Yikes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27887639

And

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27781078

The first one is not great, but the second one I’m not worried about. They’ve collected anonymised data about the locations of people when they search – not really any different to someone sitting outside a shop counting how many people walk in or look in the window. I don’t think they’d be able to keep data about you legally – could they?

If you’re bothered about your online data and habits being mined for analysis then use a privacy tool such as tor , there’s also various email privacy programs you can use so your email correspondence stays private.

But if you use Facebook then all hope is lost……… Needless to say i am not a user. 😉

I reckon Road to Wigan Pier and Down and out in Paris and London are better books, but they’re not on the curriculum.

Down & Out is just beautiful.

To save a bit of time just listen to the Bowie song.

molgrips – Member
The first one is not great, but the second one I’m not worried about. They’ve collected anonymised data about the locations of people when they search – not really any different to someone sitting outside a shop counting how many people walk in or look in the window. I don’t think they’d be able to keep data about you legally – could they?

It is. Why not, as per the book target government led spin at the public, military recruitement at likely candidates etc?

This CAN happen and already does – I may just be associated with a similar line of work. Those “adds” on STW for example that uncannily are about the very thing you were just googling…

Why not, as per the book target government led spin at the public, military recruitement at likely candidates etc?

That’s market research and it happens a lot – has done for years. I’m not sure what the alternative is tbh?

Other people can see your actions. Is that really avoidable? I don’t think that EE, in collecting data about how pepole use their services are really doing anything unduly intrusive.

Put it this way – you will still be advertised at just as much. It’s just that this way there’s more chance of getting something in which you might be interested. Those ads on STW would still be there if you never googled.

But my point is – and I refer back to the generalisation no the specifics or Orwells message – there’s only a small leap from advertising a product that some generic software believes I might be interested in, to a government using the same mechanism to throw a message at me which it wants me to believe, enough times and with enough conviction. That I start to believe it Like the 2 minute hate for example.

There’s also a couple of incidences of Chomsky stepping on his dick in horrendous fashion, and completely failing to acknowledge he was wrong (his infamous article on the Khmer rouge in Cambodia being the most prominent example – genocide? what genocide?). Everyone makes mistakes, but his dissembling, mealy-mouthed response to the whole world telling him he was wrong doesn’t sit right.

In 1977 he wrote a review if a book about the Khmer Rouge in which he advised readers to ” treat with care and caution these numbers, as they are unverified”

Thus proving that at the time Noam Chomsky along with the rest of the world knew little about just how violent and depraved the Khmer Rouge actually were. So yeah, bang to rights, you’ve nailed it there, genocide denier, no doubt about it 🙄

there’s only a small leap from advertising a product that some generic software believes I might be interested in, to a government using the same mechanism to throw a message at me which it wants me to believe

I think there’s a huge leap. For starters, we still have a functioning ballot box, so if a government wanted to push a message without anyone else disagreeing or pushing an alternative, they’d have to crush free speech.

This is the important debate, not market research.

http://www.genewatch.org/sub-567725

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-party-peer-put-on-database-of-extremists-by-police

So, given the fact weknow certain police officers lie and falsify accounts, you still think we shouldn’t be overly concerned with data-gathering?

I said I wasn’t overly concerned about that particular story. I said the previous one was of more concern.

Better to analyse the story and keep an open mind, rather than jerk one’s knees, I think.

Thus proving that at the time Noam Chomsky along with the rest of the world knew little about just how violent and depraved the Khmer Rouge actually were. So yeah, bang to rights, you’ve nailed it there, genocide denier, no doubt about it

Chomsky was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge in 77 and did deny the genocide that was taking place at that time – you’re not seriously arguing otherwise are you? He reached his nadir with this piece in The Nation

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

Rejecting US state dept and eyewitness reports out of hand, whereas official Cambodian government reports are taken at face value (e.g. the emptying of Phnom Penh). There were ample reports of the Khmer rouge atrocities available in 77, to those prepared to hear them. Chomsky, though, is a man who begins with his conclusion, and is prepared to distort and bend the available facts to fit it.

Like I said – everyone can make a mistake and every leftwing academic on earth was hoping for the Khmer rouge to bring peaceful communist harmony to Cambodia. But seeing how badly Chomsky will contort himself to take an anti-US position should make you realise he’s not a serious voice.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with Jenny Jones being on a database of potential nutters, given her public support for the illegal destruction of trial crops

I also find it preposterous to suggest that there is anything wrong with the police monitoring or investigating (within the bounds of the law) the actions of people, including politicians, who do not (yet) have a criminal record – why should Jenny Jones be any more immune from this than Nick Griffin and his mates?

