- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3156 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 19143
Rape victims among those to be asked to hand phones to police
Victims of crimes, including those alleging rape, are to be asked to hand their phones over to police - or risk prosecutions not going ahead.
Consent forms asking for permission to access information including emails, messages and photographs have been rolled out in England and Wales. It comes after a number of rape and serious sexual assault cases collapsed when crucial evidence emerged.
Victim Support said the move could stop victims coming forward. But police and prosecutors say the forms can plug a gap in the law which says complainants and witnesses cannot be forced to disclose relevant content from phones, laptops, tablets or smart watches.
Director of Public Prosecutions Max Hill said such digital information would only be looked at where it forms a "reasonable" line of inquiry, with material going before a court only if it meets stringent rules.
This seems like a worrying turn of events and the unintended consequence of the political pressure to increase the number of rape convictions spearheaded by Alison Saunders.
|>>|| No. 19144
>the political pressure to increase the number of rape convictions spearheaded by Alison Saunders.
Typical rape apologist, always blaming the woman.
|>>|| No. 19145
Two posts and I've already gotten cancer from this thread. Colon cancer at that, cancer right up my bum, in my deepest bum crevice lives the thing that will kill me, and this thread caused it. In two posts at that.
|>>|| No. 19146
I've only attended one rape case in my life, the evidence that the 'victim' was bullshitting about the events was a collection of text messages and phone records of calls to the defendant who 'she had never met before'.
There was also that incedent last year where the police sat on text conversations that proved the innocence of the defendant. If you aren't planning on lying to the court about the events that took place then I don't see the issue in the police collecting evidence and you being fully co-operative with it. Assuming that that evidence isn't used to convict you/ provoke an investigation of an unrelated crime, as long as that is a hard written rule of this policy I have no issue with it, if it isn't then I have a serious problem with it.
|>>|| No. 19147
I know rape is a highly emotive subject, but pressure to increase the rate of convictions has led to a number of cases going to court which shouldn't have gone anywhere near it. There was a 70% increase during the past two years in prosecutions collapsing due to evidence being withheld, including a few high profile rape prosecutions where mobile phone evidence which would have unequivocally proven the accused's innocence weren't disclosed to the defence.
This cack-handed approach now means that women who go forward to the police will have further distress through all of their phone records, going back several years before the incident, will be trawled through by the police. It's also the slippery slope of the authorities snooping on everyone's phone records if they can provide an excuse for it.
|>>|| No. 19148
The formula for these sort of laws is normally not to grant new powers, but to legitimise what is already done.
|>>|| No. 19164
>the evidence that the 'victim' was bullshitting about the events was a collection of text messages and phone records of calls to the defendant who 'she had never met before'
I would agree that a defendant has a right to demand the release of exonerating evidence even if it's on the smartphone of the accuser who is the assumed victim of a crime committed by the defendant. The victim may have a right to privacy, and that's fine and deserves respect, but against that right stands the accused's right to fair trial and thus in this case the right to have any and all available exonerating evidence presented to a court.
It's always a balancing act of interests, and it therefore goes beyond the assumed victim's right to have an attacker brought to justice. Both the defendant and the public at large have an undeniable interest in upholding fundamental legal principles, just as the victim.
|>>|| No. 19165
So you really think if there were evidence on the phone that the rape victim was sexually abusing a child the police should be obligated to ignore it?
Why do you support paedophiles, mate?
|>>|| No. 19166
I think courts generally have the right to use accidental finds as evidence against you. There is also a clause in police law that states that coincidental finds can be used as evidence against you even if they were collected during a search that was conducted on completely unrelated charges. For example, if they search your house for stolen goods because they believe you are a thief and they find a certain amount of drugs while turning your place upside down, then they have the authority to independently open another investigation against you for drug possession.
|>>|| No. 19167
Are you going to let rapists walk free just because they raped someone who sells a bit of pot and therefore doesnt want to incriminate themselves.
I've always considered that a licence to come up with flimsy presents to raid someone's house. I remember reading an article years ago about looking for a 'graffiti pen' and finding a house full of weapons far right books and no graffiti pen.
|>>|| No. 19170
I am very uneasy about giving the authorities any access to my data and have spent a lot of time considering whether I would rather go to prison than give up my encryption keys, despite being innocent of any other criminal wrongdoing.
However, it's undeniable that a victim's phone data is an incredibly useful tool, and I don't think the question should be whether or not the police should be using that data, but rather the question should be how we properly regulate the use of that data. I think evidence amnesty for other crimes (within reason) is a pretty good start, but at the same time I'm not sure how many cases we'd actually see where this would be applicable - criminals tend not to report crimes against them for a variety of reasons and have done so long before they carried a digital record of their activities with them at all times.
