ an army of workers and pay them money from the taxpayer to the tune of £3bn so that they all 'earn' a living! It'd keep the world busy, wouldn't it? One group of workers could design something, another group could put it into production, yet another would sort out marketing and sales, warehousemen would buy new forklift trucks, new roads would be constructed to cope with the demand, and before long, there wouldn't be enough space to accommodate all the extra staff and their families, and attempts would have to be mounted in order to secure greater living space. Yiu are describing the current state bureacracy to a 'T' Make-work fo the boys. MM |
|
#218
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message . net... snip You shouldn't make assumptions. Stop talking about yourself... |
|
#219
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
Sorry, you switched me off several paras ago ... Pity really because I do respect a lot of your knowledge and opinion. For crying out loud, Mary! When you post about winged insects, chicken-keeping, or whatever areas you have specialist knowledge on, we make an effort to follow along: even - indeed, more so - when your claims are contrary to first-blush perceived wisdom. Some of us might even (gasp) Google for the odd unfamiliar term in your postings. If you're not willing to follow along at a reading level a couple of notches up from The Sun, why bother joining in at all? Saying 'oh, it's all too complicated, but I'm sure it'll be all right' is itself provocative. (Just because too many of our MPs prefer to be told what to think doesn't excuse you doing it: your participation in the mini-debate here is purely voluntary.) More provocative is your dismisal of detailed arguments as 'speculations of armchair experts'; for one, the political process is supposed to be about *engaging* people, not keeping them fatdumbnappy; for two, it's just possible some of the contributors know what they're on about (and post under their Real Names wot can be Googled for). Dismissing detail - as you did when someone posted the laundry-list of personal data with which the National Identity Register is to be initially populated - with a sarcastic 'My, we have been busy' is a further aggravating anti-contribution to the debate. Why do you choose to adopt this posture on this issue? You say you were 'passionate' about the Iraq invasion - weren't there both technical and deep-policy issues there? Why weren't you happy to leave the assessment of the legitimacy of the invasion, and the approach to WMD, to The Appointed Experts in that case? Maybe it's just wind-up-a-geek-week for you. Enjoy. Stefek |
|
#220
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Rumm wrote:
Yup just like now, only without the safguards of multiple incompatible distributed and non connected databases that limit the scope of an error, and provide alternative routes to perform sanity checks and consistency checks on the data when something goes wrong. So, to expand this out for the hard-of-reading. Currently, it's impractical to conduct mass surveillance of 'ordinary' people. People have different identifiers in different databases - your loyalty card number in one, your NHS number in another, your employee-ID in a third, and so on. That limits the amount of information which any single bent insider can gain - i.e., someone whose job gives them authorised access to the information on one database, and is willing to take a peek at someone's data for 50-100 quid. You'd have to really *want* the information to slip tens of people that sort of money, sort out the false hits between them, and so on. The State may have the resources to get the necessary access in 'extreme' cases, and most of us would want it to; even the State doesn't have the resources to do it routinely. Behind John's two words 'not connected' are two deep, and distinct, concepts. Firstly, they're not connected at the 'operational' level: that means someone whose job gives them access to one database - the car registration database, say - doesn't have access to medical information. Nor do the computer systems which query or update the database have access to those other databases. Secondly, they're not connected at the 'logical' level, precisely because there isn't a reliable, common identifier for the 'same' thing across them. Where that 'thing' is a person, they've got a different 'unique within this database' identifier, as mentioned above (loyalty-card number, NHS number, employee number). Their 'human readable' name will vary: it may be Elizabeth R Windsor in one, Liz Windsor in another, Elisabeth Winsor in the third. For reliable 'linking', a common identifier - as the National ID Register intends to introduce - is all you need: it's then irrelevant whether you have one big database or lots of little ones, as the common identifier allows the information in each one to be reliably associated with the same person. And it allows whoever's paying the bent insider to be sure they're getting details on the right subject - not just someone with a similar name. John then points out that having these 'multiple, incompatible distributed and non connected databases' acts to 'limit the scope of an error'. This is what he means: if there's information which is wrong on one or two of them, it only affects the uses to which those one or two databases are put. So, if your hospital, gas supplier, and corgi-appreciation-society all show your address as being 'The Castle, Windsor', your post reaches you at that correct address from all those organisations. If the Dunkirk Veteran's Association database misrecords your address as 'Castle Drive, Staines', only that bit of post goes missing, and when you notice you haven't had the newsletter and invitation to the annual dinner-dance, you convince just that one organisation to fix their records; sometimes, showing them a copy of your gas bill and corgi-soc post, showing the right address, can help. Once you've a single point of change, an error affects *all* of your interactions with *all* of the many organisations who decided it would be Efficient to use that single point as the Right And Proper way of getting your address. On the plus side, this means you notice errors quicker, and have more incentive to keep it up to date; on the minus side, the effects of an error are greater, and it can be harder to get the bureaucracy to fix them. Within one organisation, it's worth having a 'single', authoritative point of change - you'd want, say, Amazon to not have different databases for their shipping department, their billing department, and their mailing-out-special-offers department (note, though, that you *do* want their one database to allow you to specify a different address for a particular delivery (gift to a friend), for your bills (usually home, please, but to an employer's or client's address for a particular purchase)). Across all of your dealings as a citizen or resident of the UK, though, it's a lot less clear that the advantages of a single point of change outweigh