Oxford City Council Mandates CCTV Cameras In Taxies by 2015 235
First time accepted submitter Beowulf878 writes "In yet another data-collection feast by the government in the UK, a local council has proposed fitting at least one CCTV camera per taxi to record every conversation. Obviously the reason given is our own safety. Thoughts?"
Well, I have one.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thoughts?
Re:Well, I have one.... (Score:4, Funny)
I for one support our omnipotent taxi monitoring overlords.
Re:Well, I have one.... (Score:4, Interesting)
And without any indication on how the video is used. Who stores the video, and how? How long is it stored? Watched on random basis or in case of reported problems only? So many unknowns here, hard to give an opinion on it.
But well who needs to know the answer to those basic questions anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
cos its cheapest!
Re:Well, I have one.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The most relevant opinion is from the Information Commissioner's Office, the government organisation that enforces the privacy laws:
An ICO spokeswoman said the plans were "highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified".
So it's unlikely to happen.
Other articles (linked from the main one) suggest it's the taxi drivers who want this to "protect" themselves from drunk and rowdy passengers, though I'm not sure why that requires audio recording. It's hardly going to fix the problem though.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's all a bunch of left-wing FUD. Lets' face it, children are sometimes put in the position where they would need to take a taxi, and in that case we need cameras there to protect them against pedophile cab drivers. That way the police can confiscate the videos of child pornography and put them in there massive collection of confiscated porn.
Most people on Slashdot always seem to neglect to think of the children when it comes to issues of warrantless surveillance. A city is a public place, and because of t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My previous house was on a street known as "the Murder Mile" - it was fhe scene of two well known incidents: one in which one policeman shot another, and the other in which a policeman shot a man carying a table leg, in the mistaken belief it was a shotgun.
A lot of people round here believe the police are every bit as dangerous as the drug dealers, hence the rioting.
Re:Well, I have one.... (Score:5, Informative)
The rioting had nothing to do with the fact that the police are dangerous. The rioting had everything to do with the fact that criminal scum wanted free stuff.
75% of the people arrested as part of the riots so far had previous convictions. Around 20% had more than 10 previous convictions. These were not law abiding citizens fighting the man.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
This is just one local council (Score:5, Informative)
This is an action by one local council, probably trying to make some sort of political statement. Councils of this level are very low-powered in this country and frequently full of jumped up jobsworths who want to be important.
It is highly unlikely this will come to anything: notice the comment in TFA by the Information Commissioner's Office that the plans are "highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified". (For those outside the UK: The ICO is our central, national-level oversight body for things like data protection and freedom of information.)
Re: (Score:3)
Firearms Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
bet you're missing them now, aren't you.
Re:Firearms Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like you Americans are any better off, with your firearms rights. I've yet to hear of a single firearm being turned on a police officer who's assaulting a citizen who has offered no resistance at all, during the Occupy protests.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not like you Americans are any better off, with your firearms rights. I've yet to hear of a single firearm being turned on a police officer who's assaulting a citizen who has offered no resistance at all, during the Occupy protests.
That's what I've never understood about the American fetish with carrying fireamrs: any time you actually use them, you're going to be in just as much trouble as in the UK, especially if you use them against the government/law enforcement or whatever.
If you get sent to jail for life for murdering a police officer, does it really matter whether you have a concurrent couple of months for illegally possessing a firearm too?
Re: (Score:3)
I like that people have to convince the police that they're not a fruit loop before you can get a licence. I like that anyone who doesn't have a licence is automatically commiting an offence. I also like that my licence doesn't entitle me to wander around in publc with firearms.
The only safety a government cares about . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Solvent isn't quite the word that comes to mind when thinking about banks...
How many taxi drivers are robbed? (Score:4, Insightful)
In a society where crime isn't really "punished", the only other deterrent must be a police state where there is no sanctuary.
As societies must include anyone who wants to do anything they like and must admit anyone from anywhere regardless of their culture, keeping order becomes more challenging because the only alternative to (vanishing) SELF-discipline is IMPOSED discipline.
This sucks, but is better than the Clockwork Orange world of no order at all.
