Why New York Cops Thought Britain’s Unarmed Police Were “Ridiculous”.

 Ok, one thing which sort of makes me different from a lot of people on the "left" is that I have a more pragmatic view of defence and justice issues. So, I thought I would share this clip from Britain's ITN (Independent Television News) news from 1966.

 A lot has changed in 50 years and British police can be seen carrying guns, or have access to firearms.

Let's not forget that not only can we see the police improperly using their firearm, but we can also see civilians using firearms on the police. So, it's not a one way street. 

Smile, you're on camera: Facial recognition becomes widespread in London...

I tried to write a post about the differences in US and Europan Union privacy laws which somehow got trashed, but the gist of it is that the US doesn't have strong data protection laws. That means law enforcement is working with the crap data mining services provide.

On the other hand, digital ID these days is biometric and works well with facial recognition.

And immigration services worldwide are using biometrics for law enforcement. 

I would also add in that immigration is tightening up worldwide. So, it feels hypocritical that people outside the US are condemning ICE. Especially since the Schengen Area in Europe fines people 1,000€ a day for overstaying. There is also a possibility of being banned from the Schengen zone.

 

Fortunately, people in the US are too distracted with ICE to notice that they are handing the data miners information. That was an important part of the lost post, a reference to this article: How is ICE tracking people in Minnesota? An expert explains.

It might make more sense to demand strong data protection laws which allow people to control what is private information being sold. Especially since your private information is one of the things making money for big tech.

And helping ICE do its job.

The Windows Exodus Has Begun. (And the Data Proves It)

I have to admit that I am coinsidering going back to Linux since Apple is trying to get me to upgrade to Tahoe. I don't want AI.

I want my computer to be a tool.

Not run my life.

It's time to consider moving to open source. (Billionaires Owning Everything Just Got Worse…)

I am thoroughly amazed that the information sector didn't go to open source for a lot of reasons. But this person points out how much we give up by supporting big tech. 

For that matter, this gives a really good reason to get a true multiparty democracy since the duopoly did eff all to prevent this. 

Digital Blackout: AWS Outage Plunges Millions into Disarray, Revealing the Internet's Fragile Core

The internet would be much better if it were decentralised and out of the hands of the oligarchs. As this points out, it's only as strong as its weakest link: which seems to be the oligarchs.

Windows 11 Is a Lost Cause. Truly Destined for the Garbage. Don't Upgrade.

I am amazed that hacker, open source culture didn't prevail in the computing world. 

Wozniak v Jobs

The old Apple II, which was something you could configure anyway you wanted. The iPod that allowd you to listen to YOUR music, not something pushed on you.

Like having Rachel Maddow invade my French Jazz playlist. PUTAIN DE MERDE!  Je me fous complètement de la politique américaine.

 OK, maybe the last statement isn't exactly true.

But, I don't want tech oligarchs running my life. 

 

Dell sells Linux computers!

I moved from the Microsoft operating system a while back, I'm guessing in 2011 from my old blog posts. I have a serious dislike for tech giants having worked with computers for over 50 years (I started young), The hacker culture runs strong in me.

Besides, most tech pros use linux/unix.

Getting a linux computer for me meant using an old computer, or one that had originally been configured for windows (or Mac OS). I didn't realise that Dell sold them. The only drawbacks are you can't get these in most retailers and there's a five week wait: https://www.techradar.com/best/linux-pc#section-best-linux-mini-pc

On the other hand, this is a computer which is built for Linux.

For those of you who want to try this OS, you can make a trial USB drive and see how you like it:

 

Windows AND Linux Security - What Should You Know

There is more reason to switch to linux and ditch the tech oligarchs than you know.

Find a COMPATIBLE Linux Computer for $200+: Roadmap to Linux. Part 1

I have been seriously thinking about returning to Linux for the reasons mentioned. Apple's Mac OS is based on Linux, but has proprietary things which force you to use their products. It's also fairly stable, which can't be said about Microsoft. 

The one sickener for the switch is that Macs have some excellent tools for multilingual people. 

Big Brother/Sister is watching you and you are giving him everything he/she wants

 You might find this interesting if you believe you support "capitalism":

Time to wake up because Big Tech is running your life.

Time to become a Luddite. This tells you the problem and how to fight it.

BTW,  Facebook's owner Meta Platforms saw its stock market value slump by more than $230bn (£169bn) on Thursday, in a record daily loss for a US firm.