the risks: and that's one of the pieces of analysis which simply hasn't been published, whether or not it's been done. Once the databases are 'connected' - whether 'operationally' (the computers that run them actively swapping information) or 'logically' (one shared personal identifier across lots-n-lots-n-lots of databases), the kind of 'mass surveillance' which is currently impractical becomes practical. It becomes practical for the merely nosey, busybody, vigilante, weirdo-stalker types, who can now feasibly (pay somebody to) look up the details on the now-linked databases. And it becomes practical for government departments to design ever more 'joined-up' systems, which more and more tightly restrict what it is to be 'normal'. The richer you are, the less this matters - you can opt out of many Govt services, you can indulge your little privacy foibles; the more you're an 'ordinary hardworking family', the more it's in your economic and convenience-of-living interests to simply conform. Moving by unexamined apathy into that sort of society upsets me: it seems to me that (a) you should establish a strong genuinely-informed consensus that 'most of us' really do want to live that way; and (b) that you need to make some genuine provision for the 'rest of them', who don't. The tolerance for eccentricity, self-determination, and each citizen having their own weird ways of *not* conforming - whether it's Morris-dancing, thinking that what Chris de Burgh produces is music, urban chicken-keeping, or building barbeques out of emptied propane cylinders - is the single most attractive aspect of living in the UK. (Note the crafty link to both uk and d-i-y there ;-) Also don't forget the new scope for data mining exercises correlating your innocent behaviour to that of a known problem groups. John's already explained what 'data mining' means - it's looking for patterns in the data that's held about a Thing (a person, say, or a car) to find Interesting New Patterns from which Interesting Conclusions can be drawn. The uses of this technique are legion. For example, a supermarket might find that people who often buy nice, hand-made pasta also buy fancy olive oil (unsurprising) and travel magazines (less obvious), and decide to put together some Targetted Promotion. Or your credit card company finds that a long period of disuse followed by repeated mid-value purchases indicates fraud - great if your card's nicked and the unauthorised spending's brought to your attention early, not so great if you've been holding off spending until having all the grandchildren over for your 75th birthday for which you're buying them each a pressie. Because data mining produces only 'correlations', its 'predictions' aren't 'certain'. This doesn't matter much if it makes your marketing just 'rather' better, so 'only' 88% of your mailshots are ignored, instead of 94%. It matters a bit more if your spending/activity patterns match those of some rightly-suspect group (e.g., you're a foreign-named keen d-i-y'er and planespotter who spends lots of time buying military surplus gear and travelling to airports), and the resulting Enquiries turn neighbours and colleagues against you... Hope that helps round out John's pithy comments... Stefek |
|
#221
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: Sorry, you switched me off several paras ago ... Pity really because I do respect a lot of your knowledge and opinion. For crying out loud, Mary! .... If you're not willing to follow along at a reading level a couple of notches up from The Sun, why bother joining in at all? Well, I was reacting to something posted in reply to me. People can choose to read or reply, there's no need to get wound up about my insignificant opinions. I don't expect replies to anything I post, I suppose I don't even notice when there isn't one unless I've instigated a post. But when it gets too deep for my poor old grey head I have to say so. Perhaps I don't do it in the most gentle way but that's my style - and I don't intend to be offensive in doing it. Saying 'oh, it's all too complicated, but I'm sure it'll be all right' is itself provocative. It wasn't intended to be. If someone rises to imagined bait that's his/her problem, not mine. The same applies if I respond to something someone else says. (Just because too many of our MPs prefer to be told what to think doesn't excuse you doing it: your participation in the mini-debate here is purely voluntary.) You think I think what I'm told to think? No, exactly the opposite. More provocative is your dismisal of detailed arguments as 'speculations of armchair experts'; When posters state that such and such will happen with no evidence provided suggests to me that s/he is an armchair expert. S/he MIGHT be proved right but I question how anyone can foretell the future. for one, the political process is supposed to be about *engaging* people, Eh? I've tried engaging politicians at all levels for years and they always back off. not keeping them fatdumbnappy; for two, it's just possible some of the contributors know what they're on about Perhaps they do but very many don't give any evidence to back up their predictions. (and post under their Real Names wot can be Googled for). Well, according to some, that's a dangerous practice! Dismissing detail - as you did when someone posted the laundry-list of personal data with which the National Identity Register is to be initially populated - with a sarcastic 'My, we have been busy' is a further aggravating anti-contribution to the debate. Perhaps it was. Why do you choose to adopt this posture on this issue? I can't say, I can't remember when I said it or what the other circumstances were. Perhaps I was bored, perhaps I was cynical, perhaps I'd had too much to drink, perhaps I was tired, there could be all sorts of reasons. I'm sorry if I've touched a raw nerve in you. You say you were 'passionate' about the Iraq invasion - weren't there both technical and deep-policy issues there? Why weren't you happy to leave the assessment of the legitimacy of the invasion, and the approach to WMD, to The Appointed Experts in that case? I had no option, none of the anti-invasion opinions were considered, I believe. I believe (but of course can't state as a fact, as many have done) that it was decided by Bush many months before the invasion. Maybe it's just wind-up-a-geek-week for you. Enjoy. No, I do know that I wind people up but perhaps I make some people think that there are other valid opinions - as I do. I learn a lot from Usenet. Thanks for your post, would that everyone was as polite. Mary |
|
#222
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
