There have been a couple of interesting internet developments recently: firstly facebook has continued it's slide from useful social website to yourDetailsForSale.com (which is why I have deleted my account on it) and secondly there is a further excitement about cloud computing (new about 5 years ago so new for business today). Google Enterprise is getting ever bigger; next week Microsoft launch their latest iteration of Office (with shiny online connectivity) and Ubuntu have released their latest offering complete with Ubuntu one: a 2Gb online file server (basically Dropbox).
This made me realise something: what happens when the police want to seize your computer to check it for evidence and you don't have a hard drive? I've been using Dropbox and Google Docs for about the last 2~3 years to keep a lot of my most important work backed up, but what if I was using them to keep less savoury things stored outside of my home? While at some point obviously these files would be present on my local system there are ways of making sure they never really leave any trace and so the police storming my house at 3am in the morning to take away my hard drive and decrypt it won't really do anything: the data just isn't there any more, they have to chase it to some far flung server farm.
Now while the obvious case in an individuals situation would be that the police would write to the server company and ask them to release the data and no doubt they would get emailed a nice data stream of the contents of that area. What happens, though, when it's a company they're investigating? If an entire company's data was hosted on the cloud then that's a lot of information to work through. You may only want one persons but it's no longer a case of separating out a few physical hard drives: you will have to stream however many hundreds of Gbytes of data that they could have accessed. This, of course, all assumes that you can trust the hosts and the other people in the company: if you need to get the info before anything can happen to it you may need to be a bit faster. Otherwise the hard drives you want will might not exist. The information won't be on one or two single drives either, it is likely part of a huge array somewhere in a warehouse that may not even be in the same country as the company, you or anyone else who may help. That data may also mixed in with all sorts of other information from companies you're not interested in.
My point is that if the government thought it had problems with the music industry and copyright fighting technology it hasn't seen anything. When people start leaving their important incriminating files on computers that don't even exist in any physical way run on servers in other countries that may be closely guarded by people not friendly to your cause.
Anyway as I hope I have demonstrated there should be lots of fun technology debates coming soon to a governing body near you!
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Religion: why is it privileged?
There is a recent news piece on the BHA about the Department for Communities and Local Government's (CLG) recent creation of "faith advisors" this really annoys me.
Why does this annoy me? because there is a persistent rumour that we should give a damn what various religious leaders think. Having a religion does not give you special insight into anything. Being a priest to a religion does not give you extra useful knowledge. In fact what little insight it gives you will most likely be through a haze of out-dated rules and laws set down in a completely different time.
There are many community leaders, priests are just one example. If we're giving priests a special position within government (as advisers) why not scout masters? The argument that many people base a large portion of their life around their religion is normally trotted out at this point and I would like to take that trotting target and shoot it down now.
Apparently 66% of the population of the UK have no connection at all with a Church and I would be surprised if the number who genuinely shape their life by it is anywhere near that. People base their morals and tastes on those around them. This is part of what's called "social contract" essentially it is "I won't kill you because you might kill me first".
The religious already have a voice, it's called a vote. In a democratic society that is the only voice they or anyone else deserves. Other experts advise within a narrow realm that is defined specifically by their expertise. These "faith advisers" are going to advice on "economy, parenting, achieving social justice and tackling climate change" or the "big issues". Of all the groups in existence those that follow a religion are rarely the same that I would want to tell me how we can solve the complex problem of reducing green houses gasses against everyone's desire to produce them. They may have a "unique insight" but I don't consider praying for salvation a useful input.
If these people have genuine contributions to make from a standpoint of actual knowledge fair enough but some empty headed assumption that they connect with the people (that minority of 34% or less) and that this connection is somehow special beyond that of just grabbing someone from the street is bollocks.
This is not a post advocating the insertion of a humanist or atheist onto this panel it is advocating the removal of this panel, if you want the advice of community leaders ask them with reference to a specific situation. 13 advisers is too few to cover even a fraction of the many, many, many facets of life in the UK that they will need to in order to garner useful opinions on the topics they want. Will there be a Scientologist? how about a 18 year old street preacher from Brixton? or an anarchist Humanist? Faith may be a major point in a lot of people's life but given the department concerned I think they would be better served looking for representatives of specific socio-economic groups. not faiths.
