Several readers wrote to us about the situation in the UK that saw the Guardian newspaper forbidden by a judge from reporting a question in UK parliament. The press's freedom to do so has been fought for since at least 1688 and fully acknowledged since the 19th century. At issue was a matter of public record — but the country's libel laws meant that the newspaper could not inform the public of what parliament was up to. The question concerned the oil trading company Trafigura, the toxicwastescandal they are involved in, and their generous use of libel lawyers to silence those who would report on the whole thing. After tweeters and bloggers shouted about Trafigura all over the Internet, the company's lawyers agreed to drop the gag request.
"Can it be true? Carter-Ruck caves in! Hurrah! Trafigura will deny it had anything to do with Twitter, but we know don't we? We know! Yay!!!"
And so the Brittish people went on living their zombie lives behind their iron curtain, with the feeling that this meaningless victory had changed their lives. In reality they were still being blindfolded, still monitored, still used as mere batteries to the machinery of the Brittish government and financial hierachy.
Agreed. Please let me rephrase: twitting and blogging are work-arounds, because the problem is still there. It wasn't fixed by the lawyers dropping the gag request; it will only be fixed as soon as the judge admits that the judgement was a mistake and explains why it was a mistake.
The 'super-injunction', as the press are calling it, was the injunction placed on the Guardian's publication of the Minton Report [wikileaks.org], and the associated gag order that prevented the paper from revealing the existence of the injunction.
The judge didn't directly apply the gag order to the parliamentary question [parliament.uk] tabled by Paul Farrelly (which didn't exist at the time), and by all accounts the gag order did not cover parliamentary proceedings in any case because of qualified privilege. The only reason it became an issue was because the Guardian received a specific legal threat from law firm Carter-Ruck:
"The threatened publication would place the Guardian in contempt of court... please confirm by immediate return that the publications threatened will not take place."
As we all know, statements made by lawyers are often merely the legal opinions of said lawyers.
The gag order is the sinister part of the whole thing (not the injunction, which is perfectly reasonable given judicial oversight), but I'd like to point out that these are not uniquely British as the GP seems to be alluding. I'm put in mind of the National Security Letters sent out by arms of the US Government, which placed similar gag orders, but unlike this situation did not have any judicial oversight.
Spoken like a man who never paid attention in history class. The UK wouldn't have the freedoms it enjoys today, if it wasn't for the bloodshed of the 1600s which eventually led to the Bill of Rights. And of course there are other examples - Eastern Europe is now free thanks to uprisings. France executed its monarch to form the first french republic. Rome overthrew the ancient tyrannical kings and founded the "res publica" circa 500 B.C. adopting the slogan SPQR - "The Senate and the People of Rome"
History shows that freedom is not given. It is taken by force and power restored where it belongs (with the people).
If a judge TRIES to take-away your right of free speech, his verdict has no meaning, and can be ignored. He has overstepped his authority because no one take away your rights. So I say - ignore the verdict and publish your story. If the judge continues down this path and still tries to take-away your inalienable right to use your own mouth to speak, then he needs to be imepached. And if he refuses to step down, then the People need to exercise their just authority, and remove him by force, and replace him with a new judge that understand he is a *servant* of the People, not a master. "From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural fertilizer." - Thomas Jefferson.
The UK does not have a bill of rights, we have a common law system and nowhere do we explicitely get granted things such as freedom of speach. Please read up on UK legal matters as you clearly don't know enough.
Try the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically section 1 (1a):-
(1) In this Act “the Convention rights” means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in—
(a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention,
Article 10 of the Convention is:-
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from
The only difference between Britain and the rest of the Western World is that our government just suck at hiding their Orwellian monitoring of the general population. You think other governments aren't monitoring, spying and tracking their own citizens? They've just learned from our mistakes about how to keep it quiet...
The only difference between Britain and the rest of the Western World is that our government just suck at hiding their Orwellian monitoring of the general population. You think other governments aren't monitoring, spying and tracking their own citizens? They've just learned from our mistakes about how to keep it quiet...
