I’ve just been reading a very depressing article about the UK’s anti-human-rights laws being used to persecute an unfortunate schizophrenic man.

It’s a complicated story, but this individual has the distinction of being the first person convicted under the section of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) which makes it a criminal offence to fail to supply the police with decryption keys.

You can read the full item in The Register, [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/] but I can’t summarize better than to quote their first few paragraphs:

The part of RIPA concerning encryption is a “guilty until proven innocent” measure that actually makes it a crime to refuse to answer questions. However, it has never been used to prosecute terrorists, drug dealers or paedophiles.

THE MODERN DAY PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR

The modern day Private Investigator has an armoury of tools and resources at his disposal. Long gone are the days when a private detective would have to wear down his best pair of footwear in search of clues and having the need to speak to everyone that may be a possible witness, accomplice or accessory. Using his cunningness and sharp eye to detect even the finest of details in order to uncover clues within the case.

Today’s modern private eye has access to a plethora of resources, personal databases and information. All this data and information is only a few key strokes or clicks of a mouse away. Needless to say, it is still an acquired art, searching for people online, conducting surveillance without being compromised and detailing sensitive information about a subject that not even some members of his family were aware of.

However, access to this information does not provide a back bone to be unlawful and it is considered by many professional Private Investigators as improper practice, not to mention the fact that many overstep the mark and use certain information inappropriately or gain such information illegally.

There has and always will be stories of Investigators obtaining such information in an unlawful way, it is sad to say that these individuals are not professionals, they are scavengers, they are deceitful and obtain knowledge and information by way of impersonation. Fictitiously acting as officials from more well known organisations with authority perhaps, they will cunningly lure there victim into a false sense of security and obtain the information.
So, in today’s modern world of detective agencies and private investigators it is often misread what the legal parameters are and how far a professional private investigator can go before overstepping the mark and becoming unlawful in his actions.

Private Investigators are governed by numerous authorities such as the DPA (Data Protection Act 1998), RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory powers Act 2000), MOJ (Ministry Of Justice) and so forth. Though, this does not necessarily mean that they abide by the guidance, rules and regulations, however, most do.

Seagal Investigations are frequently asked if it is possible to obtain mobile phone records, such as, itemised billing statements for a mobile phone that belongs to another individual. The simple answer is “No, it is illegal” not to mention the very fact that it contravenes Data Protection Law and breach of an individual’s privacy. Other times we have been asked if we can obtain details of an individual’s bank statements, again, the simple answer is “No” and I am sure many of you can already fathomed out why!

There is some exceptions however, the information can be obtained by another individual, legally, with the express permission of the owner or account holder. The owner/account holder or registered keeper of the mobile phone for example must give written permission or power of attorney to such an individual to allow them access to such records. This should always been conducted in writing. Better still, it would be good advice to seek the assistance of a legal representative in such matters to eliminate any possible discrepancies at a later date.

Now, a Private Investigator does not have similar powers as, let’s say a Police Officer, though even a police officer is not allowed direct access to such sensitive and confidential information without a court order or a warrant from an issuing court. If they did, you can imagine the mayhem this could cause taking into consideration that a vast majority of Private Investigators are indeed ex-police officers that still retain contact with their old colleagues.

It is in the interest of a professional investigator to maintain the standards of the industry as set out by associations such as WAPI (World Association of Professional Investigators) and other respected organisations that provide a good solid working platform with specific codes of practice. It is always beneficial when searching out an investigator for the first time to note that they are indeed members of a credible association, this offers the client assurance that the company or investigator will operate within the confides of the law and indeed within the legal parameters laid down by legal governing bodies such as the DPA.

Whilst these associations can only provide a “working platform” in which its members are expected to abide by and provides a “Code of Conduct” in which to operate to, it does not offer a policing service. What is meant by that is that it cannot see what each individual is doing and therefore cannot monitor if the code of conduct is being adhered to. It will, however, terminate any such individual or organisation’s membership that are found to be operating outside of these strict rules and guidelines, the associations take discipline within the groups exceptionally seriously, in turn protecting the name of the association or body and those that it presents their services to.

