Tagged Posts

The SOPA/PIPA Result

Gravatar of this user
The people spoke on Wednesday and, it seems, they were heard by some of the Senators and members of Congress debating these proposals. And they didn't like what the people were telling them (and, no doubt, worried about whether they would be re-elected again) and so they have — for the moment at least — stopped further activity on these two bills.

But it isn't over. The powerful media forces will try to get new versions back to the House and Senate in the future. We must remain vigilant and prepared.

Once, the internet was the plaything of the USA Department of Defense. Then it moved into academe and commerce. Now, the internet is the tool of people all around the world; every minute of each day and from every country around the globe people use it to freely communicate with each other. To share news, photographs, information, their life.

The internet is no longer the private property of one country, or a single guiding mind. It was created by many many people and is for the benefit of all human kind.

And any time it may be threatened again it will be all human kind who will respond: "KEEP YOUR HANDS OF OUR INTERNET!"
20-Jan-2012 23:37 · Trackback ·
tags: · ·
blinklist icon  blogmarks icon  del.ocio.us icon  digg icon  facebook icon  live.com icon  newsvine icon  reddit icon  slashdot icon  spurl icon  stumbleupon icon  technorati icon  yahoo! icon 

Age and DNA

Gravatar of this user
Over the last few days a similar topic has come up during online and offline discussions with friends: does one's political world-view change as you get older?

There seems to be some received wisdom that you get more 'right-wing' as you get older, and though this has been supported by some others had suggested the reverse has applied to them. I'm certainly aware that while I've always had personal views which could be considered to cover the entire gamut from broad-left to far-right on specific topics — I've never been a believer that single Political Parties, no matter how broad a church they try to make out that they cover, are a valid answer — I can see in myself some 'focus' changes over maybe the last 15-10 years.

Making this a matter for a blog post though was prompted by one of the questions in today's YouGov survey request, "Different people have different ideas about whose DNA should be held on a national database, with the police allowed access when seeking to investigate crimes. Which of these options do you personally favour?"

They've supplied four answers, alongside the "don't know" get-out, being
  1. There should a national database of everyone's DNA
  2. There should be a national database of the DNA of everyone who has been arrested by the police in the course of investigating crimes, including those not charged, or charged and found not guilty
  3. There should be a national database of the DNA of people found guilty of a criminal offence
  4. Keeping anyone's DNA is an invaion of their privacy: no national DNA database of any kind should be kept
and the trouble starts there. There is absolutely no question that a DNA record is an invasion of personal privacy, and that every database is open to abuse. But it is as likely true that repeat offenders exists and whilst mere suspicion (or testing for exclusion) is not a crime there would be a clear deterrent effect if everyone knows without a shadow of doubt that the merest trace of their DNA at the scene of a murder or rape would attract the immediate attention of the investigative team. I am very firmly against the death penalty and find that it is still used in some countries — most notably the USA — as completely abhorrent; the state has no more 'right' to take a life than a sick individual, and the numbers demonstrate it is no deterrent.

But then my knowledge of the ease with which databases may give the wrong results (or fail to give the right one) and that, just as with the common cold you have no idea what the route of contagion was five or ten steps back, you have no idea where your DNA — be it a fleck of blood, 2mm of hair, or a few skin cells — might be carried completely innocently, then the idea of having everything on record becomes a case of 'too dangerous to take the first answer'. There are over seven billion souls on this planet and unless you have the complete DNA record of every single one then you will be searching against an incomplete set which might easily have a close match but not the exact, correct, guilty match. And we've returned to the past dangers of hanging the wrong person.

05-Jan-2012 16:30 · Trackback ·
tags: · ·
blinklist icon  blogmarks icon  del.ocio.us icon  digg icon  facebook icon  live.com icon  newsvine icon  reddit icon  slashdot icon  spurl icon  stumbleupon icon  technorati icon  yahoo! icon 

Partners for life?

Gravatar of this user

From news.bbc.co.uk …

"You can't be a little bit equal, in the same way as you can't be a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant. You can only be equal or unequal."
17-May-2010 22:06 · Trackback ·
tags:
blinklist icon  blogmarks icon  del.ocio.us icon  digg icon  facebook icon  live.com icon  newsvine icon  reddit icon  slashdot icon  spurl icon  stumbleupon icon  technorati icon  yahoo! icon 

Whose safety goes first?

