From: Kim Bolton on 27 Mar 2010 05:26
>It is perfectly obvious that no database is secure from wrong-doing by the
>people who have legitimate access to it. Every now and again a police
>officer is prosecuted from having interrogated PNC to see if his daughter's
>latest boyfriend has a record - or how many known criminals are living in
>Clearly there is no database that is 100% secure. The only way to achieve
>that would be to deny access to everyone.
The really secure databases are the ones you don't hear about ;-)
From: Kim Bolton on 27 Mar 2010 05:28
>See my other posts. Do you think that the present system where your paper
>files are transported about hospitals, and even between hospitals, by
>I really couldn't care less who looks at my medical records.
That isn't the only issue, as you have been told many times in this
From: Ret. on 27 Mar 2010 05:39
Kim Bolton wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> It is perfectly obvious that no database is secure from wrong-doing
>> by the people who have legitimate access to it. Every now and again
>> a police officer is prosecuted from having interrogated PNC to see
>> if his daughter's latest boyfriend has a record - or how many known
>> criminals are living in his street.
>> Clearly there is no database that is 100% secure. The only way to
>> achieve that would be to deny access to everyone.
> The really secure databases are the ones you don't hear about ;-)
But if any human being has access to it - then it's not secure is it?
From: Kim Bolton on 27 Mar 2010 05:48
>The problems today is that although police numbers have increased - they
>have nowhere near kept pace with the massive increase in demand.
In 1915 the town I live in had 52 constables and specials.
Now the town is 10 times the size it was then, and it has one
constable and four plastic policemen available during office hours.
The only time they appear in public is to pop along to the bakers and
get their lunches, although I did once see an officer on a police
mountain bike patrolling this estate. He cleared off before the
schoolkids started throwing stones at the busses.
I'm not sure where your 'massive demand' comes from.
From: Ret. on 27 Mar 2010 06:06
Mike Scott wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> Mike Scott wrote:
>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>> You can drag up unlikely scenarios as long as you like. The fact is
>>>> that I stand more chance of being killed by a crashing 747 than I
>>>> will of becoming involved in one of your imaginary scenarios.
>>> Funny you should mention that. One did come down a few miles north
>>> of Harlow a few years ago. Part of Hatfield Forest is still afaik
>>> fenced off (radioactive?). I shudder to think what might have
>>> happened. So /your/ idea of low probability may well not align well
>>> with that of others.
>>>> It could happen to someone, somewhere, but the chances of it
>>>> happening to any one of us is so remote as to be not worth being
>>>> concerned about. And I am *not* concerned about it.
>>> Out of curiosity, I'd say the chance that your house would burn down
>>> is singularly low. So may I assume you don't trouble with fire
>> I don't think that the chances are as low as a 747 crash. There are
>> any number of occurences that could result in a house fire and so I
>> certainly do have house insurance.
> You do appear somewhat inconsistent then. Oh well.
It all depends how you look at it. Do I actually worry about a house fire?
No I don't. My house and wiring is in good condition, I recently had my old
fuse box replaced with a modern consumer unit. I'm careful about turning
things off at night, etc. so I think the chances of my house setting on fire
*If* it did happen, however, and I did not have insurance, then it would be
a personal financial disaster for us, and so it clearly makes sense to have
cover just in the remote off-chance that it *may* happen!