It's a tough one but probably shouldn't be specific to rape cases. More than anything the problem is how shit the police are at this sort of thing - I'd not want to give my phone up because I'd have no faith that it'd help me in any way and I'd almost certainly be without my phone for an unreasonably long time. Perhaps a 'can you go through your phone with me' approach is better.
|>>|| No. 19171
>However, it's undeniable that a victim's phone data is an incredibly useful tool, and I don't think the question should be whether or not the police should be using that data, but rather the question should be how we properly regulate the use of that data.
There was a case where a woman was raped by someone pretending to be a taxi driver and the police asked for the entire history of her phone, going back about seven years, in case there was sexting or pictures of her being intimate with other men; the police claimed her full sexual history was potentially relevant.
I guess what's actually relevant to a case and what a defence lawyer claims is relevant to a case may be two separate things, with the latter far more intrusive.
|>>|| No. 19172
Defence lawyers in sexual offences cases have a nasty habit of blaming the victim by suggesting they were putting it about. It's understandable that the police and CPS would want to shut that down from the offset.
|>>|| No. 19173
It's like their job is to throw doubt on the guilt of their client or something.
|>>|| No. 19174
>Are you going to let rapists walk free just because they raped someone who sells a bit of pot and therefore doesnt want to incriminate themselves.
Yes, of course. Criminals who want out of the kitchen because it gets too hot and snitch to the police to rescue them are the lowest of the low.
Besides, everyone knows it's prudent to separate your professional and private lives.
|>>|| No. 19176
Are you saying you want a drug dealer to go free just because someone raped them?
What about if they were a murderer? Okay, murder isn't a good example because in today's moral hierarchy rape is seemingly worse than murder. What if they were a barpetcagger?
|>>|| No. 19177
The video clearly shows that he has four phones. I'm not sure that this character is entirely trustworthy.
|>>|| No. 19180
He has two phones, one for the plug and one for the load. He has two phones, one for the bitches and one for the dough. Like he says, four phones. I'm not sure you can do the simplest of addition.
You can't have a hook about four phones, one for the plug, one for the load, one for the bitches and one for the dough. That's just bad songwriting.
|>>|| No. 19181
I'm suggesting real police work rather than getting someone to incriminate themselves is needed. What you are suggesting is what causes societal break downs and organised crime to gain power because people can't trust the system. If people are afraid to report things to the police because they might be arrested for something else the system breaks down. Also nothing the police love more than snitches and you've got to give them a sane reason to come forward.
|>>|| No. 19182
So you're fine with an innocent person going to jail because they're not allowed to look on someone else's phone to get the evidence that would prove their innocence?
You can't do "proper police work" about sexual assault, that's why it's in such a clusterfuck to begin with. Unless you're suggesting we invent the technology from fucking Minority Report, how do you suppose we sort those cases of one person's word against another out?
|>>|| No. 19183
Why don't they have that same evidence on their own phone? I'm assuming you mean texts of some sort.
|>>|| No. 19186
Stuff gets deleted, phones get lost, things intentionally self-destruct (Snapchat etc). The relevant evidence isn't necessarily communication between the defendant and the plaintiff - it could be a location log showing that they were in different places at the time of the alleged assault, it could be a communication between the plaintiff and a third party, it could be a photo or a video. Getting that data off a phone might be a simple case of scrolling through their recent texts, or it might require sophisticated digital forensics techniques.
Rape and sexual assault are really hard to prove and always have been. Digital data can be hugely useful to both the defence and prosecution, but the problem is the vast amounts of data that might be relevant. A case that would once have been a straightforward matter of your word versus mine could now be as complex as a major fraud investigation, with tens of thousands of items of evidence that could prove or disprove the allegation.
|>>|| No. 19191
>it could be a location log showing that they were in different places at the time of the alleged assault
I think it's safe to say I am not the only person who is greatly uncomfortable with that thought. The only way to obtain such a location log is to store that data before a crime was even committed in the first place that a person may have been involved in. So effectively you are going to have to log the location of every single person in the country continuously, criminal or no, and what you are doing with that is you're weakening the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy.
