Apathy Sketchpad

Another batch of NewsBiscuit submissions. As ever, one above the fold, rest below it. These are rather old, so the topical ones obviously no longer qualify as such. I think they’re all from March: I’ve not been writing much of this stuff for weeks now, mostly due to business, not being in the mood, and various other distractions. (And let’s face it: nobody ever won a mug by writing two items a month.)

Microsoft running ’secret database program’ on millions of computers

There were fresh fears raised this week about online safety and privacy, as it emerged that software giant Microsoft had secretly installed a database program on millions of computers across the world, many in homes and businesses. The mysterious program, known only as ‘Access.exe’ is installed when the user first uses Microsoft Office, and hides among the regular components of Office. Although the program only came to light recently, it is thought that it may have been present on even early versions.

The program was found when Sarah Armstrong, a teacher in London, asked a friend for help with Excel and was shown the extra software hiding in the start menu. Immediately, she called other friends, who confirmed that they had ‘the Access program’ installed. Fearing the worst, she contacted Microsoft technical support and demanded to know why the program had been secretly installed on her computer. According to Armstrong, the support representative candidly told her ‘That’s our database program.’ Armstrong then asked ‘could you use Access to store people’s personal details and track their behaviour?’ and the representative said ‘yes’.

The Daily Express described the revelation as ‘just more evidence of what life is really like in Database Britain’. Microsoft has insisted that the public should not worry about Access, and that the program exists to help users control their own data, however when Armstrong contacted Microsoft demanding to see the information Access databases had about her, she was told that this was ‘impossible’.

Read the rest of this entry »

You know what I discovered today? Harriet Harman is apparently something called “Minister for Women and Equalities”. That, to me, represents a very clear conflict of interests. But that’s not whath I want to discuss. Apparently, she wants to ban prostitution.

I say no. I think that that would be conservatism for the sake of conservatism. If you want to stop people traffiking then do so directly, not by banning any industry the victims happen to work in. Tighten the borders. Start regulating sex workers instead of ignoring them. Do your damn jobs instead of applying short-sighted ad-hoc band-aid legislation to fix the nearest visible symptom.

Annoyingly, she seems to have some rather paltry level of public support (as if that’s any measure of the merit of an idea).

The Ipsos-Mori poll, conducted in July and August, showed that more than half of men and women (58%) support making it illegal to pay for sex if it will help reduce the numbers of women and children being trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation.

The research also found divergent attitudes between women and men. A clear majority of women found both paying for sex and selling it unacceptable (61% and 65% respectively), but men were much more equivocal, with just 42% and 40% respectively finding it unacceptable.

More than half of those questioned (60%) from both genders would feel ashamed if they found out a family member was working as a prostitute. But men were more likely to find it unacceptable for a female relative to sell sex, while being relaxed about a male relative paying for it.

This difference was most stark among men over 55, who were the most accepting of buying sex in general, but just 21% of whom thought it acceptable for a female relative to sell sex.

Young people were more likely than older people to find paying for sex and selling sex unacceptable (64% and 69% respectively).

I wouldn’t feel ashamed if I found out a family member was a prostitute. Why should I? I’d be disappointed: I rather hope they’re all sufficiently qualified and with it to get better jobs, but that’s no reason to be ashamed. I’d be ashamed if I found out they wrote for a tabloid newspaper but I can’t imagine Harman would use that as an excuse to ban them — and I reckon they’re far more damaging to society than any transaction between consenting adults.

I think banning any transaction between consenting adults, where no controlled goods or substances change hands, is a clear violation of our rights, particularly the right to privacy — how the hell is it any of Harriet Harman’s business how I get myself laid?

And I don’t believe I’m in the minority here. That’s why I like the idea of a constitution: it codifies values and forces laws to be properly thought through. Unless it’s a stupid one that lets everyone carry guns, obviously.