And your point is what? That since all citizens of the western world live as such zombies it's not worth changing anywhere? My guess is that you're not the guy who offers solutions, you're the guy who tries to make problems look smaller by pointing at others. You may be right, but you're not helping anybody, rather the opposite -- providing people with the thought of that it's a pointless battle since everybody experiences the same situation. So my question is then, what are your motives? To have a good lif
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday October 14, @05:55AM (#29742709)
The UK is actually starting to resemble late-communist Central Europe. You can have all the freedom you want, if you make sure you're surrounded with people who don't care about the rules. And most people are starting to not care.
I moved from Hungary, never the most oppressive state in the Eastern Bloc, to the UK in 1998. I don't have words for how delusional your suggestion is. The threat of legal action does have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, but not quite the chilling effect of being beaten senseless or a bullet to the back of the head.
FGS what's wrong with you, this is slashdot, a place for wild comparisons by people who know no better, kindly check in your "real experience" at the door, you can collect it on your way out.
The suggestion is not at all delusional. Limitations of personal freedom and liberty move on a scale between weak and small social dictates - you should not say x because it is inappropriate, you should not do y because it is not looked upon kindly -, more or less well founded legal threats - you must not say x because it is forbidden, you must not do y because you go to jail for it - and outright jeopardy of your own life and livelihood - you cannot say x because someone will send you to the hospital for d
Now if Simon Singh could just win his case [senseaboutscience.org.uk], then maybe the world will move one step closer to free and open speech. Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context (*), and the more knowledge one has the better decisions one can make.
it's not that it doesn't helped anyone in any context, there's plenty of situations where obscurity was much better than publicity (any military example comes to mind), the problem is that obscurity simply is not actually security at all.
Obscurity is obscurity, and while you sometimes want obscurity, it's very unhealthy to confuse obscurity with security in an overall sense.
Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context
Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity). It's not something to entirely rely on, no, but it's difficult to argue that it doesn't help.
A layer of obscurity over a secure system can seem good, but is unnecessary (because you have a secure system already).
That is false. No system is 100% secure, all that can be expected is to delay a successful attack. The more secure, the longer the delay.
Understood from that context, an additional layer of obscurity does increase security. The question really boils down to the cost-effectiveness of that layer - if maintaining that layer creates excessive overhead, then it may be a net loss in the cost/benefit trade-off column. But if cost is not part of the evaluation - and the prior poster never mentioned it - then it
20 years ago my motobike was not stolen, even after the thieves had laboriously sliced a chain and wired the ignition. Why? Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting, eventually they gave up and left. The engine cutting out was down to a obscure little security system I designed, built and fitted myself, killed the ignition for 2 seconds out of every 10 unless a magnet was held in the correct place as the ignition was turned on. The thieves probably never even suspected it was deliberate, they probably thought the bike was a lemon.. which is arguably true;-)
My server, which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.
Both of these work because they are genuinely obscure single implementations. In order to break them the attacker would need to know that it exists, and then spend time analysing the unit to break it. Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence, is the payout (a crummy motorcycle, control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection) worth their time to break it?
The sort of Security through Obscurity you describe fails because it is identically implemented in millions of devices, ie. It is not really Obscure, it's just a secret. And if you break it in one place you break it in all places. The payout for finding and breaking it is much, much, greater.
It's great when this happens to a big business... But what about when it happens to individuals and victims?
To use an example. Imagine a celebrity's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her. Will she have to deal with so many blogs reporting on it that the court order becomes pointless? Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge?
With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack, it's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency. It's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening.
in my opnion, privacy has become an empty word. It's the result of all-pervasive electronics/communication devices. It's rather pointless trying to turn back the clock methinks. the genie is out of the bottle, information wants to be free, that sort of thing.
The distinction is easy to discern. One deals with a matter of public welfare. The other does not.
To be more precise, when any legal entity engages in activities or behaviors that are damaging or potentially damaging to members of the public, and such actions or the judgment demonstrated by them continue to pose a threat to the welfare of others, then there exists a right to inform and be informed. Those that may be harmed by the acts of another have a right to know of the danger. The revelation of sala
Face facts here, bud. The publication of the pictures of Rihanna's assault were nothing to do with the lack of tact of the blogging community, but more so that the public seems to see that every single facet of celebrity life is public domain.
At least the paparazzi didn't get any money out of it.