NB the 66% figure is from this page here: http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html
Why does this annoy me? because there is a persistent rumour that we should give a damn what various religious leaders think. Having a religion does not give you special insight into anything. Being a priest to a religion does not give you extra useful knowledge. In fact what little insight it gives you will most likely be through a haze of out-dated rules and laws set down in a completely different time.
There are many community leaders, priests are just one example. If we're giving priests a special position within government (as advisers) why not scout masters? The argument that many people base a large portion of their life around their religion is normally trotted out at this point and I would like to take that trotting target and shoot it down now.
Apparently 66% of the population of the UK have no connection at all with a Church and I would be surprised if the number who genuinely shape their life by it is anywhere near that. People base their morals and tastes on those around them. This is part of what's called "social contract" essentially it is "I won't kill you because you might kill me first".
The religious already have a voice, it's called a vote. In a democratic society that is the only voice they or anyone else deserves. Other experts advise within a narrow realm that is defined specifically by their expertise. These "faith advisers" are going to advice on "economy, parenting, achieving social justice and tackling climate change" or the "big issues". Of all the groups in existence those that follow a religion are rarely the same that I would want to tell me how we can solve the complex problem of reducing green houses gasses against everyone's desire to produce them. They may have a "unique insight" but I don't consider praying for salvation a useful input.
If these people have genuine contributions to make from a standpoint of actual knowledge fair enough but some empty headed assumption that they connect with the people (that minority of 34% or less) and that this connection is somehow special beyond that of just grabbing someone from the street is bollocks.
This is not a post advocating the insertion of a humanist or atheist onto this panel it is advocating the removal of this panel, if you want the advice of community leaders ask them with reference to a specific situation. 13 advisers is too few to cover even a fraction of the many, many, many facets of life in the UK that they will need to in order to garner useful opinions on the topics they want. Will there be a Scientologist? how about a 18 year old street preacher from Brixton? or an anarchist Humanist? Faith may be a major point in a lot of people's life but given the department concerned I think they would be better served looking for representatives of specific socio-economic groups. not faiths.
NB the 66% figure is from this page here: http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html
Saturday, 18 July 2009
DNA databases, Charlie and Ben
This is going to be a pretty short post as there isn't much to add to this discussion other than what is said in these two reports: first Ben Goldacre on the bad evidence used to justify long term retention (ie 24 years retetion) of DNA data taken from those who are arrested but not convicted or cautioned. Second is this article by Charles Stross on the odds of being a false positive in a government database check (in this case CRB check and why he doesn't give school readings of his books).
The only thing really that I want to add to the debate on a database of our DNA etc run by the government is that the risk in terms of security of a database that will ultimately link ALL your information in one place if breached is pretty horrible. I'll briefly expand this: the DNA database would be likely allowed to expand (through ID cards etc) to cover everyone and be multi-use, ie your medical history would be there you NI number what ever. Even if this doesn't happen a single source of information would make identity theft a utterly crippling crime, especially as it would be most likely a random person who would be used to act as a patsy for someone else. Although this is less likely given the current technological state it is likely only a matter of time before the current DNA system starts leaking.
The only thing really that I want to add to the debate on a database of our DNA etc run by the government is that the risk in terms of security of a database that will ultimately link ALL your information in one place if breached is pretty horrible. I'll briefly expand this: the DNA database would be likely allowed to expand (through ID cards etc) to cover everyone and be multi-use, ie your medical history would be there you NI number what ever. Even if this doesn't happen a single source of information would make identity theft a utterly crippling crime, especially as it would be most likely a random person who would be used to act as a patsy for someone else. Although this is less likely given the current technological state it is likely only a matter of time before the current DNA system starts leaking.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Sex, drugs and rock n' roll.
Well one out of three isn't bad. Here is a summary of some interesting reports on drug use. These interest me for a couple of reasons: I have tried various chemicals and enjoyed them; I have read (well skimmed) various government reports most of which go against the accepted wisdom that 'drugs are bad'; finally I have always wondered why people are so blind to the affects of alcohol/tobacco and so vocal on the affects of everything else.
While this is the age old argument there is VERY little reason why alcohol should be acceptable while cannabis or MDMA isn't. There are two reasons for my confusion; firstly while none of these drugs are safe (don't believe me look up liver failure from alcohol and permanent psychosis for cannabis) secondly I fail to see how most people don't realise this. I would expect it's from the propaganda that says drugs are bad you are hooked the instant one touches your lips (or vein or what ever) and that they will kill you in seconds.