The company's share price slide saw chief executive Mark Zuckerberg's net worth fall by $31bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The drop in Mr Zuckerberg's personal fortune was equivalent to the annual gross domestic product of Estonia.

Analysis of this from the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60255088):

It's clear that Meta is facing a whirlwind of different problems.

Last year Apple brought in its App Tracking Transparency policy.

It lets people choose whether or not they want to be tracked around the internet by companies, like Meta, who can then sell that information to advertisers.

That is a major problem for Facebook, because finding information out about you and selling it to advertisers is exactly how it makes money.

Its quarterly results showed advertising income falling, partly for this reason.

 Get off of social media since YOU are the product. The Billionaires are getting rich off of YOUR information.

 

Fesses de Bouc (Facebook) goes "offline".

I'm not sure how much of a Luddite I happen to be, but I have been complaining about social media and surveillance capitalism for a while. One of the reasons I like Europe more than the States is that the EU and European Commission have been strict with the tech giants for a while. Not as much as I might like, but still far stricter than the US government has.

There are a lot of reasons to celebrate this blackout in that it shines a light on how stable tech companies actually happen to be. Personally, I am far more of a believer in "open-source" software than having the control of the operating systems in the hands of tech giants. Sadly, the "digital revolution" kept the monopolies and made more of them instead of having a diversified economy.

And while I like Ubuntu/Linux far more than "legacy" OSs, I now use Apple. But Apple is like the drug dealer which offers you a taste to get you hooked. Sadly, they take over your system. Apple wants to control my music. They now also want me to use their cloud.

The problem is that I want control of my data, not to give it to some faceless corporation which does whatever it wants with that data. Amazon is far more sinister than you realise, as is Facebook. These companies use of data has put them into conflict with the European Commission. Margarethe Vestager's attitude to the tech giants has put her indirect conflict with the US and China.

The US is looking into regulating big tech, but like most everything else in US politics, the action is too little way too late. Maybe the blackout at Facebook will shine a light on this problem.

Guns, CCTV, and the Surveillance State

ADT had an ad almost 30 years ago that compared a handgun to a burglar alarm. It pointed out that the alarm would call the cops while the gun was sitting in a drawer or safe. In other words, the alarm could protect your home when you weren't there.

I've had enough experiences over that period between my private life and my work in the criminal justice system to come to the conclusion that CCTV is much better at stopping, or at least deterring, crime than any firearm. Not to mention much safer: unless you are installing it yourself and you have no idea what you are doing.

Having a firearm is probably more of an advertisement to get robbed than having an alarm or CCTV since you have a valuable commodity (or commodities) to the criminal fraternity.

As the gun crowd likes to point out: criminals don't respect the law. And how else are they going to get their guns other than breaking the law?

CCTV images of 2011 UK Rioters

On the other hand, CCTV does indeed stop crime. Likewise, the footage can be stored remotely and shared. Mine is hi-def quality and stored for a month. Any clip I make is stored until I delete it. The best part is that I don't need to be at home for the camera to work since the product is stored on the internet. I can be anywhere there is internet access and flip through the footage. I can share the clip with the law enforcement using a link.

I would also add that my clips use facial recognition. Which is actually sophisticated enough that it can catch someone trying to obscure their face.

And, yes, I have shared my video with LE since my camera is registered with the local police.

While some people may believe that CCTV isn't that much of a deterrent, especially if used by the government, that isn't the case when individuals share the information between themselves and/or law enforcement. Also, the issue about "government intrusion" can be limited if the CCTV info comes from individuals instead of the government or business.

Anyway, CCTV is definitely a crime solver and deterrent where I actually live with quite a few high profile cases being solved using CCTV information. The reason I'm posting this is that my footage has helped apprehend a criminal even though I wasn't home at the time.

The real issue is whether the prosecution want to use CCTV information. Compare the UK's use of CCTV after the 2011 and that of in the US to catch the "peaceful protesters". With the exception of the person who set fire to the police car in Philly, most of the protesters have gotten away with it due to prosecutorial inaction.

The issue is that the surveillance economy is already here. We may as well make it work for the benefit of society.

See also:

• Case Study: CCTV and the London Riots
• London riots: Most wanted suspect CCTV images released
  

BIG BRUTHA IS WATCHING YOU!