There has, as many of us know, been much talk about the introduction of SIA (Security Industry Association) licensing for Private Investigators in the UK. This has drafted up many mixed opinions from existing long established Private Investigators and those that are newly established. Some say the introduction of licensing is much needed and will eradicate those individuals or organisations that choose to operate outside of what is considered or deemed professional practicing. Some say it is purely a funding exercise to fill the pockets of the people backing the scheme, either way it is open to numerous flaws and is fraught with its own individual problems. It has on numerous occasions been mentioned that the introduction to the licensing will not be a platform to “Police” the industry as unscrupulous characters can still operate freely until such a time that a method or policing style enforcement group is established to track down any offending individuals or organisations.

The introduction to the licensing is scheduled for 2011/2012. It is still unclear as to the exact date and this has changed over the last few months. It has been released though, that the requirement for licensing will entail each individual operating as a Private Investigator to undergo some form of academic test or exam. It is envisaged that the questions will be compiled by long established professionals within the industry as well as input from legal representatives, Police authorities and the DPA to name but a few. More…

So, is it a good idea to introduce licensing? Similar to that of Door Supervisors, Close Protection Officers and so forth? Quite frankly I believe from a personal point of view it is a good idea, however, there are many issues I too would like answered before I put both hands up. The financial cost of licensing is yet to be determined but let’s consider these few points.

For young companies that are establishing this could be an impending blow on their start up costs.
For established companies, this could also be a huge blow to an industry that is predominately operated via “one man bands”, thus, there is likely to be little or no budget for such a generous outlay. Some organisations may even have the need to borrow the finances in order to comply with the demands. It is envisaged that the costs could exceed £1,000.00 per license.

Justified? Not if your annual income only just about pays the bills!

From the Daily Mail 19/11/09 :

CCTV behind net curtains to spy on neighbours :

” Town Halls are installing cameras suburban homes to spy on the neighbourhood .
The Big Brother tactic -which is allowed under the anti-terrorist Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act- is being used by Croydon council in South London to catch those suspected of ‘ anti-social behaviour ‘.
The CCTV cameras are placed inside the house of a willing resident , but trained on the street .
Critics say the scheme has echoes of the East German Stasi secret police , which recruited members of the public as spies . “

Iniziamo oggi a ripercorrere le stagioni dell’era Della Valle, cominciando, naturalmente, dalla stagione 2002/2003 quella della “Rinascita” Viola…

Partite giocate:  38

Coppa Italia:  4 (1 pareggio e 3 sconfitte)

Campionato di C2: partite 34 (20 vinte, 10 pareggiate e 4 sconfitte)

Miglior goleador stagionale:  Riganò con 30 reti

Lenny Bruce died about 10 years before I was even born yet I still found him to be very inspiring and relevant. He came into my world around my high school graduation time, back when I was discovering artists, musicians and writers that were not handed to me by the main stream media. I was growing out of the Metallica and Iron Maiden heavy metal phase of my life and like most people around that time moved to the alternative scene, which you could say at the time became the generic corporate labeled “grunge” scene but it was a great launch pad for people. In my opinion most folks from the generation still to this day have a great taste in music and art. Along with the music also came a more thoughtful look into everything I found entertaining or thought provoking. I started to actually read more than just Far Side comics or true crime books and started to read “Naked Lunch’ or ‘Revolutionary Suicide’ or ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.’ And instead of ‘Police Academy’ and Ahhhnold movies I would dig up ‘200 Motels’ or ‘Mystery Train.’ And then I saw a movie starring Dustin Hoffman about a comedian who was more than just a guy on stage telling jokes. That movie was ‘Lenny.’