In a free country, I maintain that it simply isn't any of the government's business to either know my current whereabouts at all times or keep a continuous log of where I have been. If somebody becomes a prime suspect in a crime, then that's a different thing altogether and it's arguably in the public's interest to monitor that person to find out if they are dirty. But to keep an eye on every law-abiding average citizen like that isn't the surveillance state, it's looking at the surveillance state in the rear view mirror.
|>>|| No. 19192
Most people's phones store that data by default, whether they realise it or not. We don't need a centralised database to get that data, just a USB cable and the right software. That's part of the reason why drug dealers prefer old Nokias to smartphones - the very things that make smartphones smart also make them a massive hoard of evidence.
RIPA gives the police the right to extract that data on a suspect's device (and to charge you with an offence if you refuse to unlock your device). I disagree with that, but it is currently the law of the land. If that evidence can be used by the prosecution, then it must also be available to the defence.
|>>|| No. 19194
I can't quite remember how, but I believe I deactivated location logging when I got my Samsung S9 a while ago.
|>>|| No. 19196
I've got bad news for you mate. Do you remember the wierd Orwellian streak our government had ten years or so back, wanting ID cards and cameras everywhere? Why do you think they dropped it? Google helpfully stepped in to do it for them.
|>>|| No. 19198
>I think it's safe to say I am not the only person who is greatly uncomfortable with that thought. The only way to obtain such a location log is to store that data before a crime was even committed in the first place that a person may have been involved in.
Do yourself a favour, log into your google account on https://www.google.co.uk/maps/timeline
I'm sure Apple has their own equivalent.
|>>|| No. 19201
It tells me that the timeline feature is deactivated on my phone. And then when I activate it, it tells me that there is no timeline data for my device.
I also normally keep GPS switched off. This causes issues with apps that refuse to function without GPS location data, but it's a small price to pay.
|>>|| No. 19204
Send a FOI request to Google.
They know, mate. They don't need your permission or your GPS turned on, that information can be obtained by the cross-reference of dozens of other sources, and that's exactly what the algorithms do.
|>>|| No. 19205
Well, good. But my point is that most people have it on.
Despite being a privacy nutjob myself I do actually see the appeal in that feature, in a weird way. It'd be nice to look back on your trips and adventures in that way. Mine would have loads of dots all over the place. But mine's disabled too, obviously.
|>>|| No. 19206
A friend who likes to go on all kinds of holidays to remote places in Asia says he always makes sure he geotags all his pictures on his phone and stand alone camera. I'm not sure that's necessary to remember all the places you have visited. All the major landmarks you photograph can be looked up quickly online, and I don't see the point of knowing within a few feet the exact location where you took a photo of a sleeping elephant or a nondescript river bank out in the jungle.
|>>|| No. 19212
I think the thing I don't get about the location history thing, is that for most people it would just be a depressing circuit between home, their workplace, and their supermarket. Even as someone who likes to travel and go hiking and so on, probably 95% of my time is spent between those three places. Even if you think of yourself as pretty adventurous, in the grand scheme of things you're probably not as much as you think- The deviations to new locations are going to be a tiny fraction compared to the time you spend between your workplace and at home.
|>>|| No. 19213
Google Assistant can still do some useful stuff with that data. It can warn you that you need to leave for work early because of traffic. You can say "Hey Google, remind me to buy bin bags when I'm at the supermarket" and it'll do that. If you've got a Nest thermostat, it can automatically turn your heating on when you leave work so it'll be warm by the time you get home. If you ask "Hey Google, do I need an umbrella today?" it'll check the weather for both your current location and your expected locations later in the day.
That's the quid pro quo - it'll do some slightly convenient things if you hand over all of your personal information. The sales figures for Google Home and Amazon Echo suggest that it's quite a popular tradeoff.
|>>|| No. 19215
>It can warn you that you need to leave for work early because of traffic.
If you've worked at your job any length of time, you will know to allow an extra 20 minutes a day because traffic can be dense every other day where you need to go.
>If you've got a Nest thermostat, it can automatically turn your heating on when you leave work so it'll be warm by the time you get home.
The horror of sitting in an unheated flat for 20 minutes after you come home.
>"Hey Google, do I need an umbrella today?" it'll check the weather for both your current location and your expected locations later in the day.
You could just look out the window, or ask weather.com. Or invest in one of those miniature umbrellas that fit in a briefcase.
Honestly, today's generation is doomed. If you put a bunch of them in the desert for a week without all their electronic gadgets, none of them would survive. Even if you provide enough food and water.
|>>|| No. 19221
There's a difference between taking advantage of convenient technology and being completely reliant on it. I don't think there's anyone in the world who couldnt find put if they need a brolly if Alexa hadnt told them.
|>>|| No. 19222
>Honestly, today's generation is doomed. If you put a bunch of them in the desert for a week without all their electronic gadgets, none of them would survive. Even if you provide enough food and water.