(and post under their Real Names wot can be Googled for). Well, according to some, that's a dangerous practice! It can be. Here, we can make our individual judgments, and post under whatever names we like - some real, some stable pseudonyms, some hit-n-run hard-to-track. Everyone gets to make that *choice* for themselves, and weigh up the consequences according to their own circumstances. That's a choice which the proposed ID card scheme removes from many normal interactions. As the Information Commissioner (previously the Data Protection Registrar) notes - the last time we had ID cards, they were introduced for exactly three relatively narrow purposes (national service, security, and rationing); eleven years later, 39 government agencies were using them for a variety of purposes. See http://www.informationcommissioner.g...aft%20Bill.pdf if you have the inclination. How long before B&Q will require you (yes, *everyone*, so as not to be accused of being discriminatory!) to show your ID card to buy knives and glue? On a different tack - thanks (truly!) for calling my response 'polite' - it was considerably more abrasive than a standard-Stefek. I guess my Ma must've done something right as I were drug up ;-) Stefek |
|
#223
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message ... So, to expand this out for the hard-of-reading. Despite the mildly offensive nature of that comment I read on -because I respect your opinions among some others. Currently, it's impractical to conduct mass surveillance of 'ordinary' people. People have different identifiers in different databases - your loyalty card number in one, your NHS number in another, your employee-ID in a third, and so on. The national all-embracing census perhaps - with all those Jedi ... No, I didn't have the wit to say that but I did write "irrelevant" on the race question. There was no come-back, sadly. That limits the amount of information which any single bent insider can gain - i.e., someone whose job gives them authorised access to the information on one database, and is willing to take a peek at someone's data for 50-100 quid. You'd have to really *want* the information to slip tens of people that sort of money, sort out the false hits between them, and so on. The State may have the resources to get the necessary access in 'extreme' cases, and most of us would want it to; even the State doesn't have the resources to do it routinely. Behind John's two words 'not connected' are two deep, and distinct, concepts. Your understanding is deeper than mine. Firstly, they're not connected at the 'operational' level: that means someone whose job gives them access to one database - the car registration database, say - doesn't have access to medical information. Nor do the computer systems which query or update the database have access to those other databases. Wouldn't it be more convenient in some cases to have that information? And in the case of the car reg. database, it has some medical information on me and on Spouse and I'm sure we're not unique.What's more, it doesn't worry us and that's the main basis for my lack of worry about an ID system, we have nothing to hide. I know I've said it before but people do keep trying to prove that we have - or might have. We don't. I have a personal attitude to this, I know that it isn't shared by others, the same applies to all sorts of other things I care about, don't care about oram neutral about. Secondly, they're not connected at the 'logical' level, precisely because there isn't a reliable, common identifier for the 'same' thing across them. Where that 'thing' is a person, they've got a different 'unique within this database' identifier, as mentioned above (loyalty-card number, NHS number, employee number). Their 'human readable' name will vary: it may be Elizabeth R Windsor in one, Liz Windsor in another, Elisabeth Winsor in the third. For reliable 'linking', a common identifier - as the National ID Register intends to introduce - is all you need: it's then irrelevant whether you have one big database or lots of little ones, as the common identifier allows the information in each one to be reliably associated with the same person. And it allows whoever's paying the bent insider to be sure they're getting details on the right subject - not just someone with a similar name. You're assuming that there WILL be bent insiders. Worse, I suspect, that there will be no check on such bent insiders. John then points out that having these 'multiple, incompatible distributed and non connected databases' acts to 'limit the scope of an error'. This is what he means: if there's information which is wrong on one or two of them, it only affects the uses to which those one or two databases are put. So, if your hospital, gas supplier, and corgi-appreciation-society all show your address as being 'The Castle, Windsor', your post reaches you at that correct address from all those organisations. If the Dunkirk Veteran's Association database misrecords your address as 'Castle Drive, Staines', only that bit of post goes missing, and when you notice you haven't had the newsletter and invitation to the annual dinner-dance, you convince just that one organisation to fix their records; sometimes, showing them a copy of your gas bill and corgi-soc post, showing the right address, can help. I believe that there still would be ways of amending information on the proposed ID system. Don't ask me how I know, I don't know,I said I believe. I have not much faith in politicians but I do believe that the system won't be worked by politicians but be people like you and me, civil servants if you like, who mostly care about getting things right because it makes their job easier. I have a son and a daughter in different branches of the civil service and they despair at the lack of common information about the people they deal with, it would make them able to do their jobs more efficiently if there were more. Once you've a single point of change, an error affects *all* of your interactions with *all* of the many organisations who decided it would be Efficient to use that single point as the Right And Proper way of getting your address. On the plus side, this means you notice errors quicker, and have more incentive to keep it up to date; on the minus side, the effects of an error are greater, and it can be harder to get the bureaucracy to fix them. You see, Stefek, that's the kind of assumption I rail against. How do you KNOW that it can be harder to get bureaucracy to fix things? Or that errors will be more widespread than they are on other databases anyway? I believe that there will be checks. Within one organisation, it's worth having a 'single', authoritative point of change - you'd want, say, Amazon to not have different databases for their shipping department, their billing department, and their mailing-out-special-offers department (note, though, that you *do* want their one database to allow you to specify a different address for a particular delivery (gift to a friend), for your bills (usually home, please, but to an employer's or client's address for a particular purchase)). Across all of your dealings as a citizen or resident of the UK, though, it's a lot less clear that the advantages of a single point of change outweigh the risks: and that's one of the pieces of analysis which simply hasn't been published, whether or not it's been done. Subjectively speaking (which is all anyone can do) I'd