Gravatar of this user

From heresycorner.blogspot.com …

Heresy Corner has written a most interesting article about the requirements being imposed on people applying to study or undertake social work. Entitled "No subs allowed" it notes that even though the personal sexual activities and preferences of an applicant would be very unlikely to have an impact of the quality of their work — indeed there are studies to show the reverse is true — people engaging in consensual BDSM behaviour are being blocked from the profession, despite the government seeking to increase the number and quality of social workers.
12-Sep-2009 17:53 · Trackback ·
tags: ·
blinklist icon  blogmarks icon  del.ocio.us icon  digg icon  facebook icon  live.com icon  newsvine icon  reddit icon  slashdot icon  spurl icon  stumbleupon icon  technorati icon  yahoo! icon 

Lesbian partners to be named on birth certificates

Gravatar of this user

From www.guardian.co.uk …

OK. I'll admit it. I am completely torn on this one, and I'm sure I'll not be the only one who is. That a child should ideally have loving parent's — of any sex, gender, number and combination thereof — is a given, to my mind, but by the same token I'd always believed that a "Birth Certificate" had some relationship to genes and the source of the DNA that goes to make that child. Unless the eggs of both parents are put into a petri dish (or turkey baster!) and mixed around so that it isn't known who did which, then it rather feels to me that there is something not quite right here. And where is the detail of the, ahem, 'source of the sperm'? I mean, I've known some very butch dykes (hell, I've gone out with some and loved every minute of it!) but they aren't quite that butch. On the legal side I think it is really great that the law recognises loving parenting, but I still have some disquiet on this one. Feel free to educate me …
02-Sep-2009 00:13 · Trackback ·
tags: ·
blinklist icon  blogmarks icon  del.ocio.us icon  digg icon  facebook icon  live.com icon  newsvine icon  reddit icon  slashdot icon  spurl icon  stumbleupon icon  technorati icon  yahoo! icon 

Dutch threaten Eurosong boycott over gay rights

Gravatar of this user

From www.nrc.nl …

As it happens, I'm currently working with the first semi-final of the Eurovision song contest as background on the tv, and saw this story about the Dutch entry — and NOS, the public broadcaster in the Nederlands — have said they will withdraw from the finals of the competition on Saturday night if a gay rights parade organised for that afternoon becomes violent. Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov has said he will never allow Moscow to have a gay parade, which he has dubbed "satanic." Russian nationalists on Tuesday threatened to "cure" any homosexuals who join the parade on Saturday.
14-May-2009 12:25 · Trackback ·
tags:
blinklist icon  blogmarks icon  del.ocio.us icon  digg icon  facebook icon  live.com icon  newsvine icon  reddit icon  slashdot icon  spurl icon  stumbleupon icon  technorati icon  yahoo! icon 

"Suicide is a human right"

Gravatar of this user

From news.bbc.co.uk …

Ludwig Minelli, founder of the Swiss organisation Dignitas — which helps people to commit suicide — has argued that voluntary euthanasia is, or should be, considered as a human right. I tend to agree. We may not choose to be born, but surely — with the exception of dying in an accident, which nobody would actually prefer — the date of our passing should be something under our control. Whether the reasons for an individual concluding they have lived as long as they wish to are for health reasons (physical or mental) or because they consider that they have 'had a good innings' and life would be otherwise downhill from then on, shouldn't that be our choice and not not something outwith our control, requiring us just to wait, possibly for many years without any desire to do so? A friend once commented "suicide is the ultimate in selfishness" after the death of someone they knew. The argument being that those left behind suffer. I would argue that by pressuring someone to stay alive against their own desires then society is being inconsiderate of that person's needs and, by making their impossible life continue that their relationships will suffer anyway. There is a reason why we put some animals out of their pain and suffering in their best interests. We certainly aren't animals, but people deserve no less a consideration of what may be the best outcome for them as an individual.
02-Apr-2009 08:39 · Trackback ·
tags: · ·
blinklist icon  blogmarks icon  del.ocio.us icon  digg icon  facebook icon  live.com icon  newsvine icon  reddit icon  slashdot icon  spurl icon  stumbleupon icon  technorati icon  yahoo! icon 


Next →