Re:How many taxi drivers are robbed? (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer to take a page from socialism, and a page from libertarianism, and create a new book that works better than either one alone. Nothing in your personal life affects me, so I should have no say over it. I don't care who you marry, have sex with, what you put in your body or if you end your life. But your economic life effects me and everyone else in this society, so it should be partially regulated. With the right balance, and the a healthy amount of vigilance by the populace, this system can work. It's worked in the past, it works now, it can work for our future.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
(...) Nothing in your personal life affects me, so I should have no say over it. (...) what you put in your body or if you end your life.
Except for the few quoted exceptions, you are basically describing any Scandinavian country...
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you presume that what someone does "in their private life" doesn't really affect others? Humans are socially interdependent. What happens in someone's private life very, very rarely _doesn't_ bleed over into the public sphere somehow. There is almost always a conflict between majority-minority rights even when the primary activity is "in private" because it drastically affects social convention outside. I don't believe you're really ready to accept the logical consequences of your statement.
Take marr
Re: (Score:2)
A society where crime is "punished" is already sadistic and anti-science.
Punishment doesn't work, and no amount of sad, old men whining about how they're better off because their parents used to beat them is going to change our nature.
Loss of freedom for criminals definitely stops them (temporarily) from causing further harm, during which time they may or may not respond to efforts at rehabilitation.
And reward sometimes works. Though much less than the feudalists disguising themselves as capitalists would h
Re:How many taxi drivers are robbed? (Score:5, Funny)
The only reason you don't rape and murder is because you'd be punished if you did, right?
Definitely. As I've played many violent video games, I already have the mentality of a murderer. The only thing that is keeping me from murdering people indiscriminately is my fear of being punished!
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason you don't rape and murder is because you'd be punished if you did, right?
Definitely. As I've played many violent video games, I already have the mentality of a murderer. The only thing that is keeping me from murdering people indiscriminately is my fear of being punished!
Plus the fact that your mum would ground you for like a trillion years.
Depends on the crime (Score:2)
The only reason you don't rape and murder is because you'd be punished if you did, right?
No, but the only reason I don't exceed the posted speed limit when I'm late is because I would be punished. The only reason I pay my income taxes is because I would be punished if I did not. The only reason the local pub owner kicks everyone out by 2:00 AM is because he would be punished.
In some cases, fear of punishment works. This is mostly true for violating laws that do not correlate directly to moral principles, as well as victimless crimes.
Had them for a while... (Score:5, Informative)
Here in Ottawa, we've had cameras in taxis for a while. I have no idea if anything has come of it, other than the added expense for each taxi owner of a possibly useless camera. Seems to me like the camera supplier is in bed with the city councillor...
Re:Had them for a while... (Score:4, Funny)
...Seems to me like the camera supplier is in bed with the city councillor...
Was there a camera? Do you have that on video?
Yes she is in bed with the councilor (Score:3)
Old News (Score:5, Funny)
Porn companies have been doing this for years.
Re: (Score:2)
And we have a patent on it. Oxford, prepare to pay license fee!
Sydney taxis (Score:5, Informative)
CCTV cameras have been fitted to taxis in Sydney for several years now at the request of the drivers. The hope is that this deters robberies. Does it work? I have never seen any figures - does anyone else know? They have also been fitted in State Transit buses with newer buses having a least three. In this case while it does not deter theft or assault it does lead to convictions. Also some entertaining reality TV on the news each night.
Re: (Score:2)
There's cameras on the buses and trains as well in Sydney. Cameras in taxi cabs are common in many countries.
Public transport attracts vandalism, theft, and other petty crimes, I'm sure the cameras help keep crime rates down. Cameras protect cabbies from abusive or criminal passengers, and passengers are protected against the same from the cab drivers. There have been incidents of sexual assault of young drunk girls by drivers, I'm sure they'd be less likely to try that sort of thing if there's a camera on
Re: (Score:2)
What's everyone getting so upset about?
The US-based fascists here on slashdot love to shout "1984! V for Vendetta!" every time the UK proposes a new law preventing cruelty to kittens. It distracts them from having to worry about their own country, where they think their freedom is absolute because some people can carry guns around.
