Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

[bovlomov]

I think the main point is that it's unusual to do anything to compromise the execution of a warrant and advance publicity seems bizarre to me. OTOH, I've no idea what procedures this particular toothless watchdoggy is required to follow.

Evidently, procedures more restrictive than for this case that you cite:

We used to have a regular where the woman used to invite her ex for a reconciliation, then call the police to arrest him for a breach of the order...

I'm imagining Liz Taylor and Richard Burton.

Anyway...

My only personal experience of requiring a judge outside court hours was under matrimonial violence legislation, which required anybody arrested for breach of a Crown Court order to be brought before a judge within 24 hours rather than the next available court.

Excuse my ignorance, but it seems to me that court orders always carry more weight than the law in general. I mean, it was (is?) the same with ASBOs - harassment (for example) being treated less seriously than the breaching of an ASBO forbidding the same. That's not the Crown Court.

[thirdcrank]

... Excuse my ignorance, but it seems to me that court orders always carry more weight than the law in general. I mean, it was (is?) the same with ASBOs - harassment (for example) being treated less seriously than the breaching of an ASBO forbidding the same. That's not the Crown Court.

I know nothing about ASBO's other than what I've read AFAIK, they are a way of getting round the strict evidential requirements of the criminal law. To some extent they were a replacement for the long-standing power to bind over, which had limited statutory basis.

The most common court orders to the police are warrants of different types - mostly arrest warrants - are very specific in their own way. In the days of locally organised magistrates' courts, a Leeds arrest warrant would begin "To each and every one of the Constables of the City of Leeds, you are hereby ordered to arrest and detain ...." A Crown Court arrest warrant began "All constables are ordered ....."

Not all court orders about matrimonial matters include a power of arrest and for much of my career many did not. It caused problems, including among people who should have known better. (Complicated issue.)

When I worked in the police cells under the courts in the Town Hall, among other things we updated the locally-held conviction card index. We used to extract Crown Court convictions from photocopies of their paperwork. One unusual document I saw was a writ from the Attorney General. "To xxxxx Esq QC, counsel for The Crown in the case of Regina against XXXXXXX. Let nolle prosequi be entered, and this shall be your warrant. (personally signed) xxxxx Her Majesty's Attorney General in England and Wales. (That's a long-winded but polite way of saying drop the case.)

Warrants are truly a complicated subject but that's already too many anecdotes. My main point is that with a search warrant, you don't have a media release saying "Were coming to get you." .... 99, 100. Coming ready or not.

[bovlomov]

Warrants are truly a complicated subject but that's already too many anecdotes. My main point is that with a search warrant, you don't have a media release saying "Were coming to get you." .... 99, 100. Coming ready or not.

The ICO's remit expressly forbids it from catching anyone. It is, however, allowed to "voice concerns" and "make it clear it no uncertain terms".

By the way, the hearing was adjourned from Wednesday, and it took five hours. Mr Justice Leonard will explain his reasoning on Tuesday (but not explain the adjournment or the five hours, I'm guessing).

[cotterpins]

The other day, I completed an on-line application for something using the company's advertised form, which was there ready to complete. I didn't need to download it. I completed the form and then decided not to bother as it wasn't going to happen, so I cancelled the application using the delete button. Within a minute, I received a telephone call, from a what appeared a very young lady, enquiring about my application that I hadn't completed. Not being very 'puter literate, I learn't a lesson that day! . . . A secret shared . . . is not a secret!
I've had a few telephone scams tried on . . . Funnily enough when I tell them to send me a letter, they slam the phone down on me!
So I trust the internet about as much as I do phone calls from unknown people who are always going to make me a fortune or want donations for some obscure charity. Double-glazing . . . I'd be living in Crystal Palace, if I took notice of all the scammers! How many garages do they think I own?
All this of course is on top of all the charity mail shots and raffle tickets through the post!

