crimsoneer

28 ms·

421.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
All of these require judicial authority etc to use. Surely that's defence enough?
422.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
I mean...they're saving $600,000. That's not nothing.
423.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
They don't pretty much everywhere else in the developed world.
424.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
I'd be fascinated as to how that's justified legally. Mass tracking has been accepted by the high courts, but the moment you start tracking individual users, you need some sort of warrant or RIPA authority.
425.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
Just to clarify, these are all currently metadata, right? Eg, this stuff is, in theory, not linked to any individual people without a warrant/authority?
426.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
Greece was doing rather well at the end of 2014 before Syriza decided to stop playing ball.
427.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
At which point he could have disposed of evidence, refused to be interviewed, etc etc. This is exactly how the legal system in the UK works - you arrest people at a relatively low burden of proof, and that gives you the power to detain them
428.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
Please, please can we stop with the attitude that PCSOs are pointless. They certainly are not. To deter low level crime - the only type of crime "foot patrol" prevents - a PCSO is far, far better value for money than a PC. We ar
429.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
The distinction is certainly not meaningless, because they can't be used for surveillance - the footage of private cameras is only useful after the fact.
430.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
From a UK law enforcement perspective - completely illegal if it were over here. Not only can you only keep property being used as evidence - which your mobile phone could be - but a risk assessment is conducted at the end of detention to
431.
by crimsoneer 11y ago
There are real benefits to a large, centralised police force - around things like training, oversight, kit issue, etc. The US really suffers, IMO, from having hundreds of small forces, compared to the UK.
432.
by crimsoneer 12y ago
Actuaries are exceptionally well trained professionals who use incredibly sophisticated automation. They do not need help with Excel macros.
433.
by crimsoneer 12y ago
Your definition of net systemic advertising is rather different to mine. There are multiple products I wouldn't know about, and wouldn't have bought, without advertising. Yes, those adverts can be misleading, but they also give
434.
by crimsoneer 12y ago
If there wasn't need for Uber, surely people would just hail cabs and not use the app, right?
435.
by crimsoneer 12y ago
If there was such a thing as "undeserved profits", then we'd all be getting in line to grab some...
436.
by crimsoneer 12y ago
It seems they haven't had a sale in ages, which is a shame because I really want Pycharm but won't pay full wack for it.
437.
by crimsoneer 12y ago
Alternatively, lobby your democratic representatives to change the damn law? The UK has similar laws, but they don't create perverse incentives.
438.
by crimsoneer 12y ago
Yeah, I just suspect there's more to it than what's stated in the article. Surveilling people is really expensive, I doubt they did it just because he'd written an essay with specific words in it.
439.
by crimsoneer 12y ago
I'm a little sceptical. How do they know precisely what was used to identify them and what words triggered this "data mesh"? I'm not completely au fait with counter-terrorism policing, but they don't usually discl