Now, I’ll spare you the biography on the guy, I always find it best for people to discover on their own at their leisure but to me he wasn’t hilarious per se, granted he was funny, but it was his social commentary. Lenny paved the way for free speech. Free speech is granted to us by the constitution but it is our duty to use it or else it will become harder to get away with it. Back in Lenny’s time, back in the “moral” post WWII generation, it wasn’t used and whoever did decide to use it paid a price.  Lenny Bruce used it and he paid the ultimate price. The arrests and trials and money broke him, financially and emotionally. He spoke of truths, he spoke of a way of life that was hidden from so called greatest generation. His routine was a biting satire of the world he saw, a world a lot of people saw, a world not everyone wanted to repeat. Today we hear him and we think nothing of it. You can say “cocksucker” on stage and no one would bat an eye. But back then, this got you arrested. But this was Lenny Bruce. Part of me thinks, like what the PMRC and the likes did to Jello Biafra and Alternative Tentacles back in the 80’s was to silence him by breaking him, financially and emotionally. Put them through trials and arrests and just wait for them to give up or die trying. But the best thing to remember him by was the way he did his act. I am pressed for time so I will post a quote from critic Albert Goldman on the liner notes of his 1961 Carnegie Hall Concert.

This was the moment that an obscure yet rapidly rising young comedian named Lenny Bruce chose to give one of the greatest performances of his career. … The performance contained in this album is that of a child of the jazz age. Lenny worshipped the gods of Spontaneity, Candor and Free Association. He fancied himself an oral jazzman. His ideal was to walk out there like Charlie Parker take that mike in his hand like a horn and blow, blow, blow everything that came into his head just as it came into his head with nothing censored, nothing translated, nothing mediated, until he was pure mind, pure head sending out brainwaves like radio waves into the heads of every man and woman seated in that vast hall. Sending, sending, sending, he would finally reach a point of clairvoyance where he was no longer a performer but rather a medium transmitting messages that just came to him from out there — from recall, fantasy, prophecy. A point at which, like the practitioners of automatic writing, his tongue would outrun his mind and he would be saying things he didn’t plan to say, things that surprised, delighted him, cracked him up — as if he were a spectator at his own performance!

So I was at my local liquor store and though I’ve seen this on the shelf before I didn’t quite realize what exactly was on the label. He’ Brew’s Bittersweet Lenny’s R.I.P.A. a double IPA made with rye malts and as it says an “obscene” amount of malt and hops. I really can’t believe I’ve passed this up before. So being that it had one of my all time favorite entertainers on the bottle I grabbed it before I even realized what it was. And what it is is OK. Not bad but a little too sweet for me. Though the hops eventually took over and the second glass was much better than that first, the initial taste was a bit too much. It poured a dark mahogany color with a nice full head. The smell was strong of caramel malts and hops and smelled true to the label. Initial taste was sweet, very sweet. Then the hops came through and eventually took over my mouth. What lingered throughout though was the alcohol. It comes in at 10% and it was pretty prominent. So I was hoping for something right up my alley but in the end it just really didn’t work out. I appreciate the tribute and respect He’ Brew for giving it to Lenny.

He’ Brew’s Bittersweet Lenny’s R.I.P.A.

B-

The Guardian’s Comment is Free site published a short version of my critiques of RIPA today… you can read it here.

Or the full version prior to editing is here:

A little-known tribunal is meeting this week to consider a case a case of wrongful surveillance. The case brought by Jenny Paton and Tim Joyce against Poole District Council in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Tribunal concerns the local authority’s targeted surveillance measures against the couple and their children in an investigation of their application for school places. Among other activities, council employees trailed the family and interrogated neighbours.

The case comes in the same week that the government issued its response to a consultation process on the reform of the law which the tribunal oversees: the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) (2000). RIPA has proved controversial as it seems to give many different public bodies new powers of surveillance, but that isn’t entirely true: as many local council officials admit, much of this was going on before 2000, but RIPA regulates and restricts it – in fact, it restricts it too much to some of the published responses to the consultation process. It is, however, almost impossible to determine whether RIPA has increased or decreased surveillance of this kind as no consistent records were kept prior to RIPA’s introduction. What is certainly the case is that the public is now more aware of the use of surveillance powers by agencies they had never realized were allowed to do such things.

