Hustle is amazing and Spooks used to be. I do admire the fact that the guys behind spooks have no qualms with killing off characters when you get attached to them, as that is the best time to do so, but still.Pipotchi said:
BBC Admits To Website Snooping
- Thread starter The_root_of_all_evil
- Start date
Please don't make it so broad.Codgo said:
Most Americans aren't spying on anyone.
It's just a tiny group of assholes that even other Americans hate but don't have the time to exile or kill. (Or at the very least give a stern talking to)
But then my age old adage pops up.mokes310 said:
"Where do you draw the line?"
Make sure to be VERY specific because ambiguity is utterly worthless.
I dislike the BBC that much that I go without television. Then I hear about things like this and know I've made the right choice.
They continue to make blunder after blunder (some of which are mentioned in the OP), and give themselves nice big bonuses despite providing a sub-par service. I get the feeling that the BBC Execs take the public funding a little too much for granted.
Isn't it about time they had to make their money like all the other channels have to?
[/rant]
They continue to make blunder after blunder (some of which are mentioned in the OP), and give themselves nice big bonuses despite providing a sub-par service. I get the feeling that the BBC Execs take the public funding a little too much for granted.
Isn't it about time they had to make their money like all the other channels have to?
[/rant]
Out of curiosity, who sues ( if they were to be sued) corporations for doing thi?. Is it a government people action?
Yeah, I bet you find North West Tonight boring and irrelevant.Rutawitz said:
But what about Coast, The Andrew Marr Show, Prime Minister's Questions, Escape To The Country, Farming Today, See Hear, or Bargain Hunt?
Surely you don't think everything's poor?
Its called BBC for a reason. Didn't you ever work out what it stood for?
BIG BROTHER CORPORATION
BIG BROTHER CORPORATION
IANAL, but it's a really tough legal case to actually prove.pantsoffdanceoff said:
The DPA can't be used because the American firm isn't bound within it. What you'd have to do is prove that the BBC deliberately, and with malicious forethought, set this up. To put it another way, if you dropped your supermarket loyalty card(which can contain similar information) and someone picked it up and passed it on to a friend in America, there is no legal framework to sue over this information as you've already given it up freely. Similar with letting Microsoft or Steam 'collect your details'.
Unless the BBC specifically states that it will not pass your details onto interested third parties (which it should do in the EULA, but is not bound by law to), then it's not breaking any law.
You could make a case that the firm they used has been known to use said information for quasi-legal purposes, but you'd still have to provide documentary evidence that the BBC knew that said party was using that information contrary to American law, which would require Anglo-American legal co-operation. Which ain't gonna happen after the Pentagon Hacker.
A legal minefield to be sure.
Exactly. It's no worse than what Google does.Zams said:
They record your search terms, IP address, what links you clicked on, your browser information, and then they save a cookie on your computer without asking.
We need tighter laws on this kind of thing.