They've been saying that for centuries, what makes it true this time?
|>>|| No. 19223
In the past people have learned to take a lot of things for granted, people generally don't know how to do manual tasks like start a fire, or skin a rabbit, but most people are more than capable of learning with a bit of effort.
What concerns me about the current direction technology has moved in, is that people are getting used to now having to think for themselves, they don't know how to learn.
|>>|| No. 19224
I assume we're contemporaries and I'd just like to ask that you don't post shitty 4chan memes when speaking on behalf of all of us.
|>>|| No. 19225
Arguably it's true now and always has been. You'd die of exposure in a desert even if you had food and water.
|>>|| No. 19228
Nah, mate, my nan, right, she could could just make a Jabba the Hut skiff out of empty water bottles and used Kendall Mint cake wrappers. That's how she escaped the Krauts during the war. Me? I'm not even sure which war she was on about. Penisular I think, but it's anyone's guess the way her mind's gone.
|>>|| No. 19229
>they don't know how to learn
Are you on crack?
I know how to wire my house up, I know how to tear apart and rebuild an engine, I know how to survive in the wilderness, I know how to build a shed, and I learned all of this by googling it. When you search "how to top up my oil" it doesn't do it for you, it tells you how to do it, then you do it. It's utterly incomprehensible to me that people think the entire wealth of human knowledge being available at all times to everyone with a phone or computer is somehow detrimental to learning. Asking Alexa what the weather like is no different to looking it up on teletext or watching whatshisface run around on that floating map - it's just faster.
I'll concede I'm worse at spelling now that autocorrect exists, mind.
|>>|| No. 19233
My nan can't reliably play a DVD without accidentally turning on the Danish subtitles or the director's commentary. My mum doesn't know how to use keyboard shortcuts in Word, despite the fact that she's used Word all day every day for the last 20 years. When I used to work in an office, the older workers looked at me like I was a wizard because I could unjam the printer and use Pivot Tables in Excel.
Everyone over 50 is thick as mince. Most people under 50 are also thick as mince, but at least some of them aren't completely bewildered by any technology more advanced than a Bic Biro.
|>>|| No. 19236
My mum mentioned off hand in a conversation with me that she needed a new car because hers didn't have enough power and she was struggling to make gaps in roundabouts etc because it was so slow. It's a 1.6 Micra so it should be nippy enough, so I went to have a look at it, assuming the brakes were binding or the engine was knackered. It seemed fine to me, and after a while, and many questions, I finally worked out that the issue was that she wasn't pressing the accelerator pedal down far enough.
I don't understand how people are like this. She's genuinely quite a practical woman, but when it comes to something she decides is 'too complicated' then there's immediately a barrier there. She never even considered trying to change the way she was driving.
It's the same story with computers, and I see it in my grandad too. He's the sort of bloke who takes something apart just to see how it works, yet refuses to do even a fraction of the same thing inside Windows. I've told him many times that's how I learned - I tried stuff out. Back in those days it was easier to knack something (I did manage to format a hard drive via BIOS) but now, I reckon even if you tried to break Windows entirely you'd have a hard job without disabling all of the automatic protection. But I think they just decide that they simply can't ever learn it. I just don't get it. If I shoved my modular synth in front of him he'd suss out exactly how it worked within an hour or so, but just can't even begin to try to work out how to log in to his Barclays account online.
Honestly, the older generation is doomed. If they can't even work out how to ask Alexa where the nearest McDonalds is, how are they going to fend off the scammers after their pensions?
|>>|| No. 19237
I guess in the end, it's all about adaptation to your contemporary environment. In today's world as a functioning adult, you simply aren't viable if you don't know how to use a mobile phone or a number of other electronic devices and gadgets. And people past a certain age who aren't digital natives just struggle to keep up.
But if you with your smartphone and your Alexa pod were transported back to a farmstead in the 1600s where you had to be self sufficient and know how to do such things as sow wheat so you would have food over the winter, or fix a broken cartwheel on your own without which you couldn't take your other produce to the town market to earn a few shillings, or if you didn't know what herbs to collect if you had stomach problems (and avoid the ones that are poisonous while doing so), you would be dead in the water.
I read an article some time ago about the "Mediaeval" scene, you know, where people's idea of weekend fun is to dress in chain mail, wield swords, drink mead from cow horns and attempt to speak Middle English. They asked a historian whose area of expertise was actually the English Middle Ages, and that historian said that the overwhelming majority of them wouldn't survive more than a few days if they were actually teleported back to that period.