Gary that article you linked doesn’t really support your view that he’s a genocide denier, it does ask the questions. Can we believe the information we are getting? if that’s the best you can come up with to label Chomsky a lightweight, then you’ve got more work to do to convince me I’m afraid. I read Chomsky for his opposition of All govts that routinely lie, cheat, steal and propagandise at the own citizens and others, not just the USA.

I also find it preposterous to suggest that there is anything wrong with the police monitoring or investigating (within the bounds of the law) the actions of people, including politicians, who do not (yet) [/i]have a criminal record

So you think it’s ok to investigate people on the off chance that you consider they may break the law?,

You are a cop and i claim my £5 finders fee, Nah….you’re prob not a cop in real life but from the tone and manner of your previous replies to subjects i can quite confidently claim (in my opinion) you are a richard head.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with Jenny Jones being on a database of potential nutters, given her public support for the illegal destruction of trial crops

Wow. 😆

Let’s let the lady herself respond:

The rumours are wrong; I’ll be at the picnic on Sunday, not destroying
the crop. I shall voice my opposition to research into GM crops that I
think is a bad, possibly dangerous use of public money. I strongly
support Non Violent Direct Action and disown damage to property, but
there’s sometimes a conflict; in damaging military jets in an attempt
to sabotage an unjust war, or breaking windows in the name of womens’
suffrage, direct action has a complicated and distinguished place in
our democratic history. And I do understand the depth of despair and
the desperation that protesters feel. But they must face the legal
consequences of their actions, and think deeply about the ethics of
their actions – like lots of things in life it’s more complicated than
some of my critics seem to want to admit.

That’s an interesting ‘interpretation’ you have there, Ninfan. And ‘potential nutter’? Jenny Jones?? Really? You’re going with that? Ok then… 😆

I also find it preposterous to suggest that there is anything wrong with the police monitoring or investigating (within the bounds of the law) the actions of people, including politicians, who do not (yet) have a criminal record

Why would they monitor specific individuals and not others though? Who gets to choose those who they consider to be ‘potential nutters’? Who sanctions such surveillance? Considering the recent high-profile cases involving systematic abuse of police powers, including the undercover monitoring of the Stephen Lawrence family, and the cases I linked to previously, I think it only sensible to question the motives and actions of the police and other state agencies which use covert monitoring targeted at specific individuals. Because the police have certainly proved, time and again, not to be a fit and proper agency to carry out such actions.

why should Jenny Jones be any more immune from this than Nick Griffin and his mates?

You really need to ask that question?

Wow.

That’s an interesting ‘interpretation’ you have there, Ninfan

What, that I think that inciting people to vandalise legal scientific tests should lead to prosecution?

Nick Griffin was cleared of inciting racial hatred in court – it doesn’t make him any less guilty of it though, does it?

You see, politicians, even ones that you agree with, are not above breaking the law, shocking I know!

including the undercover monitoring of the Stephen Lawrence family, and the cases I linked to previously, I think it only sensible to question the motives and actions of the police and other state agencies which use covert monitoring targeted at specific individuals. Because the police have certainly proved, time and again, not to be a fit and proper agency to carry out such actions.

You obviously chose to completely ignore the bit where I said “within the bounds of the law”

What, that I think that inciting people to vandalise legal scientific tests should lead to prosecution?

And where has Jenny Jones done that? Do you have any compellinglegal evidence that the CPS etc don’t?

Nick Griffin was cleared of inciting racial hatred in court

Really?

In 1998, Griffin was convicted of violating section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to the offence of ‘publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material’ in issue 12 of The Rune, published in 1996. Griffin’s comments in the magazine were reported to the police by Alex Carlile, then the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire. Following a police raid at Griffin’s home, he was charged with distributing material likely to incite racial hatred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin#Criminal_charges

You obviously chose to completely ignore the bit where I said “within the bounds of the law”

No-one involved in the surveillance of the Lawrence family has yet even faced any charges.

http://www.freezepage.com/1337975364IBOTAIZBTV

telling lies and misrepresenting the facts, openly supporting and publicising criminal acts and publicly justifying them morally, then later disowning illegality, just like Nick does!

Really?

Yes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm

He may have been convicted of something else in the past, But on the incitement charge Nick was found not guilty, exactly like I said, and anyway, Nick claimed he wasn’t racist anymore

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6125834.stm

So, according Nick the same courtesy that we are supposed to offer Jenny he’s innocent

No-one involved in the surveillance of the Lawrence family has yet even faced any charges.

Which by your standard, as applied to Jenny, means the police are innocent, yes?

This was a good thread… 🙁 well done ninfan, you killed it.

Well, it was Stoffel who decided that poor Jenny Jones was being persecuted by the evil 1984 police state, and took to prove his point by posting reams of quotes that just prove she’s a raving anti science nutter!

I would have been happy to leave it at just saying I had no problem with her (or any other) extremist nutter being investigated by the police

Perhaps we can get back onto the point now?