This case is (fortunately) nothing like the examples you give.
This was about a question in Parliament. i.e. Statements publicly made, by public representatives in a place where freedom of speech is protected to the highest extent in the UK. The statements were available to anyone who looked at the records.
The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements, bringing into doubt the entire system of freedom of speech and press in the UK. (note to non-UK readers, there is no UK constitution to protect free speech).
The bloggers (and more importantly, pretty much every other part of the UK media) were entirely right to repeatedly report on the gross misuse of UK libel law.
UK Citizens have protection under the European Convention on Human Rights [wikipedia.org], which was to some extent enshrined directly into UK law with the Human Rights Act [opsi.gov.uk]. This offers freedom of expression as Article 10 [wikipedia.org], but this does allow the state to restrict speech "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others".
According to the last issue of Private Eye there are quite a few of these super-injunctions currently being enforced (i.e. injunctions that not only stop you from saying something, but stop you from telling anyone that you've been injuncted).
I'd like a few more of them to be twittered, at least so we know that something's being hidden, even if we don't know what it is.
(and I know injuncted isn't the right word, but I don't know what is)
The PQ about Trafigura everyone was twittering was Q61, Q62 was in fact the one mentioned in that Private Eye editorial: Q62: Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.
With a bit of luck tomorrow we will hear how many of these things have been issued (or at least, get told when we will be told)
Twitter had nothing to do with this. Yes there was a lot of inconsequential twittering about this, but the reason the injunction was lifted was that reputable newspapers outside the UK were carrying the story. Since they were immune from the injunction - and their content was available in Britain, the injunction became pointless and (just like with the Spycatcher book, which was banned in Britain, but freely available in other english-speaking countries, or terrorist plots which were censored in the UK but freely reported by the NYT) were not serving the purpose of stopping british peopole from finding out the truth.
British libel laws are a travesty. To the point where half a dozen US states, including California, have had to pass laws preventing UK libel judgements from inhibiting free speech. There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court - as the penalties handed down in British courts are so heavy, and litigation costs so high, that it's financial ruin for a defendant to attempt to defend themselves, even if they are successful.
There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court...
Where were the comments posted? This isn't clear from your post.
If they were posted on an English website, hosted in England, how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court? Seems like we're both as bad as each other...
But you lot keep banging on about how bad the UK is...
This seems to be a hard concept for some people, but here's an attempt to explain: because he thinks the situation in the UK is bad does not necessarily mean he thinks the situation in the US is wonderful. In other words, they're both bad.
Actually, an injuction against one paper is as good as an injuction against all in the UK. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm:
"No injunction was served on the BBC, but ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court, so the corporation too felt bound by the Guardian injunction."
That's absolutely right. Twitter had nothing of consequence to do this whatsoever. This article is just Twitter's insidious marketing dept trying to cash in (again).
The Guardian newspaper actually tried to create the Streisand Effect here. They got a tame MP to table a question in Parliament to expose what was happening. They effectively challenged the libel lawyers to try and stop the reporting of it. And of course the lawyers fell for it. Pretty neat stitch up.
The Guardian then leaked it to the international press and prominent bloggers -- such as Guido Fawkes. Sure people reported it on Twitter too, especially Stephen Fry who is a sock puppet for the Guardian and the left wing, but it wasn't the tweets that changed anything, it was the International press and the reaction in Parliament.
How's your tin foil hat looking? There was absolutely no need for them to leak anything. The list of questions was already published, the Guardian just asked Carter-Ruck if they c
The Guardian played it cute and used Twitter to do so.
Do you rely on Guido's band of libertarian wonks and hope people stumble upon it on Google - or do you appeal directly to (say) Stephen Fry' 830,000 followers (plus practically every working hack and writer who usually use Twitter as a way to banter away the working day)?
It is about distribution, not just publication. The story went from standstill to game-set-match in about 4 hours and that was the Twitter effect. Nowhere near enough people read Guid
Great! Another victory for democracy, I mean twitter (is there really any difference these days?) Twitter users must be feeling especially proud today to be a part of something really special. I mean, how often do you get to say you're a user on a system of millions, and someone else uses that system to accomplish something? It's like back a few months ago, when twitter helped to overthrow the Iranian government. They were powerless to resist the constant flow of encouragement and support - at one point, a prominent blogger changed his web page to green in support of the protesters, an event widely cited as the tipping point in the revolution. Even now, revolutionary courts are handing down death sentences to the enemies of the people.