Re:Sydney taxis (Score:5, Interesting)
A Danish security firm says that attempted robberies went down by 80 % after they put stickers saying "taxi under camera surveillance" on cars belonging to Copenhagen taxi. Actual cameras were not allowed in taxis in Denmark at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the problems with taxi passengers are because they are drunk, so it seems unlikely that merely having a CCTV camera will prevent that sort of thing from happening. More generally CCTV does not really prevent crime; at best it displaces it but the chance of being caught or punished harshly is rarely a factor when someone decides to commit a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are in Brisbane cabs as well. As a consumer rather than a driver, I am much happier that the cctv's are in the cabs - perhaps that's because I'm basically a law abiding citizen rather than a mindless drunken fuckwit.
A lot of people here would argue that the freedom bo be a mindless drunken fuckwit in public outweighs the horrible evil of the government potentially finding out what they've been up to and subjecting them to the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A taxi driver in the UK was spared false rape charges because he'd recorded the women scheming to get out of paying their fare, so there is value for drivers other than preventing robberies. The question though is who watches the watchers? IMO these CCTV systems should instead be cracked wide open so that the general public can view the feeds, not just have it limited to police. After all, they're in public spaces anyway so the people there have no expectation of privacy, so what compelling reason could the
Already used often (Score:2)
Lots of taxi companies use cameras in cabs, mainly for detecting driver errors, like not wearing seatbelts, or sudden stops or other "violent" movements. They are sometimes still cameras, but can also be video cameras, though they are usually off until something trips them.The driver can also trip them in emergency situations, like if he's being held up.
Adding them in an "always on" mode is kinda invasive, but as long as they are well-identified both inside and outside the cab, so you know beforehand what y
Surprised politicians would go for this... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm from Blackpool and, back in the day, both main parties used to have their conferences here every other year. My parents operated a taxi so they always overheard lots of gossip from the MPs they were ferrying around.
Having the goings on in the back of a taxi being recorded by default would be staggering. No politician or business person could so much as have a phone conversation under those circumstances! I bet every pissant local government hack in Oxford will be trying to justify having a private driver, paid for by the council, when this comes into force.
Re: (Score:3)
The realist knows that these conversations will be "lost", or the driver will know to turn the camera off for an off-meter fair.
One rule for us, one rule for them, remember?
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That this is flagged +5 Insightful demonstrates that the poster is not alone in never having read anything by Orwell.
Re: (Score:3)
It never ceases to amaze me just how accurate George Orwell was about where England was going.
It never ceases to amaze me just how many slashdotters have leafed through 1984, completely ignored its historical and political context, and then go "aha!" in a Pavlovian reaction every time a story is posted that includes the words "UK" and "camera".
Fitted in New Zealand since August (Score:4, Informative)
They've been compulsorily fitted to taxis in New Zealand since August. Taxi companies fitted them at their own expense. Drivers are saying they feel safer, and the industry is claiming the amount of abuse against drivers have dropped and the cameras have directly led to arrests, including for several very serious incidents. Despite the camera systems costing upwards of $1000 per vehicle, the drivers are saying it's money well-spent.
So please ignore the cynicism of the Slashdot submitter & editor - they evidently do improve driver safety.
NYC Taxis (Score:2)
What, you don't think there are cameras in taxis in the US?
4. Profit (Score:2)
Fine by me as long as they sell the porn scenes on the open market.
(Of course, the drivers will have to play 70s hump music on the radio.)
I've got nothing to hide (Score:3)
When someone says to you "I've got nothing to hide", ask them if they would be happy with the government putting a webcam in every room in their house. After all they have nothing to hide. Even the bedroom? Yes, the bedroom. Otherwise terrorists would just plot in their bedrooms. If they baulk, remind them of 911.
Of course if they are on Facebook they might say "Kewl! Can I stream it from my Homepage? [share]"
Experience (Score:3)
I bet one of the driving factors for making cameras mandatory are the drivers who want the camera and the car owners, who don't drive themselves, who do not want to spend the money on them. I drove taxi for seven years and would have welcomed a camera and panic button. The fact that this equipment exists will deter crime against cab drivers. Most of these posts have concentrated on rates of robbery. There are other crime against taxi drivers including assault, kidnapping and murder. The fact that one can no longer have a private conversation in a cab must be weighted against the right of a cab driver not to be killed.