Serves them right. Tossers.
|>>|| No. 19239
We don't live in the 1600s though, we live in 2019. Those people from the 1600s would be totally fucked if they were transported to paleolithic Africa, because they wouldn't recognise any of the flora and fauna and wouldn't know how to knap flint tools or start a fire without a steel.
If for some reason I desperately needed a stone axe, I could learn how to make one in about an hour on YouTube. Same story if I need to mend an 18th century sewing machine or build a blacksmith's forge. The whole point of modernity is that we don't all need to know the most primitive skills of survival - we each specialise in something to collectively facilitate a far better standard of life. Old people are highly adapted to a world that doesn't exist any more and don't have the willingness or the cognitive flexibility to adapt.
IMO the most important skill in the modern world is knowing how to learn. I don't actually know much about computers, but I know how to type error messages into Google, which usually amounts to the same thing. I've never owned an iPhone, but I fix them for other people all the time, just because I'm better at Googling than them and have a vague conceptual model of how a computing device works.
My nan is worse at using a computer than my five-year-old nephew, not because of a difference in knowledge, but a difference in attitude. My nan won't touch anything unless she has been given explicit instructions on exactly what to do and she has no idea how to react if those instructions don't work, whereas my nephew will just have a go and see what happens.
|>>|| No. 19242
I think the Internet has really become a game changer in terms of the acquisition of specialist knowledge. 30 years ago, if you wanted to know how to fix electronics, sure, there were a handful of books on DIY electronics that taught you how to solder in a capacitor or what transistors and LEDs were best suited for a particular project. But it generally couldn't replace professional training as an electronic technician. Nowadays, the same can't necessarily be said anymore. You've got DIYers on youtube who never had any professional training in that field, but who have amassed a wealth of knowledge via online resources that almost matches what you learn during a technical apprenticeship.
|>>|| No. 19254
>If for some reason I desperately needed a stone axe, I could learn how to make one in about an hour on YouTube
They had youtube in paleolithic Africa?
>The whole point of modernity is that we don't all need to know the most primitive skills of survival
But that's exactly what makes us vulnerable. Many of us only know how to exist and survive in the kind of environment that Western civilisation provides today. If you're hungry, you go to a shop and get something to eat. Or to drink. If you need to travel a bit further afield, you get on a bus or train. Nobody has to walk three hours to get to the other side of town unless they really want to.
The question is, if that narrow band of favourable conditions that civilisation provides for the individual is ever really upset or breaks down, will most people be able to fend for themselves without all their little tech helpers and without all the infrastructure.
It would indeed be a good test to put a handful of people in the desert for a while or on a remote island to see what they are really made of. And I guess for that reason, I actually like shows like The Island With Bear Grylls. Let's leave aside the allegations of scripted reality and fakery for a moment and look at the concept itself. It takes people out of their comfort zone, and confronts them with a world where if you don't know how to make fire by rubbing pieces of wood together and you don't succeed at hunting and killing some wildlife, you simply won't eat. The show still provides a controlled environment where people can be flown out swiftly if they break their foot or are undernourished or dehydrated and where there is always a doctor in the group who has a few medical supplies on hand. But without any of that, you would see pretty quickly who really has what it takes to be a survivor regardless of the environment.
|>>|| No. 19260
Over the last few years my mum's taught herself to "upcycle" funiture to the point that she's begun selling it commercially, but I still have to show her how to take a screenshot on her laptop. I just don't understand the disconnect some people have, maybe it's like being colour blind or something?
|>>|| No. 19267
> The only way to obtain such a location log is to store that data before a crime was even committed in the first place
It's happening already. Data retention laws have been in place for a long time, in many countries.
Not to mention marketing departments who also love this kind of snooping.
|>>|| No. 19268
GDPR has taken care of marketing departments - the big holes are around advertising technology, where it is currently almost impossible to control your own data, and social networks, obviously, where people accidentally/willingly hand over enough information to create such detailed logs of preferences and movement.
|>>|| No. 19272
Europe maybe. Septics still have it up their collective arse. Don't even mention PRC and Russia.
And even with GDPR there's still the whole load of security apparatuses that have clearly shown they're still onto total informational awareness, the only difference being how blatant they are about it.
I can really feel that old Chinese curse now.
|>>|| No. 19273
Part of the reasons the Americans have to put up with it is that big business likes to maintain the illusion of freedom, and the fictions that restrictions on them would Stifle Innovation™ and that they're just a manifestation of the American Dream™. Also, apparently having rules is Communism™.
|>>|| No. 19281
That's about the size of it. People in the U.S. will defend a major corporation's freedom of speech even if that corporation then abuses that freedom of speech to fuck them in the arse worse than Louie Spence on a cocaine binge.