Surveys have found that only 9% of RIPA authorizations resulted in either prosecution of enforcement action. In Australia, earlier this year, when only 28% of the use of targeted surveillance (in that case by police) resulted in prosecutions, their law was denounced as an excuse for ‘fishing expeditions.’ So what does a 9% rate indicate for Britain? Desperation perhaps? Or at least that RIPA was being massively overused for trivial issues. The House of Lords Constitution Committee report, Surveillance: Citizens and the State, certainly thought so, arguing not only that the inadequate administrative procedures should be reviewed but also that the government should think again about the whole business of allowing Local Authorities police powers, and that in any case, these powers “should only be available for the investigation of serious criminal offences which would attract a custodial sentence of at least two years.”

The government has failed to take heed of these recommendations. Ok, so they have agreed to restrict the authorization of covert surveillance under RIPA to ‘Director, Head of Service, Service Manager or equivalent’, and that Local Authorities should designate compliance officers so there will be no more junior officers deciding to play James Bond, as in the Poole case. However, by going to a ‘consultation’ whose respondents were dominated by Local Authorities and other RIPA-enabled agencies, they have managed to avoid doing anything particularly radical. This started from limiting the scope of the review through the questions they asked in the consultation.

For example, by asking which covert investigatory techniques specifically should be removed (and discounting any views that said ‘all of them’) they managed to get a mixed set of answers that failed to produced a clear vote against any one technique. Result: no techniques get removed and in fact some of the existing allowed techniques get extended to yet more agencies, for example the new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (the replacement for the Child Support Agency). In particular, this extension of powers covers telecommunications data, whose keeping by the state has of course increased since RIPA was proposed. Now RIPA will be used to allow new bodies access to this data.

A curious note throughout the response by the government is the insistence on using an idea of non-interference with law-enforcement as a reason for not allowing elected officials any more than strategic scrutiny over the actions their own officials take under RIPA. This matters because RIPA is just one of many ways in which law-enforcement is not spreading as a function to increasing numbers of agencies beyond the police and judiciary. This seems to be general position that New Labour has taken – although it hasn’t always got its way – does anyone remember the dropped proposals to allow any ‘responsible people’ to levy on the spot fines?

And the government response seems to take a bullish delight in attacking those who have criticized the surveillance society. They insist, for example – and despite all the evidence to suggest that such interventions have limited effectiveness – that Local Authorities should make more use of overt, mass surveillance, like CCTV, instead of using RIPA. They are creating a binary choice, which seems to say assume that some kind of surveillance should be used: which do you choose, overt or covert? But, of course, that shouldn’t be the choice at all. They are also trying to have their cake and eat it on CCTV: the response to the consultation dismisses those consultees who brought up the subject of CCTV – which is not covered by RIPA – but feel quite able themselves to recommend its extended use in their own response. This of course also ignores the perfectly legitimate feeling amongst many that it is about CCTV was brought under proper control and a reformed RIPA might well be the place to do it.

Then there are things missing: notably, the concentration on Local Authorities, which for the most part has completely obscured the use of covert surveillance by central government departments and arms-length agencies including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the NHS and the Environment Agency, all of which have been criticized in the past by the Surveillance Commissioner.  Nothing seems to be proposed to increase the visibility of the RIPA Tribunal which is, just for now, in the news. The Lords described it as all but invisible and weak. Nor do the government propose to do anything to strengthen training or the Code of Practice, and in any case, there has been a huge over reliance on such self-regulation for matters which should have more formal control; this is also how CCTV and the security industry is largely – and incredibly ineffectively – regulated in the UK.