The privacy aspect is moot in that a cab is not a private place in which to have a private conversation. It is the mobile workplace of a vulnerable driver who has to drive stranger around. The driver is not allowed to pick his fares or destination and has no backup in the event he is attacked. Would you advocate removing CCTV cameras from convenience stores? In some cities cabs are treated like mobile ATMs where one uses a knife instead of a card.
I live in Victoria BC and all the cabs have CCTV cameras in them and stickers on the side warning of that fact.
Re: (Score:2)
must be weighted against the right of a cab driver not to be killed.
The cab driver has never lost that right. The only ones who even infringe upon it are criminals. To me, this is no better than the "terrorism" excuse. "Some people are criminals. Therefore, privacy is not allowed!"
Would you advocate removing CCTV cameras from convenience stores?
Yes. Honestly, I think society is too obsessed with the idea of perfection. As long as it is even remotely possible that a crime could happen, cameras must be installed! Somehow we managed to do without them in the past, and the result wasn't too catastrophic (as far as I know). I don't care for t
Re: (Score:2)
"It's okay for other people to die as long as my privacy is preserved"
Re: (Score:2)
It is likely that people will always die no matter what measures we take.
I'm sure that installing security cameras in homes might prevent some deaths. Maybe. Perhaps banning cars, knifes, or pretty much anything would prevent some deaths. But would you say doing that is a good thing? I wouldn't. But apparently freedom if worthless if a few people are dying (perhaps not even that).
I don't believe in perfect solutions, and I'd prefer not to be recorded wherever I go merely because a tiny portion of the popula
Re: (Score:2)
Your use of "a right not to be killed" implies that you would certainly be killed in the absence of a camera.
That is a logical fallacy.
What you meant to say was "a driver's wish not to be killed".
Carry on.
When will Britain get a charter of rights? (Score:5, Funny)
Fairly common in Japan (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
video AND audio recording (Score:2)
I live just a few miles north of Oxford and whats more worrying to most is the fact that the camera will also record audio which seems to be a major shift in whats going to be held and who is will be accessible by.
Student discussions is one thing, but if conversations containing commercial or political (local or national) nature is being recorded inadvertantly and help who can get at this stuff - newpapers won't need to 'hack' voicemails anymore just give the taxi drivers a few quid!
I hope along with the ca
Yes there are (Score:2)
And if you are discussing secrets in a cab... then what about the cabby overhearing smartass? Or are cabbies in your world deaf dumb and blind like you?
Here is a hint, if you got secrets, don't discuss them in other peoples places.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not about secrets. It's about opinions that those with access to the footage might not like. Effectively you cannot voice any controversial thoughts anywhere, because you are always under surveillance. You always have to watch what you say because someone somewhere is recording and archiving it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about secrets. It's about opinions that those with access to the footage might not like. Effectively you cannot voice any controversial thoughts anywhere, because you are always under surveillance. You always have to watch what you say because someone somewhere is recording and archiving it.
Once you can get in serious legal trouble just for having controversial thoughts, the technology is irrelevant, and your society is doomed to fascism anyway, as the authorities could always find someone to grass on you anyway.
stop taking taxis (Score:2)
we've got people protesting that bankers make too much money. those very same protesters have never counted just how much of their own money they've paid to those same bankers.
if you don't want to be on camera, stop going to the cameras.
yeah, you'll lose the benefits of those services. of course. welcome to making choices. if it's important to you, you'll make it appropriately.
so stop complaining. start noticing that you've chosen to take the taxi with the camera. you've chosen to take the subway with
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
we've got people protesting that bankers make too much money. those very same protesters have never counted just how much of their own money they've paid to those same bankers.
if you don't want to be on camera, stop going to the cameras.
yeah, you'll lose the benefits of those services. of course. welcome to making choices. if it's important to you, you'll make it appropriately.
so stop complaining. start noticing that you've chosen to take the taxi with the camera. you've chosen to take the subway with the camera. you've chosen to purchase the car with the limiter. you could have walked, you could have cycled, and you coudl have built your own car.
make decisions; actively.
I hope this is sarcasm.