Hopefully this will motivate the courts and Parliament to do something about the problem of people coming to our country and using our courts to solve their petty grievances due to our ridiculous libel laws. The wikipedia article on libel tourism [wikipedia.org] is particularly good in this regard.
A lawyer on Newsnight (available on iplayer) last night listed the example of a Ukrainian business man who was suing a Ukrainian website for libel in the British courts under the justification that there happened to be some people in the UK who can read Ukrainian. This sort of stuff has simply got to stop.
To help, sign the petition on the the no.10 website [number10.gov.uk] and the website 38 degrees [38degrees.org.uk] is also running a campaign.
He/she needs to be introduced to the 1689 Bill Of Rights and it's provision for the free reporting of Parliament.
I've looked around, but no one appears to be mentioning the judge by name.
The Slashdot headline "restore" is wrong. England and Wales [wikipedia.org] have never had freedom of speech. It cannot be "restored", it was never there.
We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom. Now I'll readily admit that sometimes - often, perhaps - megacorporates and in particular the law firm Carter Fuck [wikipedia.org] try to abuse the system so that they also prevent inconvenient truths from slipping out.
But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress? No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms; in this case, the responsibility to get the facts right.
The US gets many things right, and a few things wrong. The USA's bonkers bible-belt religious fundamentalism, for instance, would never be tolerated in England and Wales, as most of it is demonstrably factually incorrect. England and Wales would never suffer from a Kansas-style education system which promoted creationism over science. So, whilst I respect your country's achievements, please don't try to sell me "freedom of speech" as a cure-all. It's no more a cure-all than the snake oil which I understand your forefathers were so keen on selling in the days of your Wild West.
We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom.
Who's correctness? Who's values? Therein lies the rub.
A system that is fully open always will have issues with 'wrong' theories. But it protects the good ones too. I honestly feel what your saying and good peer review is key. But your idea that openness is a bad thing is flawed.
The problem with "freedom of correctness" is how many so-called "correct" things later turn out to be incredible lies. Correctness requires someone who can objectively judge whether something is correct, and pretty much the entire history of the world is a repeated, blatant demonstration that nobody really knows what is objectively "correct" or not until - at best - a few decades down the road.
Look, we had a dustup over this in the late 18th century. A few of us got together and decided, among other things, that were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We wanted to be CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS.
The British didn't believe in this. They believed in something else, some lesser form of liberty restricted by their aristocracy and parliament.
It's just refreshing to see a British subject admit to it.
This is a story about the law as it applies in England and Wales. Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland [wikipedia.org] (that famous non-sovereign state -slashdot anon) has an entirely separate and distinctly different, Roman based system of law and no real equivalent of the infamous Carter Ruck (billed as a "British Law Firm" whatever that is) and subsequently no really litigious use of libel laws on the magnitude of those in England. Scottish Judges are renowned for making anyone guilty of contempt spend at least one night in the cells - famous editors and briefs included. Much to the amusement to the mainly retired and unemployed audience in the public gallery.
Stephen Fry (Score:5, Interesting)
I loved Stephen Fry's quote on this [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I loved Stephen Fry's quote on this [bbc.co.uk]
And so the Brittish people went on living their zombie lives behind their iron curtain, with the feeling that this meaningless victory had changed their lives. In reality they were still being blindfolded, still monitored, still used as mere batteries to the machinery of the Brittish government and financial hierachy.
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Please let me rephrase: twitting and blogging are work-arounds, because the problem is still there. It wasn't fixed by the lawyers dropping the gag request; it will only be fixed as soon as the judge admits that the judgement was a mistake and explains why it was a mistake.
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:5, Interesting)
That depends on what you regard as 'the problem'.
The 'super-injunction', as the press are calling it, was the injunction placed on the Guardian's publication of the Minton Report [wikileaks.org], and the associated gag order that prevented the paper from revealing the existence of the injunction.
