My bank has never, not once, called my and requested a password. In fact, my bank has (obnoxiously) often sent me emails telling me they cannot access my password, and will never request it on a phone call or email
Yeah, that's what they say and as far as your online password that's correct. However, phone bank services etc often use a "password" as shorthand, or sometimes certain characters of a passphrase. Failing that, they will usually verify your identity with personal details such as DOB, mother's maiden name etc... in the case of insurance, sometimes make/model/reg of vehicle.
All this I have no problem with.... except when they phone you and request this kind of info, which (I suppose US banks may not), UK banks etc do all the time.
And no, I don't give out that kind of information... I find the call centre number independently and ring them back to discuss whatever it is so I can be sure I'm actually talking to the company they claim to be.... I've even complained about the practice and got told "Well that's just how we do it and we have to prevent fraud" - basically a "We're doing it to cover our ass, not yours"
My point is that this kind of practice conditions most people to simply answer this kind of question to (at least) anyone that they think they have a trust relationship with. People putting their password into the site of a "trusted brand" is hardly surprising considering.
It also shows that the one-sided nature of corporate sovereignty -- where companies can sue nations, but not the other way around -- not only tilts the playing field unfairly towards investors, but encourages them to abuse the system even further. Both are compelling reasons to drop corporate sovereignty chapters in trade agreements completely.
Well, yes indeed.... but the argument; "Our corporation basically bought you the election and you wouldn't want those 'fact finding' trips to stop either, would you?" is far more compelling and suggests this kind of thing is unlikely to stop any time soon...
This was my question too... talk about double standards. IANAL, but surely you've got perjury, perhaps a contempt of court and would Apple not also have a cause of action to sue for having been dragged into court with all the associated costs under false pretences?
...or is breaking the law something that only happens to people who are not agents of the state?
We need to consider that in a free society there are limits to what can be "stopped".
...Though I can never tell if years of governments promising a magic "stop" button has caused it, or whether a large chunk of the population believing there is a magic "stop" button leads governments to promise one.
The "anti-lobbying" clause to be inserted into new grant agreements will create a barrier to evidence-based policymaking and will have unintended effects on the work of [Parliament's advisory] select committees.
"Because, damnit, how is a good politician supposed to pass laws based on blind faith if you keep coming at me with all these facts!?"
So the UK as a whole (the people and the governments) have perhaps a different view of things because of their experiences.
You seem to be attempting to imply that the UK does this crap because "we know how scary is really is out there and this is what's really needed".
Wrong... in fact 180 degrees wrong. Certainly any UK citizen alive in the '80s is familiar with the threat of terrorism more intimately and immediately than the mot ofthe US but that lends a rather more sensible perspective. Such people know that, while terrible, the actual threat is small - potentially even vanishingly small - and barely worth more than a slightly cautious thought in day-to-day life.
The issue is not whether the UK population wants this law (it doesn't)(, the issue is whether the UK government wants this law that will in fact do little to combat "terrorism" that is not already being done) for other reasons and whether the UK population is little enough aware of the real dangers of it to swallow the propaganda or only raise a mild and polite English protest.
I haven't flown commercial in a while, but my understanding is that it's not great fun going through security. But we make the concession because -- it's a big intrusion on our privacy -- but we recognize that it is important.
Nope. We "make the concession" NOT because we "recognise it's important", but because our personal reasons for travel are sufficiently important to put up with the annoying and intrusive crap and because enough people have yet to stand up and say, "You know this is totally bullshit, right?"
Looks like you're 2 for 2 on being wrong about security front, Mr. Obama...
Well, only if you redefine "political party" because political parties in general seem to be a large chunk of the problem.
What the US needs are wide open primaries whereby the top 2 candidates irregardless of political party go to the general election.
Again maybe nice, but doesn't seem to fix the problem that only people supported by (and beholden to) uber-rich corporations are capable of getting elected. It might also be nice not to have an electorate that seems to go consistently for either the dumbest and most preposterous or most clearly lying through their teeth candidates available no matter what their political persuasion...
I'm not sure whether to be more disgusted with Trump himself, or the fact a character even more ludicrous than George W. (and I didn't think that were possible) appears to have a good chance of actually being president.