On Q&A this morning, the PM made his case for the GCSB amendments. First, he dismissed criticism as misinformed or politically aligned. On this issue, none of the people I heard addressing the public meeting or the march sounded misinformed. In fact, none of the expert testimony I have heard or read seemed misinformed. Quite the contrary. As for politically aligned, if opinions are to be dissed for their political alignment, presumably the National Government, indeed Key himself, would have to recuse themselves from the debate for their political alignment (only Peter Dunne could express an opinion via this logic, for as we know, he has no political alignment). Then the PM went to say that if we were to host big events like the Rugby World Cup, we need adequate security laws. Fair point. Well, it would have been had the Rugby World Cup not actually gone off without a hitch under the existing legislation. Then he said we needed to get our laws in line with those of our allies. Debatable. Well, it would have been had New Zealand not, all by itself and with the extreme disapproval of its allies, adopted staunch anti-nuclear laws that prevent the visits of US warships. So quite what the man was banging on about on Q&A this morning beyond fear-mongering propaganda, I’m not sure. When it comes down to it, the threat that he’s so concerned about is economic (I doubt he’s considered your physical well-being). Kim Dotcom’s crime, whatever it is, is economic. He didn’t kill anyone, or rape them or fly anything into anything else. Ostensibly (and deportably; I’m talking FBI armed-raid-on-you-house-ably), he breached someone’s copyright. This whole issue is about security only to the extent it’s about securing some people’s right to print money. And I far as I’m concerned, my right to privacy, like Dotcom’s, and like yours and your children’s children right trumps this any day, every day and forever more.
How typical of Google This is not the ﬁrst time this has happened. Despite switching off my YouTube history countless times, I have a YouTube history. It includes at least ﬁve videos (above) that I have never seen before. So not only is it inaccurate, it goes against my privacy preferences. This is nothing new with Google. I despise them for lying about respecting the user, by giving us false opt-out options. As Edward Snowden has shown us, no wonder these crooks never get prosecuted for the privacy breaches that I and others have exposed over the years.
The U.S. is the top consumer of cocaine worldwide.
African-American dealers are four times more likely to be arrested than Caucasian dealers—even though more buyers and sellers are Caucasian.
You can’t come forward against the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies and be completely free from risk because they’re such powerful adversaries. No one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they’ll get you in time. But at the same time you have to make a determination about what it is that’s important to you.
And if living unfreely but comfortably is something you’re willing to accept—and I think many of us are, it’s the human nature—you can get up every day, you can go to work, you can collect your large paycheck for relatively little work, against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows.
Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect.
Google facelifts Dashboard, reveals more dodginess During my most recent battle with Google in April 2013, I checked the Dashboard a lot, and it reported that I had no Google Docs. (That makes sense, since they are blocked here.) Now I find I have one Google Doc. Which I never created.
It also says I have three contacts. That’s also a surprise since I spent time ensuring I have none. Of course, when I click through, it says just that: I have none.
I know: Google can’t count. It’s not the first time the Dashboard has said I have something when I don’t, and there’s plenty of that documented in the last few years as I’ve gone after the house of G for being dod-G. Holding on to blog data without permission, hacking Iphones, spying on anyone who had opted out of Ads Preferences Manager, committing libel on a regular basis—and that’s just in the last three years.
I would never have happened across any of this if I wasn’t asked to upload YouTube videos tonight for my mayoral campaign. Turns out Vote.co.nz doesn’t use Vimeo. And since yours truly had the password to the old YouTube account from the last campaign, it was down to me to upload. And whenever you have to give something to Google, massive alarm bells go off.
You can’t bank on the Wales Wow, incredibly dumb move, Westpac. I never opted in to your spam lists, and now I ﬁnd you have done so for me, in every category. What the heck? I know I never opted in, because I usually ask for this stuff in plain text. Considering your ﬁrst-ever spam arrived today, and one of my companies became your customer in 2006, I’m sure that this decision to spam people was a recent move on your part.
Why would I ask for information on products I don’t have with you, or, for that matter, rewards?
I’ve deleted my email address from your system as well, and, yes, I do feel strongly enough about this that I’ll consider closing my accounts.
I can’t believe I wasted my 5,000th Tumblr post on you, but, there you have it.
Clearly, computers and banks do not mix—remember, cheques took a day to clear in the mid- to late-1970s, and they take ﬁve to seven days now. Now I ﬁnd a foreign bank unable to grasp some basic netiquette.
How to piss off people with law degrees I did sign up for Law.com while I was at university, but it’s a total surprise to start getting spammed by them as of May 6, 2013. I know I had signed up a long time ago because the postcode is 6041 (this was changed in the 2000s), even if Law.com reckons I last updated my account in 2010 (highly unlikely). And if The Asian Lawyer is something I signed up to all that time ago (despite my never having heard of it—and many of you know how I feel about the word Asian), how come they only began coming on May 6?
A more likely explanation: it’s a new publication and we were all opted in without our permission.
Bad move, law.com.