The judge didn't directly apply the gag order to the parliamentary question [parliament.uk] tabled by Paul Farrelly (which didn't exist at the time), and by all accounts the gag order did not cover parliamentary proceedings in any case because of qualified privilege. The only reason it became an issue was because the Guardian received a specific legal threat from law firm Carter-Ruck:
As we all know, statements made by lawyers are often merely the legal opinions of said lawyers.
The gag order is the sinister part of the whole thing (not the injunction, which is perfectly reasonable given judicial oversight), but I'd like to point out that these are not uniquely British as the GP seems to be alluding. I'm put in mind of the National Security Letters sent out by arms of the US Government, which placed similar gag orders, but unlike this situation did not have any judicial oversight.
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:4, Funny)
Government belongs to the People
That's what I said, until those funny men in the black uniforms removed me from the White House lawn for trespassing.
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Spoken like a true 13 year old.
Spoken like a man who never paid attention in history class. The UK wouldn't have the freedoms it enjoys today, if it wasn't for the bloodshed of the 1600s which eventually led to the Bill of Rights. And of course there are other examples - Eastern Europe is now free thanks to uprisings. France executed its monarch to form the first french republic. Rome overthrew the ancient tyrannical kings and founded the "res publica" circa 500 B.C. adopting the slogan SPQR - "The Senate and the People of Rome"
History shows that freedom is not given. It is taken by force and power restored where it belongs (with the people).
If a judge TRIES to take-away your right of free speech, his verdict has no meaning, and can be ignored. He has overstepped his authority because no one take away your rights. So I say - ignore the verdict and publish your story. If the judge continues down this path and still tries to take-away your inalienable right to use your own mouth to speak, then he needs to be imepached. And if he refuses to step down, then the People need to exercise their just authority, and remove him by force, and replace him with a new judge that understand he is a *servant* of the People, not a master. "From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural fertilizer." - Thomas Jefferson.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically section 1 (1a):-
(1) In this Act “the Convention rights” means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in—
(a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention,
Article 10 of the Convention is:-
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only difference between Britain and the rest of the Western World is that our government just suck at hiding their Orwellian monitoring of the general population. You think other governments aren't monitoring, spying and tracking their own citizens? They've just learned from our mistakes about how to keep it quiet...
And your point is what? That since all citizens of the western world live as such zombies it's not worth changing anywhere? My guess is that you're not the guy who offers solutions, you're the guy who tries to make problems look smaller by pointing at others. You may be right, but you're not helping anybody, rather the opposite -- providing people with the thought of that it's a pointless battle since everybody experiences the same situation. So my question is then, what are your motives? To have a good lif
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:4, Insightful)
That didn't look like his point to me at all...
"My guess is that you're not the guy who offers solutions"
*coughs* projecting!!!!!!
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:4, Insightful)
You think other governments and corporations aren't monitoring, spying and tracking all citizens/serfs/customers?
there, fixed that for ya.
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:5, Informative)
The UK is actually starting to resemble late-communist Central Europe. You can have all the freedom you want, if you make sure you're surrounded with people who don't care about the rules. And most people are starting to not care.
I moved from Hungary, never the most oppressive state in the Eastern Bloc, to the UK in 1998. I don't have words for how delusional your suggestion is. The threat of legal action does have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, but not quite the chilling effect of being beaten senseless or a bullet to the back of the head.
Parent
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:4, Funny)
FGS what's wrong with you, this is slashdot, a place for wild comparisons by people who know no better, kindly check in your "real experience" at the door, you can collect it on your way out.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The suggestion is not at all delusional. Limitations of personal freedom and liberty move on a scale between weak and small social dictates - you should not say x because it is inappropriate, you should not do y because it is not looked upon kindly -, more or less well founded legal threats - you must not say x because it is forbidden, you must not do y because you go to jail for it - and outright jeopardy of your own life and livelihood - you cannot say x because someone will send you to the hospital for d
Simon Singh (Score:4, Insightful)
(*) Counterexamples welcome...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not that it doesn't helped anyone in any context, there's plenty of situations where obscurity was much better than publicity (any military example comes to mind), the problem is that obscurity simply is not actually security at all.