welcome not having to key in data or fill in forms or repeat information every time I want to order something, renew something or book an appointment. But whenever I take any of those actions, or receive confirmation,there's always the request for confirmation of my details. Somewhere we have to have trust. At the moment there are severe restrictions on the data we can keep on others, I've just realised that the way I keep some information about others is illegal. If they want to get me for it so be it, no-one's hauled me off yet and there's no reason why they should. If I MISUSE that information that's a different matter of course. Once the databases are 'connected' - whether 'operationally' (the computers that run them actively swapping information) or 'logically' (one shared personal identifier across lots-n-lots-n-lots of databases), the kind of 'mass surveillance' which is currently impractical becomes practical. It becomes practical for the merely nosey, busybody, vigilante, weirdo-stalker types, who can now feasibly (pay somebody to) look up the details on the now-linked databases. So it will be easier and cheaper to do something they can do now. Not, in my opinion, a greater 'threat' than is already there. And it becomes practical for government departments to design ever more 'joined-up' systems, which more and more tightly restrict what it is to be 'normal'. Why should they restrict it? They don't now. The richer you are, the less this matters - you can opt out of many Govt services, you can indulge your little privacy foibles; the more you're an 'ordinary hardworking family', the more it's in your economic and convenience-of-living interests to simply conform. Lets face it, most people conform anyway, they only want an easy life. I'm one of the world's oddballs in my lack of conformity and I STILL don't get into trouble. Do you think I would with an ID system? I think that those whose jobs are to ensure the welfare of the country are only intent on enforcing conformity on those who cause trouble. Moving by unexamined apathy into that sort of society upsets me: I think that apathetic isn't a word anyone who really knows me would apply to me :-) it seems to me that (a) you Me personally?? should establish a strong genuinely-informed consensus that 'most of us' really do want to live that way; Perhaps those who don't want it need to do the same - without the hyperbole which has been exhibited in this thread.. I believe that a referendum has been talked about, which still means that (probably) a majority of people won't be happy :-) and (b) that you need to make some genuine provision for the 'rest of them', who don't. The tolerance for eccentricity, self-determination, and each citizen having their own weird ways of *not* conforming - whether it's Morris-dancing, thinking that what Chris de Burgh produces is music, urban chicken-keeping, or building barbeques out of emptied propane cylinders - is the single most attractive aspect of living in the UK. (Note the crafty link to both uk and d-i-y there ;-) Oh come on! You're surely not suggesting that those freedoms will be stamped on? Also don't forget the new scope for data mining exercises correlating your innocent behaviour to that of a known problem groups. John's already explained what 'data mining' means - it's looking for patterns in the data that's held about a Thing (a person, say, or a car) to find Interesting New Patterns from which Interesting Conclusions can be drawn. Why should the State want to do that? The uses of this technique are legion. For example, a supermarket might find that people who often buy nice, hand-made pasta also buy fancy olive oil (unsurprising) and travel magazines (less obvious), and decide to put together some Targetted Promotion. Amazon already does that, it's quite useful :-) Or your credit card company finds that a long period of disuse followed by repeated mid-value purchases indicates fraud That already happens with some bank accounts and it certainly does on one of my credit card accounts. I appreciate it. - great if your card's nicked and the unauthorised spending's brought to your attention early, not so great if you've been holding off spending until having all the grandchildren over for your 75th birthday for which you're buying them each a pressie. No problem, they check, ask if you've done it, you say yes and that's it. I've done it - not for that purpose mind you, I've no intention of buying them presents on MY birthday :-) Because data mining produces only 'correlations', its 'predictions' aren't 'certain'. This doesn't matter much if it makes your marketing just 'rather' better, so 'only' 88% of your mailshots are ignored, instead of 94%. It matters a bit more if your spending/activity patterns match those of some rightly-suspect group (e.g., you're a foreign-named keen d-i-y'er and planespotter who spends lots of time buying military surplus gear and travelling to airports), and the resulting Enquiries turn neighbours and colleagues against you... With neighbours and colleagues like that ... Although I know people who do all those things (not necessarily at the same time) and they don't attract any kind of attention. Even the ones who collect tanks. Hope that helps round out John's pithy comments... Stefek Well, it demonstrates your interpretations of them, which might well be the same as his intentions. But it still doesn't mean that your fears are bound to happen. No more than what you see as my 'complacency is justified. Thanks again, Mary |
|
#224
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message ... snip if you have the inclination. How long before B&Q will require you (yes, *everyone*, so as not to be accused of being discriminatory!) to show your ID card to buy knives and glue? But again, what is the problem with the above, unless you *are* the knife man of Tooting Broadway ?! Seriously, if such a requirement stopped just on person being killed will it not have been worth the slight invasion of privacy, considering that if you paid via a credit card B&Q (or more likely) the Police can still obtain your personal details [name, address, date of birth and your ware-abouts etc.] as and when you used your CC. |
|
#225
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message ... How long before B&Q will require you (yes, *everyone*, so as not to be accused of being discriminatory!) to show your ID card to buy knives and glue? Oh no! I really couldn't bear that - you mean TWO cards to be shown ... Well, thinking about it, it's far more convenient that having to drag round my birth certificate and gas bill! On a different tack - thanks (truly!) for calling my response 'polite' - it was considerably more abrasive than a standard-Stefek. I guess my Ma must've done something right as I were drug up ;-) We usually do, exceptions prove the rule as in all aspects of life - and have been seen here. Not, of course, from ukdiy folk ... Mary Stefek |
|
#226