And it's coincidentally the same with free enterprise. Even the most dirt poor white trash redneck in a run-down trailer park will sing praise to American free enterprise, even if he himself will never in a million years see a single dime of profit from it for himself.
In that respect, you almost have to admire the degree of delusion that a lot of Americans have been brainwashed into.
|>>|| No. 19282
Semi-related, but I realised recently just how bad it is for that lot to be in direct control of all the world's most massive internet companies. I wonder if Alphabet or Disney will win the final war between men.
|>>|| No. 19283
The bigger worry is going to be net neutrality. The Republicans under Trump have seriously endangered it. If the major media corporations in the U.S. had their way, you would get "media packages" with your subscription to an Internet service that would block out smaller and independent news and media web sites that compete with the likes of Time Warner or News Corporation. You would then only be able to read news and information provided by the major media outlets that you have booked with your Internet service subscription.
This would greatly affect the poor, because the most affordable packages would only come with access to a handful of news sites, while you would have to pay a lot extra for full access to all of the Internet. And being that poor people already tend to be undereducated, it would only mean that they would be particularly susceptible to certain types of media propaganda.
|>>|| No. 19284
Russia has been acting up recently with its website blocking shite. Looking at your picture I think I vaguely get how they might implement whitelisting.
Sage for veering too far into the East.
|>>|| No. 19288
That almost certainly isn't how an absence of net neutrality will work in the US at all. But since you and the tech companies who made up that idea are on the 'right side' I'm not going to poo poo you too much.
All I'm going to say is you probably didn't mind when the mobile shops on the highstreet were offering unlimited pokemon go data.
|>>|| No. 19301
That graph has literally nothing to do with what was claimed. There is a difference so obvious I shouldn't have to explain between throttling content speed, and blocking it and either only supplying preferred partners or charging a premium to let the content through at all.
I don't know honestly how you can prove exactly what you just quoted correct whilst claiming the opposite. Why are you so insecure about someone saying you are wrong?
|>>|| No. 19302
Exactly. Throttling isn't blocking. Throttling is just the inconvenience of content not loading fast enough, blocking is, well, blocking. Even if it's just so you will fork over additional money to have something unblocked.
|>>|| No. 19306
They weren't even throttling, they just had inadequate network capacity. The speed went up because Netflix did a deal with Comcast to create direct links between their networks, bypassing Comcast's overloaded links to the wider internet. Netflix complained because Comcast charged them for these private links, but content distribution networks like Akamai and CloudFlare were already paying for similar arrangements. Everything was slow on Comcast, but Netflix wanted a special first-class service and didn't want to pay for it.
|>>|| No. 19307
>Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and AT&T have all refused to hook their data centers up to Netflix's servers without payment from the video streaming service.
There are two ways to get your network hooked up to another. This arrangement of getting direct links to exchange traffic is called peering. The other network agrees to carry your traffic in return for you carrying theirs. The other way to do it is transit, where you pay the other network to carry your traffic. Comcast basically demanded an arrangement where they got to act like peers but Netflix still paid for transit. Throw in that Comcast owns NBC and Hulu and the motivations become a little clearer. An awful lot of backsliding on the internet has come about from consolidation between comms and media, and the inherent conflicts of interest that come with it.
|>>|| No. 19311
The argument was that peering with Netflix isn't a traditional peering arrangement, because the traffic flow is effectively unidirectional. They're not joining up two networks for their mutual benefit, they're building an express lane for a massive data hog. We can debate the merits of that argument, but it isn't prima facie wrong.
|>>|| No. 19315
>They're not joining up two networks for their mutual benefit
How is it not to Comcast's benefit to provide their customers with a better connection to a service that evidently a significant number of them make significant use of?
|>>|| No. 20154
I wonder how much of that is daft internet culture leaking. #metoo inspired a lot of people to a logic that if they weren't 100% satisfied with a past sexual experience and decision they made it was rape, and that they should come forward and that would be recorded. I'm not saying #metoo was bad just that there are people who would act off of it, like with all social phenomena, like idiots.
Why actual rapes convictions are down is anyones guess? Maybe they finally caught all of the celebrity and muslamic ray guns? Maybe they spent too much time investigating all the more spurious claims to handle to work on the more solid cases?
