Life-threatening flaw in phone system
Someone had a great idea. Lets have a phone system that requires mains power to run. Wait, hang on, what happens if there is a power cut and we need emergency services? Oh yeah, what would happen? I know, we can use semaphore (is that how its spelt?), what about smoke signals? Interesting. You'd think they had they muns to hire someone who would've thought of that. Can't believe all those high powered minds didn't have
this covered.
Labels: emergency services, government, resposibility, telco
big brother ethos
it's happening, and it seems that our (the people) permission is not required (until voting day). first we have had mp's trying to tell us how we raise our children. the fact that 80% of kiwis do not agree means nothing. now we have govt departments putting
spyware on our doctors computer systems to gain information without our permission. never mind doctor/patient confidentiality. i can (just) live with the cameras around trouble spots to help with crime, but it is now going way overboard. i guess we'll have to wait until the elections to make our opinions known. they (the govt) won't pay any attention until then.
Labels: abuse, allegations, anti-smacking bill, consequences, government, privacy, spyware
choice, what choice?
it is with interest that i note the police legal opinion that the comments made on cyfswatch-nz were not illegal. yet cyfswatch-nz has been taken down. as i said earlier. having a govt out of control, imposing things on it's people that 80% have stated they do not want, is dangerous. did they (cyfswatch) upset google, who pulled them down? or was it governmental pressure? mmm, i wonder?
of course the main question still remains. "does what we do regarding the discipline of our children work?"
Labels: anti-smacking, cyfs watch nz, government, sue bradford
sue bradford's bill
in answer to the comment on the previous post, i believe that having a govt that ignores what it's people are saying because it "knows better" is a dangerous thing. i thought that their task was to represent their constituents. an 80% disagreement factor should cause concern in terms of their (govt) direction. if they (the govt) are to continue misrepresenting what we as a people want, should they hold those positions in terms of policy making in aotearoa? whatever is the right direction regarding the right to smack, the first question is to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask, "is our current culture working?" then we need to ask "why?"
i was interested to read that sue feels as if she has been threatened by a
post written on cyfswatch nz. i read the post. it did not strike me as an actual threat, more of an, i think that she needs this to happen (a punch in the face, followed by a smack on the butt) so that she could tell the difference between each course of action. there was a comment re assassination that was not cool. as usual, we are frowned upon for disagreeing with the power state.
interestingly enough, i just went to look at what was being said on cyfswatch, the site is down. govt censor-ship strikes? are we free? are we allowed to say what we think even if we do not agree with the govt? looks like we are not!
Labels: anti-smacking, cyfs watch nz, government, sue bradford
another governmental cock-up
i can only agree with tom scot. our govt are a bunch of idiots.
Labels: government, tom scot
cyfs watch nz (the fight continues)
the current fight between cyfs watch nz and the government is really interesting. especially after the polls that were done that clearly express kiwis desire for cyfs watch to stay up and running at this point. i have the feeling that it might not be a good idea for the government to bully them off the net. cyfs watch has named 42 (cyfs) staff members. once again, i am torn between accountability (for both sides) and privacy issues. it smacks of the same stuff that made rate your teacher.com so lacking in taste. but, there is the issue of freedom. we in nz are supposed to be free, aren't we?
the government is currently trying to get google to remove the site. google are not (seemingly) convinced that cyfs watch are breaking their rules. i think that the sooner the government institute some accountability for the way cyfs workers perform, the sooner this will go away, and they do want this embarrassment to depart. read this.
go here and make up your own mind. Labels: cyfs, cyfs watch nz, government, name and shame