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 21:32:36 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote: Ah, not nowhere. All that hardware to be manufactured by people making a living, ditto designers, ditto software, ditto operators, dittor enforcers, ditto card makers, ditto ink... oh I can't be bothered. £3bn doesn't just go nowhere, it's spent on things and services, all of which keep the world busy and what goes round comes round. I would prefer my contribution to the £3bn to go towards building and staffing a new hospital or school or improving access to NHS funded dental treatment (or similar, I'm sure you get the idea) where it would not only boost employment in the manner you describe, but also have a real benefit to society. Dave |
|
#227
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
Wouldn't it be more convenient in some cases to have that information? Yes, it would. However, I (and other idiots like the Information Commissioner, acting according to the law of the land on data protection ;-) want to see *each* such connection evaluated on its *merits*, balancing gains in administrative convenience against risks to privacy. It's your choice to rate your privacy at '0' in that balance; it's not your right (or Charles Clarke's) to impose that choice on everyone else. You're assuming that there WILL be bent insiders. Worse, I suspect, that there will be no check on such bent insiders. No, I'm not just *assuming* this. I'm basing my figure of 50-100 quid on credible, established reports of what it costs private investigators to ferret out said information: including a recent court case where, shamefully, two such bent public servant got a small fine and a suspended sentence. That wasn't exactly a message about strong enforcement. I believe that there still would be ways of amending information on the proposed ID system. Don't ask me how I know, I don't know,I said I believe. Of course there will; necessarily, the checks will be more stringent precisely because changes will matter more. Hence my claim, which you 'rail against', that 'it can be harder to get the bureaucracy to fix them'. You see, Stefek, that's the kind of assumption I rail against. How do you KNOW that it can be harder to get bureaucracy to fix things? Or that errors will be more widespread than they are on other databases anyway? I believe that there will be checks. As pointed out above, it's not that there will be more errors necessarily, but that the consequences of errors will be greater. And the entries will be run not only by public-spirited people, but by contractors on minimum wage - maybe some offshour outsourced workers too - whose immediate goals are about meeting their supervisor-set targets on 'number of cases dealt with per hour', because that's easy to measure; while 'accuracy', 'quality', 'right first time' are harder to measure - so aren't in most data-entry shops. Somewhere we have to have trust. Yes; and I want to hold those mechanisms up to careful examiniation. So it will be easier and cheaper to do something they can do now. Not, in my opinion, a greater 'threat' than is already there. Do, please, take a look at www.zaba.com, for a clear case in point of how making things 'easy' to look up changes society's behaviour. I assure you it's relevant, short, and pretty readable! it seems to me that (a) you Me personally?? No: 'one', more specifically 'the engaged citizen' should establish a strong genuinely-informed consensus that 'most of us' really do want to live that way; Perhaps those who don't want it need to do the same - without the hyperbole which has been exhibited in this thread.. I believe that a referendum has been talked about, which still means that (probably) a majority of people won't be happy :-) Nuttin's been said about a referendum on ID cards! Cheers, Stefek |
|
#228
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: Wouldn't it be more convenient in some cases to have that information? Yes, it would. However, I (and other idiots I've not called you an idiot. like the Information Commissioner, acting according to the law of the land on data protection ;-) want to see *each* such connection evaluated on its *merits*, balancing gains in administrative convenience against risks to privacy. And you really believe that will happen? It's your choice to rate your privacy at '0' in that balance; it's not your right (or Charles Clarke's) to impose that choice on everyone else. I didn't vote for him. You're assuming that there WILL be bent insiders. Worse, I suspect, that there will be no check on such bent insiders. No, I'm not just *assuming* this. I'm basing my figure of 50-100 quid on credible, established reports of what it costs private investigators to ferret out said information: including a recent court case where, shamefully, two such bent public servant got a small fine and a suspended sentence. That wasn't exactly a message about strong enforcement. One swallow ... I believe that there still would be ways of amending information on the proposed ID system. Don't ask me how I know, I don't know,I said I believe. Of course there will; necessarily, the checks will be more stringent precisely because changes will matter more. Hence my claim, which you 'rail against', that 'it can be harder to get the bureaucracy to fix them'. er ... I'm being stupid again, sorry. You see, Stefek, that's the kind of assumption I rail against. How do you KNOW that it can be harder to get bureaucracy to fix things? Or that errors will be more widespread than they are on other databases anyway? I believe that there will be checks. As pointed out above, it's not that there will be more errors necessarily, but that the consequences of errors will be greater. To have consequences you have to have the errors. And the entries will be run not only by public-spirited people, but by contractors on minimum wage - maybe some offshour outsourced workers too - whose immediate goals are about meeting their supervisor-set targets on 'number of cases dealt with per hour', because that's easy to measure; while 'accuracy', 'quality', 'right first time' are harder to measure - so aren't in most data-entry shops. Will they? You know that? How? Somewhere we have to have trust. Yes; and I want to hold those mechanisms up to careful examiniation. It would be nice. So it will be easier and cheaper to do something they can do now. Not, in my opinion, a greater 'threat' than is already there. Do, please, take a look at www.zaba.com, for a clear case in point of how making things 'easy' to look up changes society's behaviour. I assure you it's relevant, short, and pretty readable! I did look, you might think it's relevant, I think it's subjective, it's neither short nor, sorry to say this, readable. I can't see any problem in submitting the information which is suggested as a problem. I'll tell you all my relevant information now if you like. And much good may it do you. it seems to me that (a) you Me personally?? No: 'one', more specifically 'the engaged citizen' should establish a strong genuinely-informed consensus that 'most of us' really do want to live that way; Perhaps those who don't want it need to do the same - without the hyperbole which has been exhibited in this thread.. No answer to that? I believe that a referendum has been talked about, which still means that (probably) a majority of people won't be happy :-) Nuttin's been said about a referendum on ID cards! Oh. In that case I've misunderstood. Er - are you sure,100% certain, that NOTHING has been said about it? Mary |
