Auschwitz Horse Farm

The man who turned his horse farm into “Auschwitz” has been let out on bail and was seen at a horse fair. Last May, Jamie Gray and his son were arrested when investigators found horses left to die of starvation and surrounded by rotting corpses. They were found guilty of 11 charges under the Animal Welfare Act. He was sentenced for 6 months but walked free after 4 days as he launched an appeal. They were also banned from having anything to do with horses ever again. However just over a year later, outrageous pictures were found of them, at a horse fair.I think this whole story is disgusting. The fact that this man “had caused the worst case of animal cruelty ever seen” said by the RSPCA, would only be sentenced to six months imprisonment is disgraceful. Also that he should be allowed to appeal as there is nothing he could appeal about. He is a despicable man who should have been sentenced to a murder charge as that is basically what he committed. Animals and human’s aren’t that different so for this man to only get 6 months is shameful. If this was humans he would have a life sentence never mind less than a year.Also I don’t understand how this man could be even allowed to go near a horse fair. The people there must recognise him, so why they would even give him the time of day to look at their horses, I don’t understand.However, this wasn’t Jamie Gray’s first conviction of cruelty to animals; he had a record of cruelty to animals and in 2006 was fined £3,500 for unnecessary suffering to animals; however he was still allowed to continue his trading business. The police or whoever is in charge of these types of things should have kept an eye on his future dealings but I think he should have just been banned from working with animals so nothing like this could have ever happened.

Police Officer serves up "hot dogs" from back of patrol car

On Thursday 2nd July, Britain was angered when news was reported that a Police dog handler had left two Alsatian dogs locked in his car during a heatwave. The dogs died from the heat although it was unclear how long they were left in the car for.I think that this is shameful considering he was a trained dog handler, so he should have known that to leave the dogs in a car which heats up extremely quickly was despicable. Any member of the public could tell you that you should never do that and they’re not trained professional in dog care. Also these were donated dogs from a family; they weren’t breaded especially for the police. Therefore you would assume they would take extra care of them as they belonged to a family who had kindly donated the dogs for public service.Temperatures soared to 30˚C, so the temperature in the car could have easily reached more than 47˚C within 30 minutes. I think it’s appalling that something like this could have happened. Perhaps it’s because we all have had an idealised and maybe incorrect view that the police officers are supposed to set an example to regular citizens and with that a sense of responsibility and rational thinking would naturally be applied.I do not believe this happened out of maliciousness or forgetfulness but plain laziness. The dogs kennel’s were only yards away, so the police officer could have easily put them in the kennels while he carried out what he needed to do. However he chose not to bother, therefore leading to the death of the dogs.Not only is it the fact that two dogs were killed within all of this, but also it is tax payers money which is used to train these dogs and at over £7,000 to train each dog, it doesn’t come cheap. To train these dogs it also takes a 9 week intense course and as one dog was only newly trained, it was a waste of police time and tax payers money, which could have been put to other uses.A statement from Nottinghamshire Police said the welfare of its animals was "of paramount importance". Yet these dogs were still neglected by the person who was trained to look after them, so obviously the welfare of the dogs is not “of paramount importance” to everyone.The RSPCA should prosecute; as if this was any member of the public they would surely be charged without investigations. So why should it be any different for this man just because he is a police officer.

BT Would be Web-Wise to Get Back on Phorm

Although BT stated that it ditched Phorm’s Webwise system because of cost-saving issues, it seems clear enough that it was only to refrain from offending its customers. Phorm's behavioural targeting system tracked sites visited by Internet users to facilitate relevant ad-delivery and became controversial after criticism of privacy invasion. These privacy concerns did not come from ISP consumers but instead have been voiced by a small group of mis-informed privacy advocates.The negative publicity that has been whipped up against Phorm – and, as a result, behavioural targeting internet ad-delivery in general – is unfortunate. The benefits for customers themselves are too often overlooked. Targeted advertising is a great way for ISPs to generate income which can be ploughed back into improving networks for customers and reducing the cost of broadband packages. The dropping of Webwise means that BT has missed this golden opportunity to deliver a better quality and potentially cheaper service to consumers.The privacy issue has also arguably been blown out of proportion. Of course privacy should always be a concern in this day and age, but as often stressed by Phorm, the privacy of customers is protected as identities remain anonymous. Simon Davies, founding member of surveillance and privacy watchdog Privacy International, even commends Webwise’s minimal collection of personal information.Although privacy advocates have called for an opt-in approach to be made available to users of Phorm, this would be disastrous as opt-in means behavioural targeting ad providers like Phorm would have the consent of users to access all their personal information and surfing habits.Phorm could have made things much easier for themselves by being completely transparent about their service and opt-in/opt-out approach. That way, not only would all legal issues surrounding Phorm be irrelevant, customer satisfaction would also still be fully guaranteed.

Anything to declare?

