COFEE leaked everywhere…

December 14, 2009

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Microsoft_COFEE_%28Computer_Online_Forensics_Evidence_Extractor%29_tool_and_documentation,_Sep_2009

Tony Blair and Fern Britton

I’ll write this piece when I can stomach looking at this horrible cunt for more than 10 seconds….can’t face it right now…

dont use Google.

If you’re concerned about Google retaining your personal data, then you must be doing something you shouldn’t be doing. At least that’s the word from Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” Schmidt tells CNBC, sparking howls of incredulity from the likes of Gawker.

But the bigger news may be that Schmidt has actually admitted there are cases where the search giant is forced to release your personal data.

“If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines – including Google – do retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.”

There’s also the possibility of subpoenas. And hacks. But if any of this bothers you, you should be ashamed of yourself. According to Eric Schmidt.

Gawker highlights the irony of Schmidt’s typically haughty proclamations. After all, this is the man who banned CNet for a year after the news site published information about him it had gleaned from, yes, Google.

But the larger point here is that Schmidt isn’t even addressing the issue at hand. Per usual. When the privacy question appears, Google likes to talk about the people asking the questions. But the problem lies elsewhere: with the millions upon millions blissfully unaware of the questions.

If you’re concerned about your online privacy, you can always put the kibosh on Google’s tracking cookies. You can avoid signing in to Google accounts. And, yes, you can avoid using Google for anything Eric Schmidt thinks you shouldn’t be doing. But most web users don’t even realize Google is hoarding their data.

CNBC asks Schmidt: “People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?” But he answers by scoffing at those who don’t trust Google at all.

Not that you’d expect anything less. As always, Schmidt’s holier-than-thou attitude is wonderfully amusing. Except that it’s not.

Seeing as Eric clearly has nothing to hide, lets share some of his data!

http://blogs.forumer.com/Beheer/9576/part+I%3A+Private+data+Google+CEO+Eric+Schmidt%3B+he%26%2339%3Bs+sueing+them+for+this+info+right+now%21.html

Oh what a fucking hypocrite!

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/

Dr Eric Schmidt is very clever and wise. Has he changed his mind?

In July 2009, few months ago, he was wise enough to declare:

Eric Shmidt Interview July 2009: “I don’t think anyone wants everything revealed. That’s why we have doors and shades and so forth. ”

Keep spewing your shit, Eric. Do you even know what you are saying?

What a cunt…

November 3, 2009

Gordon Brown

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23763767-gordon-brown-im-right-to-overrule-drug-advisers.do

Witness the gall and audacity of this grotesque, fat, half blind cunt in all its glory (link above).

Science is all well and good, but only when it agrees with corrupt government policy apparently. Otherwise it’s bad, naughty science, and needs to be put in its place by the likes of postman Johnson.

Maybe Gordon should ease up on the booze, doesn’t seem to be working out for him (apart from in the taxation sense, of course)

Alan Johnson – ex postman. David Nutt – professor of psychopharmacology at Bristol University and head of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London. Clearly Alan Johnson is vastly more qualified to make this decision…

The government’s former chief drug adviser today accused the prime minister, Gordon Brown, of tightening the law on cannabis for political reasons.

 

Professor David Nutt warned that other experts on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) could resign in protest at his sacking by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, yesterday.

 

Nutt was forced to quit after he accused ministers of “devaluing and distorting” the scientific evidence over illicit drugs when they decided last year to reclassify cannabis from class C to class B against the advice of the ACMD.

 

Nutt told the BBC today that Brown had “made up his mind” to reclassify cannabis despite evidence to the contrary.

 

Gordon Brown comes into office and, soon after that, he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal… it has to be a class B drug. He has made his mind up.

 

“We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, ‘No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it’s still a class C drug.’ He said, ‘Tough, it’s going to be class B’.”

 

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Nutt said: “He is the first prime minister, this is the first government, that has ever in the history of the Misuse of Drugs Act gone against the advice of its scientific panel.

 

“And then it did it again with ecstasy and I have to say it’s not about [me] overstepping the line, it’s about the government overstepping the line. They are making scientific decisions before they’ve even consulted with their experts.

 

“I know that my committee was very, very upset by the attitude the prime minister took over cannabis. We actually formally wrote to him to complain about it,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them stepped down. Maybe all of them will.”

 

Nutt’s sacking is likely to raise concerns among scientists over the independence of advice to the government and may trigger further resignations. The Home Office describes the ACMD as an independent expert body that advises on drug-related issues, including recommendations on classification under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act.

 

It is not thought that the home secretary spoke directly to Nutt before requesting his resignation in writing.

 

Johnson accused the professor of going beyond his remit as an evidence-based scientist and accused him of “lobbying for a change in government policy” rather than giving impartial advice.

 

“It is important that the government’s messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding of them,” Johnson wrote to Nutt.

 

“As my lead adviser on drugs harms I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities.

 

“I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD.”

 

The decision followed the publication of a paper by the Centre for Crime and Justice at King’s College London, based on a lecture Nutt delivered in July. He repeated his familiar view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause and pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

 

He accused the former home secretary, Jacqui Smith, of distorting and devaluing scientific research when she reclassified cannabis, and repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy were no worse than riding a horse.

 

The charity DrugScope’s director of communications, Harry Shapiro, said: “The home secretary’s decision to force the resignation of the chair of an independent advisory body is an extremely serious and concerning development and raises serious questions about the means by which drug policy is informed and kept under review.”

 

Richard Garside, the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice at King’s College London, accused Johnson of undermining scientific research.

 

He said: “I’m shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion.”

 

Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC), said: “It is crucial that UK policy is based on evidence and that scientists are able to offer unfettered advice without the fear of reprisal. This principle should be the backbone of scientific engagement with government.”

 

Neuroscientist Professor Colin Blakemore, former chief executive of the MRC, said he believed Prof Nutt was trying to “inform debate”.

 

“If ministers decide to go against the recommendations of their own experts, I really think the public is entitled to know why,” he told Sky News.

…because he wouldn’t lie for them.

The UK’s chief drugs adviser has been sacked by home secretary Alan Johnson after criticising government policies.

Professor David Nutt had been critical of the decision to reclassify cannabis to Class B from Class C.

He accused ministers of devaluing and distorting evidence and said the drugs classification system was being used in a “political way”.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which he headed, is the UK’s official drugs advisory body.

The reaction of Jacqui Smith is typical of a government populated by the intellectually incompetent whose only reaction is to shoot the messenger when faced with facts they dislike. This stinks of the way they managed the David Kelly affair.

http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/estimatingdrugharms.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/10/nutt_faces_sack.html

What a CUNT.

 

 

Just look at the CUNT.

I wonder what it would feel like to rape him and then cut his throat. I wonder.