|
#229
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:37:54 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote: "Stefek Zaba" wrote in message ... snip if you have the inclination. How long before B&Q will require you (yes, *everyone*, so as not to be accused of being discriminatory!) to show your ID card to buy knives and glue? But again, what is the problem with the above, unless you *are* the knife man of Tooting Broadway ?! Seriously, if such a requirement stopped just on person being killed will it not have been worth the slight invasion of privacy, considering that if you paid via a credit card B&Q (or more likely) the Police can still obtain your personal details [name, address, date of birth and your ware-abouts etc.] as and when you used your CC. And think of the huge cost of cross-referencing. A knife is bought somewhere. The details of the purchaser are entered. Let's say, the following: Knife Irish Catholic Lives in London Been here six months Or Weedkiller Iranian Muslim Lives in London Been here 10 years Both cases may, of course, be bona fide. (The guy with the knife is a friend of the bloke with the weedkiller. First guy is helping second guy at the latter's allotment. He uses the knife to cut string for beanpoles and tomato plants. The other guy uses the weedkiller to, er, kill weeds.) But to the police? The Home Office? The Security Services? If they have the opportunity, using the ID card data, to check and cross-refer, they are more or less bound to make those checks. Largely, the ID card will be a solution in search of a problem. Over the whole country, with millions of transactions every week, the combinatorial explosion of possible permutations is so massive, the police would need 10,000 years with the world's most powerful computers just to scratch the surface. And suppose they do even attempt it, cross-referencing I mean. Suppose the cross-referencing task, even with so-called 'smart' extrapolatory software, needed to recruit tens of thousands of extra civil servants with an overall cost just to run the system of £5bn PER YEAR? That's in addition to signing up new bods for ID cards, processing those who have died or left the country and ensuring that their ID cards are returned from all points of the kingdom and destroyed, replacing the hundreds of lost cards every day, prosecuting the forgetful, the wily, and the recalcitrants for failing to comply with one or other arcane aspect of the card. The country's security forces could in fact be so bound up in ID card stuff that there is no resource left for 'ordinary' policing. We could even see a huge rise in crime, as whole districts become starved of any police presence and are left to get on with it, which would very quickly lead to vigilantism by the locals. And suppose, despite all that, that a terrorist here as a tourist and therefore not on the government's database simply straps some homemade bomb to himself and walks into the Underground? What a waste of time and money! Think what those extra resources, if spent instead on more intensive intelligence gathering in the old-fashioned way, could be used for. This scenario I paint is as much for Mary as anyone else, because the anti-ID card debate needs people with influence and I believe Mary has that in some circles. But Mary doesn't seem to care one way or the other, because like so many people in Britain she surmises that 'it can't happen here, not in good old Britain!' MM |
|
#230
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MM" wrote in message news 
snip stuff I couldn't hve put better myself This scenario I paint is as much for Mary as anyone else, How flattering! because the anti-ID card debate needs people with influence and I believe Mary has that in some circles. Um. True but probably not the right circles :-) But Mary doesn't seem to care one way or the other, because like so many people in Britain she surmises that 'it can't happen here, not in good old Britain!' That's not the reason. I just have yet to be convinced that it would be a problem, your post emphasises my lack of conviction. Mary MM |
|
#231
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stefek Zaba wrote:
I believe that a referendum has been talked about, which still means that (probably) a majority of people won't be happy :-) Nuttin's been said about a referendum on ID cards! If you don't (voluntarily) carry an ID card, will you be allowed to vote in a referendum for making them compulsory? Then think how that might influence the outcome of such a referendum ... Owain |
|
#232
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
[i] ................ want to see *each* such connection evaluated on its *merits*, balancing gains in administrative convenience against risks to privacy. And you really believe that will happen? Well, good software system design practice requires it; and as far as handling personal data's concerned, the law of the land - the Data Protection Act - requires it too. shamefully, two such bent public servant got a small fine and a suspended sentence. That wasn't exactly a message about strong enforcement. One swallow ... positively indicates that claims of a swallow-free land are false. One swallow sighting per person allows a guesstimate of the swallow population, allowing for whether they fly about a lot or generally hide. In the case of people who are bent, or are simply helpful on the phone (look up 'social engineering' if you're not sure what I'm on about), there's a lot more than just one or two working away. As pointed out above, it's not that there will be more errors necessarily, but that the consequences of errors will be greater. To have consequences you have to have the errors. You're serious that your initial intuition is that the National Identity Register's data would be error-free? Would it shake that intuition to hear that the error rate on the Driver Vehicle Licensing database is 30% - i.e. that a little under one in three entries have an inaccuracy? (Would you believe me anyway?) And the entries will be run not only by public-spirited people, but by contractors on minimum wage - maybe some offshour outsourced workers too - whose immediate goals are about meeting their supervisor-set targets on 'number of cases dealt with per hour', because that's easy to measure; while 'accuracy', 'quality', 'right first time' are harder to measure - so aren't in most data-entry shops. Will they? You know that? How? 25 years' experience in the IT industry, reasonably careful attention to the trade press, and the odd personal experience as a consumer. One well-known favourite-of-the-middle-clarsses