Gas_Man
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Used for traffic census apparently, run by private firms, which in turn sell it back to the council at tax payers cost.
In light of recent privacy scandals, i would hazard a guess that our dear over lords want to monitor every vehicle entering and exiting, all under the guise of protecting us from terrorists :D
About time, i was in it a few years ago, structural wreck due to vandalism
Who owns the site now then? Oh and an old photo thats been around, of the rear of the building
@Rob 8664 wrote:
I agree it cant be enforced, steps can be taken eg. Mobile phone verification, email verify, link with facebook or a vouch system etc etc but as with most things if someone wants it to be gamed it will be – and it would penalise those who are legit than those who try and bypass it.
The problem i have with this and one which scares me more, is it can unwittingly force kids over to the darkweb/tor/meshnet and although these can and do have valid purposes, we don’t want kids to potentially be subject to the content, Silkroad, for instance.
@Charles Conway 8661 wrote:
OK, you found the one press release in which I used the word expert. Congratulations.
Why do you consider yourself an expert?
@Charles Conway 8661 wrote:
Perhaps on the issue of privacy we ought to throw the question out to the forum.
Ladies and gentlemen.
As you browse these forums, information is being logged about the device you are using, the software installed on that device, the Internet Service Provider you use and, in the event that you use a mobile to browse, the model of mobile phone you use and your network provider.Data about data, what is your point?
@Charles Conway 8661 wrote:
Today, Rob has chosen to post some of this information publicly and without my consent. The question therefore is this.
No he has not, you should understand what goes on the internet, stays on the internet.
@Charles Conway 8661 wrote:
Do you expect the websites you use to keep the information they hold about you private and secure (unless compelled to reveal it to law enforcement) or is it fair game for publication?
It is non personal, arbitrary information (unless forced by a court order) what point are you trying to make?
@Rob 8649 wrote:
The inital post was promoting something in a round about way after we had it emailed and tweeted. Incidently by a self proclaimed expert – I know hes said hes never referred to himself like that but his PR emails he sent himself say otherwise.
Anyway, the ‘expert’ and initial poster have shared the same Interner Service Provider at one point. Thus I suspected that it could be the same person, which would put a different slant on things.
I can understand where you are coming from, i have just spent 20 minutes reading up on Mr Conway, it does not take much reading to take a very dim view of his activities, calling himself a professional Internet safety consultant but appears not to hold any formal qualifications in Computer Science and his ridiculous crystal training website, where he claims to have built websites for corporate clients, which is a concern, considering the massive fundamental security flaws in his own, not to mention how basic the code and general outdated appearance of the site.
@Rob 8649 wrote:Interestingly all quite relevant to the thread topic really in terms of knowing perhaps who you are talking to online, and if they are real people.
This is not something you can have any realistic control over though, i will demonstrate this in a bit
@Rob 8649 wrote:Similarly it is handy to have a more direct point of contact that can be relied on rather than going via ISP’s which is a longer process.
Even if you do go via an ISP, you would need a signed court order before an ISP will release any details, but this is not within your domain anyway, that would be a Police matter.
I can understand why you want a more personal accountability approach, much like youtube and facebook, are starting to force people to use real names, i just do not agree with it, because it literally can not be enforced.
@Rob 8538 wrote:
The aim of such email verification is to primarily stop spammers, but secondly ensure there is a valid point of contact if required.
I am going to suspend the current account you have – but please drop me an email on [email protected] with real contact info and I will re-enable.
So you have essentially just banned someone from posting, due to them wanting to keep a basic level of privacy and not be hassled needlessly, even if you ever do have any sort of valid reasons to contact members, this should purely be opt in.
You want to grow the user base here, not impose draconian measures on members that have bothered to sign up and post
Also, the suicide of Hannah Smith, earlier this month after she was allegedly bullied on Ask.fm, turned out to be false, she had in fact sent most of the bullying and abusive messages to herself, we then get our ridiculous PM condemning the site without knowing any of the facts.
This is purely, 100% a parental responsibility issue, not an internet issue, if your child is looking at porn, getting bullied or generally looking at stuff not appropriate for their age, then this is nothing more than bad parenting and not accepting your responsibilities as a parent.
If parents think they do not have the technical ability to implement simple site blocks via there router or even just monitoring there childs web habits, then they should learn or cut the cord and not expect laws put in place due to there ineptitude.