There are thousands of cameras in public spaces to monitor pedestrians and cyclists in London. If you don't want to be recorded on CCTV, you have to make the choice to never go outside again.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to avoid being monitored constantly, the only choice you have left, is to lock yourself in your basement. All transportation is monitored (on foot, car, train, taxi, bus, etc.).
If you're that worried about it, buy some disguises and take a few courses in counter surveillance. Then you can properly live out your paranoid fantasies of being stalked by the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Not new... (Score:2)
Taxis in Finland have had them for years now, this is nothing new. As far as I am aware, the cameras record video only and are used to deter crime.
Not only video (Score:2)
That's as may be in Helsinki for video surveillance. We've become rather accustomed to that in the UK.
The line that's being crossed here (not particularly well highlighted in the summary) is that they will be making *audio* recordings of the interior of the taxi too.
I read the article and... (Score:3, Informative)
...points some people seem to be missing are:
* An ICO spokeswoman said the plans were "highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified". ...the scheme, which includes both black cabs and private-hire vehicles.
* A council spokeswoman said the "video and *audio* would run all the time within the vehicle".
*
So, it's likely that there will be a complaint from a civil liberties group to the Information Commissioner's Office, and the ICO is already regarding the plans as intrusive and unlikely to be justifiable. The plan is to include audio - which is unlike schemes in other towns and countries, which use video only. The scheme extends to black cabs, which have always (well, as long as I can remember...) partitioned the driver from the passenger(s).
This is a Slashdot post because this *is* a new idea, quite unlike CCTV in taxis in other parts of the world. It raises the bar for intrusive surveillance. It's likely that even the CCTV-friendly UK state is going to oppose the scheme.
The Cab Drivers Don't Want It, Nor Do We..... (Score:3, Informative)
I live in Oxford and the cab drivers hate this idea. It's going to cost them at least £460 each at time when most of them are struggling to survive. They're also convinced its about snooping on them and have all raised privacy concerns. The council has refused to say who will have access to the tapes or what protections there will be.
Most Oxford cab drivers are Asian and few can afford to live in Oxford itself and so drive in from surrounding towns. There are hordes of them demonstrating at the town hall before every council meeting but the councillors don't seem to care - whether their lack of local vote is causing that or not, I don't know. Every cab driver I've spoken to believes someone in the council is 'receiving inducements' for this - no idea if its true!
Oxford City Council is hardcore Labour / militant and seems to regard large sections of the public as the enemy. Its elected by a bunch of leftist academics who have little idea or connection about the real world. Remember it was the last Labour government that tried to introduce ID cards, 90 days detention without charge and seems to have been complicit in torture. CCTV in taxis seems like a logical development!
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2011/11/14/Oxford+news+(om_oxfordnews)/9361537.Taxi_CCTV_breaks__rights_to_privacy_/ [oxfordmail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Oxford City Council is hardcore Labour / militant and seems to regard large sections of the public as the enemy. Its elected by a bunch of leftist academics who have little idea or connection about the real world
If they stopped everyone else apart from a few leftist academics voting, why don't you write and complain to your MP? Or surely there's a case for the Electoral Commission?
Also, it's amazing that no one in the right wing press has noticed this before either, you truly are providing a valuable public service.
This would be nice in Portugal (Score:2, Informative)
This would be nice in Portugal, we get lots of violence and robberies in our TAXI's, this would be a great way to defend the customer.
Yes it's the other way around here, the customer's the victim!
Wish we had these cameras for some time here, I could have gotten quite a few taxi drivers fired and even arrested for the crap they do to customers.
Taxies? (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that the singular was "taxy".
We're doing the same in Norway (Score:3)
We have it here in Australia too (Score:2)
Taxis around here have cameras, they were installed because of incidents with passengers assaulting drivers (e.g. to steal drivers takings). I think its a good thing as long as its clear that there is a camera before they get into the cab. Don't like it, don't take a cab, use another mode of transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxi drivers might get bored (Score:2)
I work in Oxford at the moment, and one thing is for sure, next time I get into a cab and the taxi driver wants to have a conversation I now have a very good reason to ignore him and exercise my right to silence.