department store has hade my name utterly mangled on its storecard for over 10 years, and hasn't fixed it after multiple letters and calls. It really doesn't matter enough to either of us: I get to spend there using my account card, they get it paid off. Do, please, take a look at www.zaba.com, I did look, you might think it's relevant, I think it's subjective, it's neither short nor, sorry to say this, readable. I can't see any problem in submitting the information which is suggested as a problem. I'll tell you all my relevant information now if you like. And much good may it do you. You may be happy to have your information widely available; I accept that a chunk of mine is, too. However, I've had a *stack* of anguished emails from police and similar people, who really want themselves OFF the zabasearch.com database. (For those who haven't been over to zaba.com, zabasearch.com is NOTHING TO DO WITH ME: it's a free people-search engine operating in the US concerned with US residents. It aggregates info from public sources - not just phone books, but lots of local government records, particularly property-purchase stuff, and whatever private-sector sources it can lay its hands on). In the US you see, there's no general data protection regime: data is considered owned by the company you give it to for one purpose, and they're free to sell it on to anyone else. In the US, police officers and similar typically wear name badges on their uniforms (rather than the traceable pseudonym approach we have in the UK, with a constable's shoulder number). So they get kinda twitchy when a new service makes available - for free and at a coupla clicks of the mouse - information avout their home addresses, which previously took, for example, a manual search down at the county records office through ledgers indexed not by name but by address... Nuttin's been said about a referendum on ID cards! Oh. In that case I've misunderstood. Er - are you sure,100% certain, that NOTHING has been said about it? Yes. I follow this stuff reasonably closely (does it show? ;-). The Home Office's first consultation was in 2002-3. The DTI Foresight programme on Cybertrust and Cybercrime, which touched on this stuff (too lightly, as I now think) and which I had a non-trivial role in, was in 2003-4. The draft Bill was lost at the end of the last parliamentary session, but is to be reintroduced very early in the next one. I've skimmed the text of the Bill itself, and read the commentaries. Nowhere in there, or in Home Office statements, have I seen any mention of a referendum. We tend to reach for those only for things which are of massive constitutional importance, and (cynically) upon which the government of the day is itself internally divided. So, we had one on entering the European Common Market, as I believe it was called back in the days of Heath, Wilson, and Callaghan. We're promised one on adopting the Euro, and on the next European Constitution (unless the French and/or Dutch avoid Tony having to put it to us at all, by voting No ahead of ours). Stefek |
|
#233
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:32:45 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote: The national all-embracing census perhaps - with all those Jedi ... No, I didn't have the wit to say that but I did write "irrelevant" on the race question. There was no come-back, sadly. There will be if you write the same on your registration for your ID card - £2,000 or a few months in jail. You're assuming that there WILL be bent insiders. There are now, many hundreds of them in the Civil Service. There were when we last had ID cards, there will be when we get new ones. I believe that there still would be ways of amending information on the proposed ID system. Don't ask me how I know, I don't know,I said I believe. Religion has always been a fine substitute for thinking, keeps millions happy. I have a son and a daughter in different branches of the civil service and they despair at the lack of common information about the people they deal with, it would make them able to do their jobs more efficiently if there were more. A very good reason for dispatching the idea of a national database to the dustbin if there ever was one. Given the damage Snivel Serpents cause to people without such a database it beggars belief that anyone would want to give them more power to cause hurt. Subjectively speaking (which is all anyone can do) I'd welcome not having to key in data or fill in forms or repeat information every time I want to order something, renew something or book an appointment. But whenever I take any of those actions, or receive confirmation,there's always the request for confirmation of my details. As there will be in the future, a national ID system will soon be subverted. Somewhere we have to have trust. Who? Politicians - they are yet to earn any. Snivel Serpents? The standards of the Civil Service are so abysmal and their record of incompetence so dire that one would have to be a fool to trust them. Once upon a time one could assume they were stupid but honest. The Civil Service had some sort of ethos. Now it is a ragbag of "agencies" and corruption is so commonplace that in most cases it isn't even investigated. To get someones record from the Police National Computer is about GBP150, Social Service files can be bought for a small packet of the social workers favourite chemicals. Inland Revenue information is about GBP50. At the moment there are severe restrictions on the data we can keep on others, I've just realised that the way I keep some information about others is illegal. If they want to get me for it so be it, no-one's hauled me off yet and there's no reason why they should. If I MISUSE that information that's a different matter of course. How many prosecutions have taken place for the daily misuse of information by civil servants and police officers of the most sensitive civil database in existence today - the PNC and associated intelligence databases? Of the very few that have occurred what have the penalties been? Lets face it, most people conform anyway, they only want an easy life. I'm one of the world's oddballs in my lack of conformity and I STILL don't get into trouble. Do you think I would with an ID system? No, you just like to think you are non-conformist. I believe that a referendum has been talked about, which still means that (probably) a majority of people won't be happy :-) It may have been talked about, there is no mention of one in the draft bill and no intention of holding one. Oh come on! You're surely not suggesting that those freedoms will be stamped on? Of course not - who on earth would think that any government would make you a criminal for moving an electric point without paying tax on it. Which government would make you a criminal for having a horse manure middin? Which government could possibly think of giving you a criminal record for having your bath water too hot? What stupid ideas. Why should the State want to do that? The state probably wouldn't. Your local MP might, your local council might. The policeman whose daughter your son is dating certainly will, the librarian you argued with might well want to. -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/ |