Obscurity is obscurity, and while you sometimes want obscurity, it's very unhealthy to confuse obscurity with security in an overall sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity). It's not something to entirely rely on, no, but it's difficult to argue that it doesn't help.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A layer of obscurity over a secure system can seem good, but is unnecessary (because you have a secure system already).
That is false. No system is 100% secure, all that can be expected is to delay a successful attack. The more secure, the longer the delay.
Understood from that context, an additional layer of obscurity does increase security. The question really boils down to the cost-effectiveness of that layer - if maintaining that layer creates excessive overhead, then it may be a net loss in the cost/benefit trade-off column. But if cost is not part of the evaluation - and the prior poster never mentioned it - then it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Security through obscurity is a warning, not a mantra.
Re:Simon Singh (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a counterexample.. two in fact.
20 years ago my motobike was not stolen, even after the thieves had laboriously sliced a chain and wired the ignition. Why? Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting, eventually they gave up and left. The engine cutting out was down to a obscure little security system I designed, built and fitted myself, killed the ignition for 2 seconds out of every 10 unless a magnet was held in the correct place as the ignition was turned on. The thieves probably never even suspected it was deliberate, they probably thought the bike was a lemon.. which is arguably true ;-)
My server, which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.
Both of these work because they are genuinely obscure single implementations. In order to break them the attacker would need to know that it exists, and then spend time analysing the unit to break it. Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence, is the payout (a crummy motorcycle, control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection) worth their time to break it?
The sort of Security through Obscurity you describe fails because it is identically implemented in millions of devices, ie. It is not really Obscure, it's just a secret. And if you break it in one place you break it in all places. The payout for finding and breaking it is much, much, greater.
Parent
Re:Simon Singh (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Worrying precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
To use an example. Imagine a celebrity's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her. Will she have to deal with so many blogs reporting on it that the court order becomes pointless? Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge?
With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack, it's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency. It's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about parliament here, not a court case. It's accepted that some court cases can be sealed by court order, but parliament?
Re: (Score:2)
in my opnion, privacy has become an empty word. It's the result of all-pervasive electronics/communication devices. It's rather pointless trying to turn back the clock methinks. the genie is out of the bottle, information wants to be free, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The distinction is easy to discern. One deals with a matter of public welfare. The other does not.
To be more precise, when any legal entity engages in activities or behaviors that are damaging or potentially damaging to members of the public, and such actions or the judgment demonstrated by them continue to pose a threat to the welfare of others, then there exists a right to inform and be informed. Those that may be harmed by the acts of another have a right to know of the danger. The revelation of sala
Re: (Score:2)
At least the paparazzi didn't get any money out of it.
Re:Worrying precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
This case is (fortunately) nothing like the examples you give.
This was about a question in Parliament. i.e. Statements publicly made, by public representatives in a place where freedom of speech is protected to the highest extent in the UK. The statements were available to anyone who looked at the records.
The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements, bringing into doubt the entire system of freedom of speech and press in the UK. (note to non-UK readers, there is no UK constitution to protect free speech).
The bloggers (and more importantly, pretty much every other part of the UK media) were entirely right to repeatedly report on the gross misuse of UK libel law.
Parent
Note on right to freedom of speech (Score:3, Informative)
One down, an unknown number to go. (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the last issue of Private Eye there are quite a few of these super-injunctions currently being enforced (i.e. injunctions that not only stop you from saying something, but stop you from telling anyone that you've been injuncted).
I'd like a few more of them to be twittered, at least so we know that something's being hidden, even if we don't know what it is.
(and I know injuncted isn't the right word, but I don't know what is)
Re:One down, an unknown number to go. (Score:4, Informative)
"enjoined"
Parent
Re:One down, an unknown number to go. (Score:5, Informative)
The PQ about Trafigura everyone was twittering was Q61, Q62 was in fact the one mentioned in that Private Eye editorial:
Q62: Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.
With a bit of luck tomorrow we will hear how many of these things have been issued (or at least, get told when we will be told)
Parent
Massive headline FAIL (Score:5, Informative)
British libel laws are a travesty. To the point where half a dozen US states, including California, have had to pass laws preventing UK libel judgements from inhibiting free speech. There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court - as the penalties handed down in British courts are so heavy, and litigation costs so high, that it's financial ruin for a defendant to attempt to defend themselves, even if they are successful.