Pretty much anyone could have predicted this limp response from the Home Office to some rather serious problems. They don’t read their own research, they don’t do consultation in a meaningful manner, and then, surprise, surprise, they conclude that there really isn’t very much wrong after all. Jenny Paton and Tim Joyce may well disagree, and let us hope that the RIPA Tribunal do too.

The UK Home Office is finally publishing plans to reform the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) which defined in law the surveillance powers open to hundreds of government bodies. You can see what I have previously said about the consultation here. The consultation on RIPA actually had 7 major questions. The Home Office has now responded to all the opinions offered during the consultation. In more detail, this is what was said:

1.    Taking into account the reasons for requiring the use of covert investigatory techniques under RIPA set out for each public authority, should any of them nevertheless be removed from the RIPA framework?

Response: basically, none should be removed. Although the Home Office noted that many respondents had objections, they didn’t feel they added up. Indeed this section also seems to include extensions of the powers (or clarifications that act effectively as extensions) for example the ability of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (the replacement for the Child Support Agency), to have access to telecommunications data to investigate fathers required to pay child support. These extensions may be warranted or not, but they show the tendency for what Gary Marx long ago called ’surveillance creep’ to occur – the saving of telecommunications data has increased since RIPA was proposed and now RIPA will be used to allow new agencies access to this data.

They also note that they will not be returning any of these investigatory functions to the police. This is interesting because later they use the reason of non-interference in law-enforcement for denying elected councillors detailed oversight. So this confirms a trend to less and less accountable law enforcement.

2. If any public authorities should be removed from the RIPA framework, what, if any, alternative tools should they be given to enable them to do their jobs?

Response: given the previous response, it is not surprising that no real change is proposed here. The Home Office in fact insists that more emphasis should be placed on overt surveillance by local authorities (like CCTV) in order to reduce the need to resort to RIPA’s covert surveillance!

3.    What more should we do to reduce bureaucracy for the police so they can use RIPA more easily to protect the public against criminals?

This wasn’t a question that I ever noticed critics of RIPA asking. Some agencies seem to have objected to the amount of paperwork around RIPA and The Home Office “agrees that it is in no-one’s interests for documentation to be unnecessarily time-consuming” and they, for once, insist on a proper auditable trail that can help protect privacy. They say in any case, applications are already down massively.

There is an interesting note that suggests the increasing use of RIPA for counter-terrorism activities which is left rather open – “the Government is facilitating the work of police collaborative units, such as the regional counter-terrorist units… This means officers seeking to use techniques under RIPA will be able to apply to authorising officers in different forces, where the Chief Officers have made a collaboration agreement that permits this”, in other words that RIPA might be used for massive, blanket undercover surveillance operations. Now that certain wasn’t what the government has recently claimed it was intended for – although of course, as anyone with any kind of memory will recall, it was exactly the justification used for passing it.

4.    Should the rank at which local authorities authorise the use of covert investigatory techniques be raised to senior executive?

Response: The media reports thus far have focused on the plan to limit the authorisation of such practices to council chief executives and directors – a recommendation made by the House of Lords Constitution Committee – what the Home Office actually recommends is to restrict the decision to a rather wider set: ‘Director, Head of Service, Service Manager or equivalent’. So, no junior officers any more, which is good, but not necessarily senior managers only. They also recommend having a compliance officer designated, which is good if they genuinely work on active and ethical compliance rather than thinking of excuses in retrospect.

5. Should elected councillors be given a role in overseeing the way local authorities use covert investigatory techniques?

Response: yes they should, but it should be ’strategic’ and limited to once a year setting of policy and strategy with quarterly oversight meetings. They argue, as I mentioned earlier, that non-interference in law-enforcement is a good reason for keeping elected officials away from the details… Councillors in the UK have been increasingly hamstrung in the way that they can oversee their supposed bureaucracy, even to the point where they have been fined and suspended for criticising their own officers. Some real control would be welcome (after all, that is what the purpose of local democracy should be).

6. Are the Government’s other proposed changes in the Consolidating Orders appropriate?

Response: the Home Office basically rejected all the respondents’ comments on the proposals.

