Virus.Org  IT Security News and Information Portal. We offer the latest IT security news, updates, product reviews, books, and articles for all you IT security professionals out there. Enter and get the best IT security information on the Internet.

 

. Welcome to the Virus.Org Mailing List Archive  
.
.


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


Re: Government Noses
.

  • To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  • Subject: Re: Government Noses
  • From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  • Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 20:13:52 +0100
  • In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  • References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  • Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  • Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
 
Roland Perry writes:
Roland Perry writes:


But that is not what I was saying... I was pointing out that if, as Simon would have it, they are not collecting
information on the public at large,  their rate of accurately identifying
people as criminal or not must be nearly 100% before they even start
collecting the intelligence, let alone contemplating the prosecution.

On one hand, most people have probably inadvertently infringed one or other of their rules. On the other hand, doing an investigation and prosecution are sufficiently onerous that they are perhaps only going after the worst offenders, rather than indulging in fishing expeditions. Not everyone would agree that this is the case, though. But the most important thing to remember is that they don't need to be collecting information on everyone "just in case" (they'd be swamped), because it's easy enough for them to get the information on the relatively few they investigate, on an ad-hoc basis. Their proposition being that they have sufficient instinct to investigate mainly people who turn out to be guilty. (Although the 99% figure pertained to those they then choose to prosecute).

If I may say so that misses the point. Simon was bneing amused at the paranoia of someone who thought the government were watching our every move. He suggested this was only for serious crooks. I pointed out that the government thorough this advert was seeking to put the general populace of benefit claimants in fear. Simon said it was only those who were cheating. Other countered that since the idea of the snooping was to discover fraudulent claimants, the net must be cast rather wider. I still think the utter disgrace is the idea taht it is fun for the government to put us in fear of their power over us. As a piece of government advertising it remains thoroughly disgraceful. Simon's friend in Whitehall might just as well employ people to spit at claimants as they walk into DSS offices.



--
David Swarbrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.lawindexpro.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1484 384767


 
.
.
 
Copyright (c) Virus.Org 1997-2006.
All Trademarks Acknowledged.
Please view our Terms and Conditions and our Privacy Policy.