Maybe as always there has been changes in the way the statistics are collected?
|>>|| No. 20155
I'm not sure how #metoo qualifies as "daft internet culture" and everything else you claim sounds like knee jerk nonsense and doesn't have any substance to it.
What I do know is that the CPS has had its budget slashed by about a quarter since the Conservatives rocked up ten years ago, there's a noticable decline in convictions beginning months prior to #metoo and your claim they "finally caught all of the celebrty and muslamic ray guns" doesn't really make sense give that complaints are still increasing while convictions fall. It is worth mentioing that convictions for rape were at record highs by the end of 2016, but that trash Daily Mail chart doesn't go far enough back to properly to say how unusual that could have been and this necessarily explain the complete reversal of fortunes the CPS is suffering. None of this is an answer, but that's rather my point, we don't know what's going on, but saying "girls are stupid liars" like you, at the very least, heavily implied is a really bone headed way of looking at things and if I was your dad I'd take away your wifi privileges for the rest of the weekend.
Hey, look, some sources!
|>>|| No. 20156
>and if I was your dad I'd take away your wifi privileges for the rest of the weekend.
If I was his mum I'd be campaigning for post-natal abortion.
|>>|| No. 20157
> #metoo inspired a lot of people to a logic that if they weren't 100% satisfied with a past sexual experience and decision they made it was rape, and that they should come forward and that would be recorded.
Pretty much this. Having second thoughts about the sex you agreed to have the night before should never treated the same way as somebody falling victim to actual forcible rape against their will.
Adult life means you have to live with your poor decisions and their consequences, and that must include sex that was consensual as far as you were concerned during the actual act, even if you later wish you hadn't had it.
So my guess is the rise in rape complaints is indeed owed in part to women, but maybe also a few men, who regretted having had consensual sex with someone. And because the law still mandates that a punishable offence can only have occurred if the sex wasn't legally consensual at the time, I can see why some rape accusations will then be dismissed.
Also, the principle of legal certainty requires that an average, reasonable person will be able to tell where legally permissible behaviour ends, and where punishable criminal offences as mandated by a law begin. And if you then engage in consensual sex with another person where neither the circumstances nor the person's behaviour at the time of the act give you reason to believe that you are about to commit a punishable offence, the principle of legal certainty is violated if that person is then free to change their mind about the act's consensuality the next day. Because as a result, you will have no way of establishing with reasonable certainty if your behaviour that you are about to engage in will eventually be deemed criminally punishable or not.
|>>|| No. 20159
Your knee is jerking so hard that I'm not even sure you were able to finish reading the post you are replying to.
|>>|| No. 20160
>but maybe also a few men
Your ignorance on the subject at hand is apparent all the way through your post, but nowhere more so than here. Rape, in the UK, is defined as forcible penetration of a vagina by a penis. I doubt the FtM population of Britain is skewing the results all that much. You're chatting so much shit, it's embarrassing.
Brilliant. Do you mean the bit where he says "maybe they're collecting the results differently", but does nothing to clarify if that's true?
|>>|| No. 20161
What? Are you saying that under UK law there's no such them as female on male rape?
|>>|| No. 20162
There are laws covering incidents of that nature of course, but such circumstances would not called "rape", no. Although I've a feeling you knew this already, ChronicMasturbaterLad.
|>>|| No. 20163
I'm not otherlad, no. What do they call it when a female forcibly has non-consensual sex with a male, then, Lawyerlad?
|>>|| No. 20165
Let us not forget it is a known point that at least 12% of rapes are immediately concluded to be false accusations by virtue of impossibility by the police recording them as such the actual numbers are obviously higher but that is an unknown factor as it is anywhere between that and the conviction rate that aren't later overturned. But the anecdotal evidence from police is that it is about half, no one wants to be the arsehole who records a rape as a false accusation though.
Obviously proving a rape beyond reasonable doubt is very hard paticularly when it comes down to one persons word against another it is very likely then a lot of cases fail too. The real statistics for the rise are as yet unknown but if it a influx of historical date rape cases there is often very little that can be done. We will have to wait for in depth analysis to find out what this really means. I certainly know for person anecdote that the number of cases that the CPS handles where it turns out that the person regretted their decision later has gone up. Obviously you are right the CPS is a bit of an underfunded shambles at the moment and it is very possible that the hard to prove cases of which most rapes are, are the ones that suffer the most.
|>>|| No. 20166
Not him, but yes and no.
Rape is specifically the offence committed when a person penetrates the mouth, vagina or anus or another with their own penis, and thus can only be committed by a man or a transwoman. There is an offence of "assault by penetration" which applies to any other form of penetration, which carries a life sentence. There is also an offence of "causing sexual activity without consent" which also carries a life sentence when it involves penetration.