7.    Do the revised Codes of Practice provide sufficient clarity on when it is necessary and proportionate to use techniques regulated in RIPA?

Response: the codes of practice will be made clearer. No more guidance will be given. The Guardian says that the proposals will ‘ban’ the use of RIPA for ‘minor matters’ but I can’t really see that they do this, and the points of such codes is usually to avoid recourse to the law by encouraging a voluntary self-regulation; it is how CCTV is largely – and incredibly ineffectively – regulated in the UK too.

Defamation
Birmingham Post Birmingham law firm to pursue online defamation

Digital Britain
Dissecting ‘The Economic Case for Digital Inclusion’ Ian Cuddy
An extended look at Lord Mandelson’s IP announcement at C&binet Paid Content

Freedom of Information
All FOI requests to this site now categorised Whatdotheyknow

Google docs
Now Exportable in Office and Open Office formats RWW

Lobbying
Civil servants fight off transparency, lobbying industry score big victory Times

Mapping, mobile
Google Maps Navigation: The First Killer App for Android 2.0 RWW

Mapping, Open Source
Mappa Mercia: a project to digitally remap the West Midlands in a free and open format.

Mobile learning
Androids for Africa at the Handheld Learning Conference video

Media
TV Viewing Among children in the US at an Eight-Year High. Age 2-5 32+hours a week Neilsonwire

Newspapers
Record plunge: only 13% of Americans buy a daily newspaper Newsosaur
A graphic history of newspaper circulation over two decades The Awl

Postcodes
Interview with Harry Metcalfe of ernestmarples.com Video
Early Day Motion 2000 sponsored by Tom Watson Parliament

Research
Young people’s use of social networks: dana boyd The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online
danah boyd publications

Open data
Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms reports progress on Making Public Data Public
Open data on cities: an international round up. Lichfield, yes. Birmingham, London, not yet. Open Knowledge Foundation

Open government
Local Spending Reports would show how all public money is spent. Localworks

John Denham speech: Openness of data is important for local government RSA speech
Rewiring LocalDirectGov OpenlyLocal

Surveillance UK
New York Times: Ever-Present Surveillance Rankles the British Public. Poole council #RIPA

The Commission today moved to the second phase of an infringement proceeding over the UK to provide its citizens with the full protection of EU rules on privacy and personal data protection when using electronic communications. European laws state that EU countries must ensure the confidentiality of people’s electronic communications like email or internet browsing by prohibiting their unlawful interception and surveillance without the user’s consent. As these rules have not been fully put in place in the national law of the UK, the Commission today said that it will send the UK a reasoned opinion.

Specifically, the Commission has identified three gaps in the existing UK rules governing the confidentiality of electronic communications:

• There is no independent national authority to supervise interception of communications, although the establishment of such authority is required under the ePrivacy and Data Protection Directives, in particular to hear complaints regarding interception of communications.

• The current UK law – the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) – authorises interception of communications not only where the persons concerned have consented to interception but also when the person intercepting the communications has ‘reasonable grounds for believing’ that consent to do so has been given. These UK law provisions do not comply with EU rules defining consent as freely given specific and informed indication of a person’s wishes.

• The RIPA provisions prohibiting and providing sanctions in case of unlawful interception are limited to ‘intentional’ interception only, whereas the EU law requires Members States to prohibit and to ensure sanctions against any unlawful interception regardless of whether committed intentionally or not.

The UK has two months to reply to this second stage of the infringement proceeding. If the Commission receives no reply, or if the response presented by the UK is not satisfactory, the Commission may refer the case to the European Court of Justice.

This is a signal that data protection and privacy are considered highly valuable achievments to protect within the european dimension.

The United Kingdom was given one of the lowest scores, a 1.4 out of 5 in Privacy International’s 2007 International Privacy rankings. According to the report, the UK falls behind countries like Greece in criteria which includes: constitutional protection, identity cards and biometric recording, data-sharing, visual surveillance, communication interception, communication data retention, medical and financial surveillance, movement, border issues, and leadership.