So much for free speech in Britain.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
British =! English
Re:Massive headline FAIL (Score:4, Informative)
There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court...
Where were the comments posted? This isn't clear from your post.
If they were posted on an English website, hosted in England, how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court? Seems like we're both as bad as each other...
Parent
Newsflash: (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems to be a hard concept for some people, but here's an attempt to explain: because he thinks the situation in the UK is bad does not necessarily mean he thinks the situation in the US is wonderful. In other words, they're both bad.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, an injuction against one paper is as good as an injuction against all in the UK. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm:
"No injunction was served on the BBC, but ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court, so the corporation too felt bound by the Guardian injunction."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Guardian newspaper actually tried to create the Streisand Effect here. They got a tame MP to table a question in Parliament to expose what was happening. They effectively challenged the libel lawyers to try and stop the reporting of it. And of course the lawyers fell for it. Pretty neat stitch up.
The Guardian then leaked it to the inte
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Guardian then leaked it to the international press and prominent bloggers -- such as Guido Fawkes. Sure people reported it on Twitter too, especially Stephen Fry who is a sock puppet for the Guardian and the left wing, but it wasn't the tweets that changed anything, it was the International press and the reaction in Parliament.
How's your tin foil hat looking? There was absolutely no need for them to leak anything. The list of questions was already published, the Guardian just asked Carter-Ruck if they c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you rely on Guido's band of libertarian wonks and hope people stumble upon it on Google - or do you appeal directly to (say) Stephen Fry' 830,000 followers (plus practically every working hack and writer who usually use Twitter as a way to banter away the working day)?
It is about distribution, not just publication. The story went from standstill to game-set-match in about 4 hours and that was the Twitter effect. Nowhere near enough people read Guid
Full Report (Score:5, Informative)
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations%2C_14_Sep_2006 [wikileaks.org]
Another chance for twitter users to feel special (Score:3, Funny)
Britain - Libel capital of the work. (Score:5, Interesting)
Do we know which idiot judge granted this? (Score:2)
Errr...no (Score:5, Informative)
Cheers,
Ian
Restore? You can't restore what was never there (Score:4, Insightful)
The Slashdot headline "restore" is wrong. England and Wales [wikipedia.org] have never had freedom of speech. It cannot be "restored", it was never there.
We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom. Now I'll readily admit that sometimes - often, perhaps - megacorporates and in particular the law firm Carter Fuck [wikipedia.org] try to abuse the system so that they also prevent inconvenient truths from slipping out.
But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress? No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms; in this case, the responsibility to get the facts right.
The US gets many things right, and a few things wrong. The USA's bonkers bible-belt religious fundamentalism, for instance, would never be tolerated in England and Wales, as most of it is demonstrably factually incorrect. England and Wales would never suffer from a Kansas-style education system which promoted creationism over science. So, whilst I respect your country's achievements, please don't try to sell me "freedom of speech" as a cure-all. It's no more a cure-all than the snake oil which I understand your forefathers were so keen on selling in the days of your Wild West.
Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there (Score:5, Insightful)
We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom.
Who's correctness? Who's values? Therein lies the rub.
A system that is fully open always will have issues with 'wrong' theories. But it protects the good ones too. I honestly feel what your saying and good peer review is key. But your idea that openness is a bad thing is flawed.
Parent
Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with "freedom of correctness" is how many so-called "correct" things later turn out to be incredible lies. Correctness requires someone who can objectively judge whether something is correct, and pretty much the entire history of the world is a repeated, blatant demonstration that nobody really knows what is objectively "correct" or not until - at best - a few decades down the road.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, we had a dustup over this in the late 18th century. A few of us got together and decided, among other things, that were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We wanted to be CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS.
The British didn't believe in this. They believed in something else, some lesser form of liberty restricted by their aristocracy and parliament.
It's just refreshing to see a British subject admit to it.
Point of information for non Brit slashdotters... (Score:3, Informative)
Scottish Judges are renowned for making anyone guilty of contempt spend at least one night in the cells - famous editors and briefs included. Much to the amusement to the mainly retired and unemployed audience in the public gallery.