Starmer's vision quest

[Ian H]

Afraid not. Not very secret. I refused to work on projects with military applications (there were not meant to be any anyway) - to the point where I stopped working on one project that was totally civilian research until a couple of people in military fatigues started attending project meetings without being introduced, no names given and contributed nothing said nothing ... at which point I said "no more for me".

But I am cautious about information on the internet as in unrelated job (also ultimately Government) I was given a data set listing individuals but "anonymised" (personally identifiable information removed) and told to try and identify the people ie use available information to break the anonymisation and it was surprisingly easy, even I was shocked. So it made me very aware of how too many snippets very quickly ends your online privacy. And the only people bothering to break that anonymity are people you really don't want to have your details.

Ian

Given that I don't stalk people, haven't (so far) threatened to murder anyone or even merely blackmail them, nor tried to scam anyone, and I'm not in the secret service (but then, I would say that, wouldn't I), I'm not that bothered about anonymity.

 

[Stevo 666]

Isn't it usual to quote sources when making such a bold statement?

It might be bold for people who don't

 

[Pblakeney]

I realised quite a few years ago that trying to maintain anonymity online is an exercise in futility.

 

[CXRAndy]

This is how you sort out London, shît hole it is

Decisive leader

View: https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1954586464865472695?t=PzHTe8tO4TCi6FgEGBCg5g&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

We already knew what the real costs were

'Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed'

 

[CXRAndy]

The merry-go-round continues


View: https://x.com/addicted2newz/status/1954435823400620235?t=ZEXIlVha0tg6qO5eYxsITg&s=19

 

[Stevo 666]

We already knew what the real costs were

'Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed'

£35 billion! Roughly the same amount as the tax hikes that Rachel From Accounts is planning to whack us with this autumn. If only Starmer had a spine...

 

[monkers]

£35 billion! Roughly the same amount as the tax hikes that Rachel From Accounts is planning to whack us with this autumn. If only Starmer had a spine...

If you had the chance to buy Windsor Castle for £50 000, would you buy it? That was the build cost. Would you expect to buy it today, at that price?

Would you buy a new 3 bedroom semi-detached house in London for £400? You would? That was the likely cost 100 years ago.

The right now cost of the Chagos Islands deal per year is £101million. That's about £3 per taxpayer per year which is about the same as tax on a gallon of petrol.

Tomorrow's Euromillions draw has a jackpot of £185 million.

Settle down. You can afford 6p per week?

While the Chagos Islands deal will cost the Treasury (I mean us taxpayers) £101 million per year, the subsidy on aviation fuel costs the taxpayer £7 billion per year.

If I was Rachel Reeves I'd introduce a frequent flyer levy. I'd tax aviation fuel for private jets and private helicopters and/or place a premium on landing fees.

And I'd tax wings - only right wings - obviously.

 

[CXRAndy]

Lefties love spending other people's money.

 

[Stevo 666]

Lefties love spending other people's money.

Until they run out of it...

 

[Pross]

Afraid not. Not very secret. I refused to work on projects with military applications (there were not meant to be any anyway) - to the point where I stopped working on one project that was totally civilian research until a couple of people in military fatigues started attending project meetings without being introduced, no names given and contributed nothing said nothing ... at which point I said "no more for me".

But I am cautious about information on the internet as in unrelated job (also ultimately Government) I was given a data set listing individuals but "anonymised" (personally identifiable information removed) and told to try and identify the people ie use available information to break the anonymisation and it was surprisingly easy, even I was shocked. So it made me very aware of how too many snippets very quickly ends your online privacy. And the only people bothering to break that anonymity are people you really don't want to have your details.

Ian

On this subject, I opened LinkedIn this morning and the first thing I saw was a post from a 'suggested' company I've never heard of, that isn't related to my own line of work and where no-one I know works. It was wishing an employee happy birthday for yesterday so they have given away a person's full name, date of birth (without the year) and where they work which would be pretty good starting points for anyone looking to get more data. I wonder if they asked him if he was happy for him to do this? If not it seems a bit of a GDPR breach. Likewise, I had a recruitment consultant recently sending my details out to companies without checking with me first - I only became aware when they got sent to a company run by an ex-colleague (it may actually turn out well for me and bady for the recruitment consultant but that's besides the point). I know a lot of people seem quite happy to openly give their life history on social media with no use of privacy filters but that's their choice, having someone else give out this information is very dodgy.

 

[Psamathe]

Given that I don't stalk people, haven't (so far) threatened to murder anyone or even merely blackmail them, nor tried to scam anyone, and I'm not in the secret service (but then, I would say that, wouldn't I), I'm not that bothered about anonymity.

I've always been very cautions but the need was particularly highlighted for me when a couple of years bac a very reputable company online store got "hacked" and for next 1+ years they were trying to scam me (card number had been changed so they were after the new card number), text and calls. They were not very good attempts, easily recognisable but in the end the calls because literally "This is your address <read me my real address> and we're going to come round and <obvious adjective> your daughter ...".

Just because you don't do these things and I doubt any registered members of this forum do, they are not the only people able to read and put together bits and pieces from here and other online sources ...

Ian

 

[Psamathe]

Re: Proscribed Organisations
I see Gov. is now starting "we can't tell you all the details about the proscribed organisation because of National Security" made me think how the public have lost confidence and belief in politicians. When I was younger "can't tell you 'cos of National Security secrets" would have been far more widely accepted but such is the loss of trust in our politicians, that they just are not believed any more many of the public no longer accept that there really are "good secret reasons" and instead think politicians are just telling them not to question, just do as they are told. And that's happened because so often politicians have used "just believe me, National Security" to cover up unjustified or even illegal things.

Ian

 

[Pblakeney]

I remember someone on BR going on about their anonymity. A 5 minute scroll through their posts on that singular site and I pretty much gave them their life story. They were most upset.

 

[Psamathe]

I remember someone on BR going on about their anonymity. A 5 minute scroll through their posts on that singular site and I pretty much gave them their life story. They were most upset.

It's a question of degree and balance. Along a continuous scale people chose where they are comfortable and undoubtedly everybody online fails - just a matter of how easy it is to collect those pieces and narrow things down and what sources of information you have available. Hackers have more information available than many browsing the internet which makes things easier for them.

I'm sure I fail at maintaining my anonymity but I hope I make it difficult for people meaning fewer will bother.

Ian