According to Privacy International, the UK is considered an “Endemic surveillance” society with “world leading surveillance schemes.” The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act gives local authorities the rubber stamp to have citizens followed, listen to recorded telephone calls, capture surveillance footage, and even have access to personal records. Local governments that use the RIPA do not have to inform the citizens of their monitoring activities.

In 2007, 1,707 communications data requests were made by local authorities, with 154 using their power to acquire communications data. These numbers are very low, with the requests equalling to less than a percent.

Well Kelly Ripa Sucked today as seen in the Pic Below it was not a Pretty Sight!

Just a drab, nasy crappy ass green thing top with a nasty ass granny green thing skirt! Blah, It really can’t get any fucking worse unless it was a nasty tranny pants outfit…oh well, maybe this thing will get it right tommarow and wear a nice skirt but probably not! Also Get better guetst on, I dont care to look at old hag bags in tranny pants! Thank you!

Well Sadly Kelly Ripa’s Skirt today was pretty damn awful as seen in the pic here it was NOT worth capping today!

Yep unfortunatly Kelly Ripa Could not make it a 2 Day nice skirt streak, in fact I cannot remember the last time she was actually leggy 2 days in a row! Would have been nice to have a short skirt 2 days in a row once and awhile but I guess she don’t have that many short skirts in her wardrobe, ripa take a tip get some nice short skirt with some pantyhose for wintertime, maybe tommarow we will get back to a shorter skirt hopefully!

Panoramico su Assisi, app. in piccola palazzina in mattoncino di 110 mq con ing., soggiorno (possib. di caminetto), cucina ab., 3 camere, 2 bagni (idromassaggio), terrazzo e garage. Rich. € 145.000 tratt. (Q 7)

INVIA RICHIESTA

Soluzione indipendente di nuova costruzione con ing., ampio soggiorno con ang. cottura, 2 camere, 2 bagni (finestrati) oltre a portico, lastrico, giardino e garage. Rich. € 170.000 tratt. (CT27)

INVIA RICHIESTA

Well When I saw the Begining walout of ripas outfit it looked longer then crap and wasn’t gunna amount to shit sitting out, Well for once I was shocked to see the skirt was better sitting then standing

Better then nothing! Its not super short but its at least cappable! Really sad though she cannot put pantyhose on with some of these skirts, would be nice but hey skirts and hose are a diffrent story, all woman should wear skirts, some though sadly don’t like hose while wearing skirts….But hose is like a bonus for male fans and who knows maybe female fans (Lezbos)…Anyways will it continue tommarow? My guess is no, likley back to crap for awhile before another one of these outfits comes along!

Well probably the highlight of the Whole morning surprisingly came from Kelly Ripa! Ripa as you can see in the pics below was actually in a red dress which well couldn’t be pulled down shorter then it was for once! Also Selena Gomez was in a shorter skirt but dark hose on the show!

Nice leg Shown finally by Ripa! The only problem was and usually always is you can’t get many caps unless you want alot of repeats….they usually only give 1 type of camera shot and its usually the same one! So heres a few caps I was able to get of her, at least she ended the week on a good note for once!

Well tuned into Ripa to see if she had undone her shitty Mistake from yesterdays show and to my surprise it was a mild improvement as seen in the picture below:

A Step up anyways from yesterdays crappy ass showing anyways, Frilly Green Dress Showing some decent but still no thigh leg…If Ripa wants to actually Impress Male Viewers she should first as I said before get a boob job and second wear pantyhose with short skirts….Most people who watch this show are older people and especially women, 95% of the Audiance is Female, you want more male Viewership and attendance WEAR BETTER STUFF! Not crappy ass pants or your grannys 90 year old long hag bag skirts! Maybe tommarow we will see more leg, but likley not.

