Husband facing five years in jail after hacking wifes email – Telegraph


fascinating example of a growing issue. And it’s not limited to sordid cases like these, where the spouse’s suspicions lead them to “spy” on their partner – illegally – and find justification for their suspicions. Does their success justify the illegal methods of obtaining the evidence?

Put like that, it should be obvious how this has much wider significance for the so called “rule of law”. When the police raid premises on a “fishing expedition” should they be allowed a) to remain unpunished and b) to keep the contents of the catch?

The answer, in my view, is that this is a clear case for a Jury to decide. In principle, I would want to see the illegal raiders punished and, as a consequence of the illegal source of the incriminating evidence, the crime ignored. But there will be some situations where that is clearly nonsense. For example, they raid looking for weed and find a half eaten human body. That illegally obtained data cannot sensibly be ignored. The reasonable outcome would be prosecution of the police for their illegal raid (to deter the growing Police State) AND prosecution of the cannibal as a result of the evidence obtained. The degree to which mitigating circumstances apply to either side cannot be pre-legislated and can only be – democratically – decided by a Jury…

Ignore the recent attempts to explain away Henry Kissingers “gas chamber” remarks; his career is a long list of massacres and outrages. – By Christopher Hitchens – Slate Magazine

useful reminder that Rumsfeld and Cheney weren’t the first (or arguably even the worst) of the high level US Government War Criminals…

RSOE EDIS – Emergency and Disaster Information Service

potentially fascinating but not yet fully developed. Still, an ambitious project which could become rather useful…

A New Type of Phishing Attack on Vimeo

another reason for using noscript (which means using firefox if you ain’t already)

Peanut Butter, The Atheists Nightmare!

Seriously, is it not at least arguable that people who a) believe and b) cannot be dissuaded by reason from believing nonsense on this scale are deranged in a very literal medical sense?

I discussed an aspect of this with my wife a couple of days ago. She’s just acquired a BA from the Open University and is moving on to study for a Masters in Psychology. She informed me that “Narcissism” had been removed from the DSM (the corrupt “Diagnostic Statistical Manual”) which is used by American Psychiatry to justify their diagnoses of various personality disorders.

Why? Why did they remove it, and why is it relevant to this comment? They removed it because Narcissism is apparently now so common that it can no longer be regarded as a “disorder”. This, in turn, provides the answer to a question I’ve been asking for years. Why isn’t belief in an omniscient, omnipotent personal deity defined, medically, as a personality disorder? Answer: because it too is so widespread that it is considered “normal” and cannot therefore be considered as a disease or disorder.

It’s an answer that genuinely shocked me. By that criterion, we have no business describing flu or the common cold as a disease because everybody gets it!

The ten-year anniversary of Bush v. Gore : The New Yorker

the depressing aspect of events like the stolen election is that despite being fully publicly visible and even analysed in forensic detail by some public commentators, they have ZERO effect on the the public consciousness. Even when the naked corruption and authoritarianism is exposed, We The People do fuckall about it. There are times when a lynch mob is the correct response…

The War on Cameras – Reason Magazine

…and still nobody cried out for the laws to be changed, not just to permit “watching the watchers”, but to enforce it…