A woman forcibly riding your cock "isn't rape" the same way a joyrider nicking your car "isn't theft".
|>>|| No. 20167
I know someone who was raped by a fat lass. A lot of people didn't believe him because they said it couldn't be rape if he got hard, but I drunkenly fell through the door and saw it happening.
|>>|| No. 20170
He was pathetically whimpering for her to get off him. Once she was rumbled she shamefully slid off his cock and then left the party. I'll never forget the look of shame on her face.
|>>|| No. 20171
So a man can't rape another man in the anus then?
>Your ignorance on the subject at hand is apparent all the way through your post
Show me where I was being ignorant, and didn't state a fair and reasonable opinion adhering to the law as it is.
|>>|| No. 20172
> the same way a joyrider nicking your car "isn't theft".
> nicking your car "isn't theft".
Think about that again for a moment, lad.
|>>|| No. 20174
So if a bird sodomises someone with a strap-on, it's not rape? If a bloke bum fucks you, it's not rape?
Blimey, you learn something new every day. I think we need a hashtag to sort this injustice out.
|>>|| No. 20176
>Blimey, you learn something new every day
With the exception of the lads who make all those bold claims in the first place.
|>>|| No. 20177
It should be noted that my post was intended to express shock and surprise, not disagreement or smart-arsery.
Not sure what claims you're on about.
|>>|| No. 26955
Downing Street plans rape prosecution targets for police and CPS
Downing Street is planning a controversial intervention to reverse the record decline in rape prosecutions by imposing targets on police and prosecutors, the Guardian has learned.
In a highly unusual move, the prime minister’s crime and justice taskforce is planning to set targets for police to refer more high-quality rape cases to the Crown Prosecution Service and for the CPS to prosecute and bring more rape cases to trial.
The article mentions that rape prosecutions have fallen to an all-time low but conviction rates are at an all-time high.
|>>|| No. 26962
The statistics are absolutely appalling though - too many people get away with it.
|>>|| No. 26963
It doesn't feel like the right way to go about things is to make large cuts to the prosecution service and then set them targets because you're unhappy with negative press resulting from the outcome of said cuts.
|>>|| No. 26965
Nothing good has ever come of target setting, for any service, industry or trade, in the history of anything. With the possible exception of sales, and even then only debatably, it is a flat out ineffective management technique that only encourages sacrificing the quality of work.
Applied to the concept of justice it's nothing short of dangerous.
|>>|| No. 26966
>Nothing good has ever come of target setting
Dear oh dear. Do you work in the NHS?
|>>|| No. 26970
>Applied to the concept of justice it's nothing short of dangerous
Agreed. How can it not invite questionable practices by law enforcement. There is such a thing as overpolicing, you know. And setting targets or quotas very plainly encourages it.
|>>|| No. 26977
Police quotas/targets are indeed quite concerning. IT pre-supposes that there is a certain amount of crime but the current policing efforts somehow don't catch them. It's really some middle-management level of bullshit. If a police force makes no arrests in a quarter, that ought to be celebrated.
It's applying sales tactics to human problems and it falls flat on its face in achieving its supposed goal. Instead of encouraging police to be a local (dubious, if you like) friend, it makes them beholden to corporate goals and removes all judgement. It treats a community like a business opportunity, and where that ends we can already see in Some Country.
Policing is not a business. It should not be run like a business. It will not be made more efficient by being run like a business. A policeman is essentially a social worker, who knows their beat, who is allowed to use force an allowed to call in mates to help. Quotas alienate people from talking to the police because you never know if they are trying to help or if they're trying to tick a box.
Thankfully, the UK Police is of the helpful mindset. But this can change and it would be really quite scary to live in a world where stop-and-search is not just common but the norm.
|>>|| No. 26978
>Thankfully, the UK Police is of the helpful mindset. But this can change and it would be really quite scary to live in a world where stop-and-search is not just common but the norm.
We're way past that already. It's less obvious if you're white, but it's happening and spreading.
|>>|| No. 26979
You are right in the sense that, particularly in London and other major urban centres, the police force is already quite disconcerting. There used to be a joke, that:
> Heaven is where the police are British, the cooks are French, the mechanics German, the lovers Italian, and it's all organised by the Swiss.
Where beat police still exist this might hold up, but elsewhere this has lost its reputation.
|>>|| No. 26980
>We're way past that already.
Agreed - even as a white person you only have to encounter the Met once to find they're not the kindly beat bobbies of yore.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]