It is this second point that depresses me the most; the double standards I can understand to a degree: people are comfortable with booze but the rest is strange and scary, fine. The second point though raises a much more dangerous truth: that we should lie utterly to children and ourselves. This isn't the science "this is mostly true but not everything" lying this is out right driving fear in to people's hearts to the point where those people who genuinely need help (ie addicts) cannot admit it most of the time because of the stigma and hence are denied what should be an avenue out for them. It also raises the worrying question of what else we let ourselves be feared into (ID cards anyone, net monitoring?)
This is a wonderful highlight of an endemic problem in our society: that expertise is no longer trusted, in any way. I'm not saying we shouldn't question what we are told be experts or anyone, but they are experts for a reason. The number of government policies that are created despite experts turning round and saying "what you planning is rubbish" is a sad indicator of something found at all levels of society.
I hope it ends soon...
While this is the age old argument there is VERY little reason why alcohol should be acceptable while cannabis or MDMA isn't. There are two reasons for my confusion; firstly while none of these drugs are safe (don't believe me look up liver failure from alcohol and permanent psychosis for cannabis) secondly I fail to see how most people don't realise this. I would expect it's from the propaganda that says drugs are bad you are hooked the instant one touches your lips (or vein or what ever) and that they will kill you in seconds.
It is this second point that depresses me the most; the double standards I can understand to a degree: people are comfortable with booze but the rest is strange and scary, fine. The second point though raises a much more dangerous truth: that we should lie utterly to children and ourselves. This isn't the science "this is mostly true but not everything" lying this is out right driving fear in to people's hearts to the point where those people who genuinely need help (ie addicts) cannot admit it most of the time because of the stigma and hence are denied what should be an avenue out for them. It also raises the worrying question of what else we let ourselves be feared into (ID cards anyone, net monitoring?)
This is a wonderful highlight of an endemic problem in our society: that expertise is no longer trusted, in any way. I'm not saying we shouldn't question what we are told be experts or anyone, but they are experts for a reason. The number of government policies that are created despite experts turning round and saying "what you planning is rubbish" is a sad indicator of something found at all levels of society.
I hope it ends soon...
New news on old news I missed
This (yes one day I'll come up with a better start to these but until the bite me) is a worrying story. The reasoning behind a trial without jury is sound, the case had been seen three times previously and fallen through each time due to jury tampering. It still makes trial by judge alone a worrying situation especially in criminal cases.
While our current government (incompetent and rubbish as it is) probably wont start black bagging and trying without jury its the sort of law that means if someone is an arse at a future point there is worrying precedent, especially when combined with some of the other more interesting laws that have been passed in recent years.
More worrying news from the gov, this sort of stuff will most likely bite them in the arse as public backlash. Ironic though that a nominally left leaning centrist party has introduced so many laws and policies that look like they should be in 1984...
While our current government (incompetent and rubbish as it is) probably wont start black bagging and trying without jury its the sort of law that means if someone is an arse at a future point there is worrying precedent, especially when combined with some of the other more interesting laws that have been passed in recent years.
More worrying news from the gov, this sort of stuff will most likely bite them in the arse as public backlash. Ironic though that a nominally left leaning centrist party has introduced so many laws and policies that look like they should be in 1984...
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Chiropractic and other fun
Two interesting posts that I'm linking to today. First is a very funny letter being sent out to various chiropractic peoples informing them that they should be very careful about what they claim to be able to help with. Second is an interesting (American) post on the break-down of their government's spending.
Starting with the latter (the government spending) click here the blog itself is a favourite of mine with lots of interesting physics and astrophysics posts but what is genuinely interesting is how the break down of spending appears: only 0.8% is on science and technology combined. all it beats is general government. That's NOTHING, I find it highly annoying when people complain about the costs of for example the LHC; especially as they rarely realise that the $5 billion (I think ~£4bn) is spread over about 25 years of total R&D compared to the Olympic games which will no doubt run to more than its predicted £4bn budget for not even 1 year of heavy use. Anyway an interesting post and one well worth sending to the 'science is a waste of money' brigade.