Las Vegas (Score:2)
When I was in LV, every taxi I took had a camera on the dash recording the passengers and the driver. It was not clear if that stream was fed to the LVPD, or if it was just for the taxi company to monitor their drivers and passengers in case something went wrong.
I'm not against the owner of a taxi recording what goes on inside his car. It's his property and he can do what he wants with it, and impose any conditions he wishes upon my use or occupation of it.
You also see those in SF (Score:2)
I'm sure they do actually improve driver safety. I just don't see how/why audio would help much. Where I live, there's CCTV everywhere, but they're not allowed to record audio. Take that out and it becomes much less intrusive, while still serving its purpose.
Local Council ! = UK Government (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing that, when I visit the US, I feel less free than when I'm at home, or in just about any other country.
Except, perhaps, the UK.
Especially in airports.
No, I don't believe the 'land of the free' is actually free any more. I think that a lot of people delude themselves, but have actually given up a lot of their freedoms in the name of better security. There is always a fine balance between freedom and security, and I feel the US is leaning, these days, more towards security than freedom.
Case in p
Re: (Score:3)
I visited the US recently, and I felt less free than at home in the UK. I've read /. too much, so I was partly expecting not to see CCTV cameras, and partly expecting lots of security. There seemed to be more government controlled CCTV cameras in the US than the UK, although perhaps fewer private ones (in shops, etc). Lots of them were outside every state and federal building, even a state museum looked like a 1984-esque fortified building. Maybe they're just more visible, but that made me more aware of
Re:haha brits are treated like children (Score:5, Informative)
Every cab/limo in NYC has a camera in it.
Re: (Score:2)
>>don't mind me, USA, just being the last free country on Gods greens earth.
LOL. At least we here in the states don't pretend all the cameras are for public security - they're for monetizing red lights. Oops, I mean, "improving traffic safety" (even though they don't).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:haha brits are treated like children (Score:5, Informative)
So this is one city in the UK as compared to -
The whole of Australia already has this.
As does New Zealand
As do Toronto and Winnipeg
NYC requirees either a camera or a partition.
Yellow Cabs in houston also have them.
This is to stop cab drivers getting robbed and murdered, not to spy on who is going where.
Re: (Score:2)
But they don't need these in Britain. Guns are illegal, so criminals don't have guns. Knives are damn near impossible to own too. And assault is illegal as well. The drivers are perfectly safe; I'm surprised they even bother putting locks on the door.
Re: (Score:3)
False.
Mostly true, despite your sarcasm.
False.
Yup, just like everyone in the US is armed, so nobody ever gets shot, right? And armed society is a polite society, right?
No need to lock your door in the USA....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a girl murdered in a taxi a few months back. Unheard of in this area. The taxi driver admitted to one other murder too.
It shocked everyone here. Scared all us parents shitless. I'd even met him ten years back.
A week after the murder, all taxis SMS you the car licence plate number, colour of the car and make as the taxi arrives.
CCTV seems like the next step. I welcome it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That appears to be more of an American problem than British, AFAICT.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be nearly the same thing there. The only difference is that they used a different excuse (we're currently using terrorism as an excuse). "Some people might get robbed. Therefore, these cameras are necessary!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I took a taxi a few months ago, from Seattle airport. It had a camera inside, pointing at me (and the driver), and a small note saying that everything's recorded "for safety".
Enjoy your imaginary freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
Well you get what you paid for.... Oh that's right, you didn't pay the editors anything.
So I'm not a "Bash the editors" type at all. But . . . I certainly do pay the editors, if indirectly. This is a for-profit site. They monetize the time I spend here, the clicks on the ads etc. (And I don't ever turn off ads on slashdot just on principle to allow them to monetize me more successfully.) That said, they probably only get fractional pennies off me, so if they gave me a penny for my thoughts they're probably overpaying, which is why I feel obliged to provide my thoughts for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you get what you paid for.... Oh that's right, you didn't pay the editors anything.
I'm pretty sure all three of /.'s paid subscribers would beg to differ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, no more sex talk with your mistress coz your wife might find out - especially in cases where you are a public figure of sorts
If you were a public figure and you did this now, you deserve to get caught for being so fucking stupid.