Upgrade

I don’t need a new laptop.
I don’t need a new laptop.
I don’t need a new laptop.

But look. It’s shiny, and black, and ultrathin, and cute, and $3,200, and .. and …

I don’t need a new laptop.
I don’t need a new laptop.
I don’t need a new laptop.

Scapegoat?

Both the Grauniad and the BBC are reporting today on the story that 200 people have been falsely recorded as being criminals by the Criminal Records Bureau. I’m not surprised – but for once, I don’t think it’s fair to lay this one entirely at the door of the CRB. From the BBC story

In some cases the names of those being vetted by the bureau were similar or identical to those of actual criminals.

In others, the criminals had given someone else’s personal details to the authorities to avoid a police record.

Now, OK, the first sentence there is pretty much down to the CRB, and the fact it should check more than just the names. In fact, it _does_ check more than just the names, so it’s really more attributable to staff selecting the first matching name, rather than checking properly. That’s a procedural error, and not particularly great.

However, the second sentence is far more relevant – criminals using someone else’s name when arrested/charged/whatever. That’s not down to the CRB – it’s the police forces with procedural errors. I’ve been arrested a couple of times over the years, and have never been asked for proof of my name – it would be all too easy to simply use someone else’s name. That’s a flaw within the police system – and it’s stupid, because it’s something that’s pretty easy to verify, short of someone having a full set of false ID. Even a simple check in a person’s wallet is likely to reveal what their name is – cashpoint cards, switch cards, work ID cards, if they don’t match the name you’ve given, then it’s definitely cause for suspicion.

In fact, the CRB seems to be becoming the scapegoat for things like this. Back in December, it was acknowledged that it was relying on information from other agencies, which isn’t always accurate, yet it still took the brunt of the blame for Ian Huntley passing his CRB check when again the blame was actually attributable to the police forces who hadn’t kept records on his arrests. If the records had been kept, it’s far more likely that the CRB would have picked up on it, and not allowed him the job in Soham.

Also, that “200 people in two months” is actually a pretty insignificant figure. The CRB has the capacity to deal with 50,000 Disclosure checks per week. 25 errors a week isn’t good – but it’s still only a quarter of one percent of the capacity. That’s an error rate I can live with – particularly considering that it’s run by Capita (or Crapita, as Private Eye calls them) who aren’t exactly renowned for the smooth running of their contracts. Even the CRB one is now £150million over budget, which is currently in the throes of being investigated.

National ID Cards

I’ve studiously avoided mentioning the UK National ID card scheme currently being proposed by Hitler and Goering Blair and Blunkett, mainly because I don’t currently feel the need to froth at the mouth. However, Bruce Schneier – a well known security consultant and cryptography specialist – has written a piece about ID Cards that pretty much sums up my feelings on it. I’ve been reading Schneier’s Cryptogram newsletter for about three years, and (as with the post three down) I don’t agree with all of his views, but I do find the majority of it interesting and thought-provoking.

Kitchen-geek

Now that‘s what I call a sink.

Want one.

Sneering

I may not agree with what you say.
But I shall fight to the death to defend your right to say it.

Note : This is very disjointed at the moment. I’ll edit it several times, I’m sure. I know what I want to say, I just haven’t figured the right words yet.

There seems to be a bit of a theme developing at the moment. Meg has gone off for a break, primarily because of the attentions of some fucktard comment-troll, and now Blue Witch is off for a break as well, following on from people thinking they know her, and feeling able to snipe behind her back on her opinions. Gordon wrote his views earlier this week, which I agree with too.

So far as I’m concerned, blogs, weblogs, and all that gubbins come under one heading – Personal Sites. The first word there is the important one. It’s personal. We all have different opinions, different thoughts, and differing ways of expressing them. If we all thought the same, weblogs and personal sites would never have taken off – at least half the joy of blogs etc is finding other people, appreciating their style of writing, seeing what they have to say about things. Sometimes they’re good for spotting things we’ve missed ourselves – more times than enough I’ve found myself looking at a site or a story I’d never normally read, purely because one of my regular reads has said “this is a really good/bad/whatever thing, and you should read it”. I probably wouldn’t have found half the sites on the blogroll if it weren’t for things like that. And that’s what this is all about. It’s personal views, and we either like them or we don’t.

In that context, a set of blogs is no different to a party, or a social gathering. It’s a load of different people expounding about different subjects in different ways. Sometimes we listen, and like what we hear. Other times we listen, and disagree. Sometimes we disagree so much that we walk away, leave that group, and find another one.

With blogs, however, there’s a slight difference. Instead of just walking away thinking “I don’t really agree with that”, some people seem to feel the need to dissect that, and to turn it into personal attacks. Fair enough, that’s free speech at work. But it cuts both ways – I’ve got the right to say what the fuck I want, in whatever way I want. And so have you. I try to let people have their say, and if it’s in a way I don’t like, then fair enough – it’s still their right to say it.

Free speech is such a double-edged sword. So many of us banter the concept about willy-nilly, but the perspective on free speech there is “I’ll say what I want, but you can’t criticise it”. That’s not free speech. I can’t remember who first used the quote at the top of this post – but it echoes my feelings on this subject completely.