The former post I won't comment on other than to say that considering that Simon Singh currently has to prove that the claims of the BCA were deliberately misleading this seems to be a wonderful piece of evidence that they may have been...
Starting with the latter (the government spending) click here the blog itself is a favourite of mine with lots of interesting physics and astrophysics posts but what is genuinely interesting is how the break down of spending appears: only 0.8% is on science and technology combined. all it beats is general government. That's NOTHING, I find it highly annoying when people complain about the costs of for example the LHC; especially as they rarely realise that the $5 billion (I think ~£4bn) is spread over about 25 years of total R&D compared to the Olympic games which will no doubt run to more than its predicted £4bn budget for not even 1 year of heavy use. Anyway an interesting post and one well worth sending to the 'science is a waste of money' brigade.
The former post I won't comment on other than to say that considering that Simon Singh currently has to prove that the claims of the BCA were deliberately misleading this seems to be a wonderful piece of evidence that they may have been...
Sunday, 31 May 2009
Black Lines
Interesting story here about so called 'black-lines', these are the lines that don't show up on maps and no-one admits to owning. They're the fibre optics of goverenment services and similar.
I wonder if there are any near me to hit with a spade? could be fun....
I wonder if there are any near me to hit with a spade? could be fun....
Sunday, 19 April 2009
more police ranting..
Videos like this one really do worry me. Not because I'm much of a protester myself but if the police continue along this line they're are going to be stuffed. From what I've seen in any recession there is a general increase in protests and the police seemingly need a radical shift in tactics for protests or else they will cause some serious riots....
Hopefully G20 will raise enough issues to cause a change in policy and police attitude.
Would be even nicer if would could convince the government to change their policies....
Hopefully G20 will raise enough issues to cause a change in policy and police attitude.
Would be even nicer if would could convince the government to change their policies....
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
This is about time...
Seems like post G20 joy as well as wonderful incidents at the protest held over Ian Tomlinson's death have triggered a response from the Met who are reviewing their tactics. I can understand that the police in both situations would have felt VERY pressured and under threat but also in many of the (admittedly biased and somewhat lacking context) videos that have being doing the rounds you do wonder what the hell they were thinking.
In any situation it should be obvious that there will be some people looking for a reason for a fight, even if there isn't and all they are doing is being loud, threatening idiots you still don't hit them.
The BBC report has a few disturbing quotes as well; a personal favourite is from Kit Malthouse who praises the Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, on his swift action in requesting a review. Call me a harse but swift would have been when Ian Tomlinson died - not two weeks after the event. Even accepting that for a few days it was unclear the exact details something had gone wrong and it should have prompted some form of review..... or maybe thats just me?
The best quote of the entire piece has to be from Sir Paul:
"The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty."
This seems, just a little, at odds with section 76 counter-terrorism act 2008 which states that
"A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been--
[sic]
(iii) a constable"
while this hasn't come to court (yet) it has been mooted in several places that it means you cannot photograph police constables....
Anyway the whole thing looks like it could go either way and given that this is likely the first of many more riotous protests we will probably see while the recession runs it course hopefully the whole thing will go down a slightly more sane route....
or the police could continue as they are.
Also of interest always makes me smile to see the bbc using youtube as a source.
In any situation it should be obvious that there will be some people looking for a reason for a fight, even if there isn't and all they are doing is being loud, threatening idiots you still don't hit them.
The BBC report has a few disturbing quotes as well; a personal favourite is from Kit Malthouse who praises the Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, on his swift action in requesting a review. Call me a harse but swift would have been when Ian Tomlinson died - not two weeks after the event. Even accepting that for a few days it was unclear the exact details something had gone wrong and it should have prompted some form of review..... or maybe thats just me?
The best quote of the entire piece has to be from Sir Paul:
"The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty."
This seems, just a little, at odds with section 76 counter-terrorism act 2008 which states that
"A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been--
[sic]
(iii) a constable"
while this hasn't come to court (yet) it has been mooted in several places that it means you cannot photograph police constables....
Anyway the whole thing looks like it could go either way and given that this is likely the first of many more riotous protests we will probably see while the recession runs it course hopefully the whole thing will go down a slightly more sane route....
or the police could continue as they are.
Also of interest always makes me smile to see the bbc using youtube as a source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