OK, the utopians not only want  to rid society of guns, they also want to get rid of the police. Crime will be solved by social programs which ensure equality by providing housing, health care, social services, and lord knows what. Probably drugs will be legal and freely available so that the population is properly drugged up and docile.

Crime suddenly disappears making the police something which a utopian society no longer needs.

Not really. Even utopian ideologies such as anarchy believe in order, but the order comes from people knowing the rules and respecting them. Utopian societies don't exist, but they would be much more "authoritarian" in reality if they did. You don't need the cops because you know the rules and follow them. Otherwise, you do some public self-criticism about your failure to be a good citizen.

But that isn't really my point here since the distopian reality is already here: the surveillance state.

You don't need cops on the street, or even a highly visible force, since the people doing the policing are sitting in some room. They probably don't need to be too attentive either since facial recognition software can keep tracks on people.

The real solution to the police problem is the surveillance state.

And it's already here. To the point I've been tempted to write a post called "Why are you here? Really?" about how social media, which includes Google make their money on surveillance. Trump could have had a field day if he went into how big tech, especially social media, make their money.

And people gladly hand them the info.

But you don't need to have rooms full of monitors to have a surveillance state. All one needs to do is set up a clearing house for the information which is collected by individuals. That doorbell cam can help solve crimes.

I know mine has and I haven't been "home" most of the time.

The surveillance state's neighbourhood watch never sleeps. Even better you don't need to worry about it being brutal. People walk by the eyes of the state blissfully ignorant that they are under observation until the moment they act up.

People might get upset about facial recognition, but how do they feel about it after it helps apprehend the person engaging in sexual assaults in their neighbourhood?

Defunding the police will result in something much more sinister. Hell, it's already here!

A disclaimer: I believe in some of those social programs, but am under no illusion they will be the sole answer to crime.

Tucker Carlson calls for Breaking Up Google!

 No wonder he's under attack by the "left".

 

I started watching him because of the covid thing. I don't agree with him a lot of the time, but he does give an alternative take on the stories in the news. Greg Gutfeld is fun to watch as well.

Sky News Australia is also an interesting view.

Why would I like these sources? It was because the US Main Stream Media was too sycophantic to the Biden-Harris ticket and uncritical of the Covid thing.

Anyway, it's amusing to watch Tucker mention breaking up Google. It would get really interesting if they went all the way. I mean breaking up Bezos' monopoly, which included WAPO. And how exactly did Facebook make all that money?

By selling your information.

That's what makes these companies really frightening by trashing our rights: especially the right of privacy. They are the basis of something called surveillance capitalism.

He could also talk about how weak US Data Protection laws happen to be, which is why those trashy background check sites exist. But even more importantly, failure to have strong data protection laws are what allowed for surveillance capitalism to make billions off of our data without our consent.

Or the ability to correct mistakes in that data.

Socialism isn't making money off of the work of others, that's capitalism. And surveillance capitalism is making money off of people's data. And it's making some people very rich.

Lesser evil voting results in evil, not good.

 

I am amused at the people who call themselves "progressives" being hopeful that Joe Biden will in some way show that he is sympathetic to their cause.

Dream on, progressives, you are the unwanted relative at the "family" gathering. The "Democrats" put up with you because they want your votes. But they prefer money. The more money you can cough up, the more they suck up to you. 

It doesn't matter that Bernie Sanders can run a campaign on small donations because the "Democratic" Party isn't. They prefer the large donors who are the people who propped up the formerly dead campaigns of Creepy Joe and Horrible Harris. 

The "Democrats" preyed on your being suckers that they were in some way "better" than the Evil Orange One. Yet they ran candidates that were just as bad, if not worse. The tame media didn't allow for any scrutiny into the chosen ones, or you would have had a harder time voting for them than you did Clinton-Kane in 2016.

If you didn't Demexit.

The "Democrats" didn't bother hiding their disdain for the progressives this go round.  "Progressives" for whatever reason voted for Biden despite his being a male Hillary Clinton with a public and private position on the issues. And his private position is that he will stay the course which resulted in Trump.

I've moved on from the "Democratic" Party because I know that they do not have the motivation to actually do anything. Actually, neither of the duopoply parties will do much of anything other than make the US a plutocracy that rewards the likes of Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, et al. There is a reason the tech companies supported Biden-Harris, and it's not because they are benevolent.

It's time for a change and one of those changes is to vote for a party that actually represents you.