[mercalia]

seems like the number of people affected is now 87 MILLION
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43649018

of which 1.1 milion are UK people

[mercalia]

The other day, I completed an on-line application for something using the company's advertised form, which was there ready to complete. I didn't need to download it. I completed the form and then decided not to bother as it wasn't going to happen, so I cancelled the application using the delete button. Within a minute, I received a telephone call, from a what appeared a very young lady, enquiring about my application that I hadn't completed. Not being very 'puter literate, I learn't a lesson that day! . . . A secret shared . . . is not a secret!
I've had a few telephone scams tried on . . . Funnily enough when I tell them to send me a letter, they slam the phone down on me!
So I trust the internet about as much as I do phone calls from unknown people who are always going to make me a fortune or want donations for some obscure charity. Double-glazing . . . I'd be living in Crystal Palace, if I took notice of all the scammers! How many garages do they think I own?
All this of course is on top of all the charity mail shots and raffle tickets through the post!

you should realise that there can scripts in web pages these days that can any way record the info you entered and send home even if you decide to delete the form and not proceed. The delete button is no guarantee that the horse has not already bolted

[cotterpins]

Thanks mercalia, what I deleted was of no consequence, but I'll bare that in mind for the future!

[mercalia]

any one here get an email ffrom Facebook telling them their data has been compromised? The bbc reported the 87m would be told one way or another by 5pm bst

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43698733

[mjr]

any one here get an email ffrom Facebook telling them their data has been compromised? The bbc reported the 87m would be told one way or another by 5pm bst

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43698733

No-one. Does anyone here know anyone who got the email? Do we think they were really sent? How many are languishing in spam filters?

[Pastychomper]

I woke up early this morning and logged into Facebook. Man, I feel dirty...

Anyway, I was presented with an updated privacy policy, with credit given to the EU. Among the new(ly admitted-to) features was the information that, for any device used to log in to Facebook, the company will collect names and usage information of any apps installed on the device, and the filenames of any files in the device's storage. (I'm pretty sure it included the files' locations - if not stated then I take it as implied.) Anyone who didn't agree to that part was invited to close their account.

I don't find it massively surprising but do think it's a bridge too far, and built over the wide chasm between public and private information. Besides, telling people specific paths and filenames on a computer used to be considered a security risk, and for all I know it still is.

However I note that FB didn't specifically require access to every file on every machine, nor that any particular information had to be available to them. So, I'll continue to use FB for now, but only log in from limited-use devices or from secure "sandboxes" such as virtual machines. No doubt Facebook's software will log this.

[mercalia]

well any one who is still a facebook user after reading this report is a fool?

"Facebook has moved more than 1.5 billion users out of reach of European privacy law, despite a promise from Mark Zuckerberg to apply the “spirit” of the legislation globally.

In a tweak to its terms and conditions, Facebook is shifting the responsibility for all users outside the US, Canada and the EU from its international HQ in Ireland to its main offices in California. It means that those users will now be on a site governed by US law rather than Irish law.

The move is due to come into effect shortly before General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force in Europe on 25 May. Facebook is liable under GDPR for fines of up to 4% of its global turnover – around $1.6bn – if it breaks the new data protection rules. "


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-moves-15bn-users-out-of-reach-of-new-european-privacy-law?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=272036&subid=7646217&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

[[XAP]Bob]

What they've done is to ensure people who aren't legally covered by the GDPR aren't legally covered by the GPDR.

It's hardly a surprising move.

[Cyril Haearn]

What they've done is to ensure people who aren't legally covered by the GDPR aren't legally covered by the GPDR.

It's hardly a surprising move.

Reminds me of the GDR/DDR, the secret spies collected enormous amounts of info but could never find anything quickly enough
Could be the same with farcebook, one might know everything but what use is that?
Does farcebook make money? Will it still exist in 5/10/25 years?

[661-Pete]

No apologies for the thread bump.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... r-comments
I think it's high time for every decent person on this planet to consider an all-out boycott.

[Cunobelin]

All summed up by Harold in "Person of Interest"

[youtube]oZfQymnABxQ[/youtube]