|
#234
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Stefek Zaba
writes[i] Mary Fisher wrote: ................ want to see *each* such connection evaluated on its *merits*, balancing gains in administrative convenience against risks to privacy. And you really believe that will happen? Well, good software system design practice requires it; and as far as handling personal data's concerned, the law of the land - the Data Protection Act - requires it too. shamefully, two such bent public servant got a small fine and a suspended sentence. That wasn't exactly a message about strong enforcement. One swallow ... positively indicates that claims of a swallow-free land are false. One swallow sighting per person allows a guesstimate of the swallow population, allowing for whether they fly about a lot or generally hide. In the case of people who are bent, or are simply helpful on the phone (look up 'social engineering' if you're not sure what I'm on about), there's a lot more than just one or two working away. As pointed out above, it's not that there will be more errors necessarily, but that the consequences of errors will be greater. To have consequences you have to have the errors. You're serious that your initial intuition is that the National Identity Register's data would be error-free? Would it shake that intuition to hear that the error rate on the Driver Vehicle Licensing database is 30% - i.e. that a little under one in three entries have an inaccuracy? (Would you believe me anyway?) Having just given Mary an example of someone I know in another NG who had major problems due to an admin error which she twisted into a problem of him having a debt, I'm coming to the conclusion that she doesn't seem to be able to come to terms with evidence which doesn't fit into her established mindset -- geoff |
|
#235
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
I was far more inflamed about the invasion of Iraq. I can be passionate. Must be true I guess.... you are a mother several times over I believe ;-) However, I am not sure how exactly this diversion into spelling helps further the discussion on national ID registers.... It doesn't. But it seems to me that nothing I've read on this thread helps further that discussion. I'm enjoying it but haven't learned anything yet. Perhaps I am assuming too much too much background knowledge here? I understand IT systems, and have specialist knowledge in some of the technology that would be required to underpin a project of this type. As a result I find it very easy to spot the many occasions where the talking heads have glossed over a critical details or major inconsistencies and conflicts of interest within the proposals that are absolutely fundamental to it being able to function at all, let alone deliver any of the various advantages the proponents have claimed. In many cases it is obvious they have fallen for a line fed to them by technology sales people. (there, I even spell checked that one for you) Thank you. It's not difficult to do it for every post to avoid misunderstandings. Generally I do, however I credit you with more that sufficient intellect to be able to deduce my meaning in spite of the occasional spelling mistake or typo. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#236
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
Perhaps they do but very many don't give any evidence to back up their predictions. Ah, well here is the conundrum, every time we give you hard "evidence" if you wish to call it that, or technical explanations of why the system will fail (i.e. from an engineering prospective not an "armchair expert" one), you claim to have switched off. This seems to be the functional equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you" over and over... -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#237
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stefek Zaba wrote:
Hope that helps round out John's pithy comments... Stefek Thank you kind sir! A very well constructed and hopefully less "Russian novel" expansion of what I thought I was saying. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#238
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
You see, Stefek, that's the kind of assumption I rail against. How do you KNOW that it can be harder to get bureaucracy to fix things? Or that errors will be more widespread than they are on other databases anyway? I believe that there will be checks. It comes down to the "trust" in the source of the information - the greater the trust (real or perceived) the harder it is to for people to accept challenge to it. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#239
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
And the entries will be run not only by public-spirited people, but by contractors on minimum wage - maybe some offshour outsourced workers too - whose immediate goals are about meeting their supervisor-set targets on 'number of cases dealt with per hour', because that's easy to measure; while 'accuracy', 'quality', 'right first time' are harder to measure - so aren't in most data-entry shops. Will they? You know that? How? Because big IT projects of this nature are only procured by government and not run by it. They will accept tenders for the work from the usual suspects. They will award contracts for the one with the most convincing pitch (big buzzwords, snazzy sounding high tech stuff that must be really good because it says so), and with the lowest price (as they always do). This lowest price is achieved in several ways, firstly by resourcing and staffing the project for the lowest possible cost (i.e. buying data processing support from outsourcing centre's in Bangalore etc), and more importantly by "out lawyering" the government such that the "fixed price" quoted is only a starting point that is then built up from each time the government deviates from what they thought they wanted at the outset. This is how your 3bn budget will rise to 10 and more. How do I know that? Because that is exactly what has happened with every major IT project to date, and the government seem resistant to learning that lesson. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#240
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stefek Zaba wrote:
(look up 'social engineering' if you're not sure what I'm on about), there's a lot more than just one or two working away. Mary, you may find this a very enlightening read: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...ternodeltdcomp not that techie, but shows just how easy it is for a skilled social engineer to obtain information that you would anticipate it is not even possible to obtain. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| way OT but not political - anyone need some 155MBPS ATM cards (no, not money cards) | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