Ok When I tuned into Regis & Kelly today Kelly Ripas skirt looked shorter then hell at the desk, looked like it was gunna be a great skirt with some good leg shown sitting out…But as I can expect anymore looks can be decieving as you’ll see in the pics below if you missed the show:

In the Pic to the left shes messing with the skirt after sitting back down, if she would have left it like thatwe would have gotten some nice thigh shots…What the fuck happens, the picture on the right…What could have been a nice skirt fucked up by the dumb ass broad! Ripa Seriously if you wear a short ass skirt, make sure its not one you can cowardly mess with to make alot longer then it fucking looks sitting at the desk! In fact since you have no fucking titties I suggest you show leg more often, wearing too many pants and grandma skirts just makes you look more and more like a fucking dude, Seriously, your legs make you a woman….Also feel free to get a boob job please!

The spy car was sneakily launched on an unsuspecting public without any prior warning or publicity.  If the council want people to park more sensibly, it would be better if drivers knew the consequences beforehand and the spy car must be parked legally as well.

The Council needs to get its own house in order and a bit of surveillance on what they get up to wouldn’t go amiss.

As Conservative Spokesperson on the Audit and Risk Management Committee which meets next week, we will be considering new rules which council officers want to introduce so they can continue operating the controversial ’spy car’ to enforce parking laws.  I’ll have plenty to say about that and will report back after the meeting.

The Daily Post reports more here.

Regis Philbin

CTV Vancouver's Tamara Taggart

Anyone who knows me personally knows that I love my mornings with “Live! with Regis & Kelly”. You also know that I get star-struck whenever I see news/weather personalities up close (so many incidences, so many stories… but that’s for another time). There’s a saying around here that’s fitting: You know you live in Vancouver when the weatherman is a celebrity.

Anyhoo, CTV Vancouver’s weathercaster, Tamara Taggart, won the gig to fill in for Kelly Ripa this August when she goes on holiday. Not only that, but last Wednesday, Michelle+1’s favourite CNN man, Anderson Cooper, announced her win when he guest-hosted on “Live!” for the day. Whooo! As silly as it sounds, I feel like a part of me will be sitting in the chair next to Regis. Go Tamara!

You can watch Tamara live with Regis on Friday, August 21st locally on CTV (ch. 9) at 9:00am (see local listings for the time and channel in your area).

Watch Tamara’s audition clip here.

(photo sources: people.com & ctv.ca)

At CRITique we are big fans of OUT-LAW, but we have to question their finding that neither regulators nor the law protect net neutrality in Britain.  We think there may be tools available to defend net neutrality.

Exhibit 1 for the defence is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This makes interception of communications in a public telecommunications system, which would include the internet (to the extent that internet traffic is carried by UK ISPs), unlawful except for certain defined lawful circumstances. We would argue that throttling or blocking any particular internet traffic, such as BBC iPlayer or Google YouTube traffic, necessarily involves unlawful interception.

Exhibit 2 is made up of the relevant conditions in the Special Conditions addressed to the UK dominant wholesale local access providers, BT and Kingston. In particular, it is arguable that a case could be made that any interference with some content providers’ internet traffic would amount to a breach of (in the case of BT):

Condition FA2 – Requirement not to unduly discriminate
FA2.1 The Dominant Provider shall not unduly discriminate against particular persons or against a particular description of persons, in relation to matters connected with Network Access.

Exhibit 3 may be the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, as mentioned in OUT-LAW.  To what extent would it be fair to include a term in an ISP’s service agreement to exclude access to content providers, at the ISP’s discretion?

Exhibit 4 may be the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.  There is already an argument that the practice of advertising internet services as being “up to x Mb”  may not be properly understood by the “average consumer” (as defined in the Regulations), let alone the question of contention ratios, so that there is unfair trading in the ISP market.  How will restricted access to popular content providers’ websites be dealt with in ISP marketing?

We may work up these ideas to see if they are sound, in which case we’ll go for a published article on the subject. Watch this space.