Ah, America! The world's brightest beacon of democracy and freedom; the New World of limitless opportunity, where hard work and fair play are rewarded with the fabulous bounties of the American Dream.And who can forget that America was built upon the exertions and human capital of the millions of immigrants - themselves often refugees from war, slavery and famine?Modern day arrivals in the USA have a slightly different experience from these pioneering immigrants. Gone are the humiliating medical inspections, where those suspected of illness and physical defects were marked with chalk symbols. Instead, visitors are subjected to a terrifying ordeal of interrogation by customs officials, including such charmingly naive questions as "Is it your intention to overthrow the government of the United States?" (WS Gilbert famously answered: "Sole purpose of visit".)But now it's not just fearsome feds with sunglasses and ear pieces that travellers have to worry about: they could risk having their personal data compromised, including fingerprints, employment history and credit information.It all stems from a company called Clear, which used to speed its customers through customs for an annual payment of $200. To do this, they asked their customers for the personal data that customs officials need to know about travellers. A quarter of a million customers signed up to Clear's service and, for a while, enjoyed VIP treatment at US airports, being rushed through customs and immigration while the plebs queued and sweated.Unfortunately, Clear shut down its operations last week, and the fate of customers' personal data hangs in the balance. What's interesting is that the company says that it will continue to hold onto this sensitive information, which could still be used by another Register Traveller programme. In other words, the data is a business asset that could be parcelled up and sold on to another firm - as long as that company is in the same line of business.This is proof - if proof be needed - that personal data is no nothing more than another commodity to be bought and sold. It's worth noting that Clear's privacy policy states that "We do not sell or give lists or compilations of the personal information of our members or applicants to any business or non-profit organization." Unless, that is, we go bust.We've noted before that companies often rely on burying objectionable practices deep within their Terms and Conditions, but if bankruptcy means companies can ignore their own privacy policies, that's a huge blow to data protection. Even if Clear's successor abides by the most stringent data protection policies, the transfer of such large amounts of sensitive information from one organisation to another is a fraudster's paradise, with plenty of opportunity for data to go missing.

Misunderstood NebuAd Forced to Close down

This week American online advertising company NebuAd closed its doors for good and with it disappeared a much needed new revenue stream for ISPs.The company ran out of money, and seemed to be struggling after the US Congress held hearings last year to examine its Internet practice which was deemed to be an invasion of privacy. Congress subsequently dropped the investigation, of course. But whilst NebuAd's customers took the very proper position not to use the service whilst the investigation was going on, the systems didn't seem to go back on, NebuAd seems to have lost cash and closed shop.NebuAd gathered information at an ISP level to serve customers with relevant ads.Unfortunately, the upshot seems to be that ISPs have lost out on a great opportuinity. The ad revenue, which would have been shared with ISPs, could have been invested in improving existing technology, cutting overall costs or even used to reduce the price of services for existing and potential customers.NebuAd explicitly stated in their privacy policy that they would "specifically not store or use any information relating to confidential medical information, racial or ethnic origins, religious beliefs, or sexuality which are tied to personally identifiable information ('sensitive personal information')."However, if NebuAd actually used technology that made the customer anonymous, hasn't the public lost something that would have protected their privacy as well? And how many people are opting into services - either inadvertently or lazily - and are giving their consent for companies to totally profile them without any attempt at anonymity. It'll be a very sad occurrence if the end of this company means the end of any attempt at anonymity by companies offering advertising on the Internet, with the excuse that, "Well, you opted in, so we can glean whatever information we like about you."

Google fails

Congratulations students of the globe! For anyone from the ages of 5 to 15 can enjoy Google’s new attempt at structured data search: Google Squared. And that’s presumably the only group of people that would ever consider using it. Remember when you were eight and your teacher asked you to make a pretty table on British Monarchy with all the monarchs of Britain including their children, spouses and important dates? How you pored over huge encyclopaedias to get all the information? Well, Google Squared officially heralds the end of early education as all these tasks are completed in a matter of seconds for our burgeoning historians and other putative scientists. If only it were that easy. Just as Babel Fish translate could only ever get a student 12/20 on French translation homework after its launch all those years ago, Google Squared fails to achieve… well anything it’s going for really. A search for the British Monarchy in an attempt to tabulate a chronological factfile brings up a table with the following order – George VI, George II, George V. The genius that is Squared then goes off on a little jaunt that includes the Act of the Union, the Irish Free State, Buckingham Palace and the House of Orange. This just gets embarrassing: the picture accompanying the House of Orange? Why of course! Its Gemma Arterton arriving for the ‘Orange’ BAFTAs at the Royal Opera ‘House’. This is surely Google gone mad. Actually we shouldn’t really be surprised; to be fair to Google, nowadays the Bond Girl must get more hits than the Dutch royals.It’s rather life affirming to know that even the great god Google isn’t completely infallible. This is an exciting day indeed. This revelation is like those wonderful moments when that beautiful woman who walks like she is better than everyone else trips and falls flat on her face on Oxford Street. At the Christmas Light switch on. On the podium. And the woman is Kate Moss.One must presumably conclude that the only reason Google released this in such an awkward condition was to distract attention from somewhere else: another attempt to make searching intelligent recently arrived in the form of Wolfram Alpha, the computational knowledge engine. It proclaims to ‘generate output by doing computations from its own internal knowledge base, instead of searching the web and returning links.’ This means, instead of producing lists of useless links or grids of questionable information, it creates pages to answer your search, to the best of its ability. When asked, ‘How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?’, the clever engine replies, ‘The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. (according to Bob Dylan).’ Indeed.

UK Organisations Failing to Follow Email Marketing Best Practice

Have you ever tried to subscribe to a mailing list or newsletter online and found that it took forever to sign up? Or that you needed to create an account first, or you couldn’t even find the box to put your email address in? Well, you aren’t the only one.New research from the email deliverability services company Return Path has found that two out of every five UK companies make it difficult for customers to subscribe to their email marketing programmes. As Return Path's Vice President for European Operations, Guy Shelton says: ‘Giving subscribers a great email experience isn't just “nice to do”; it is, of course, an essential marketing best practice.’ This great experience doesn’t just cover the sign up process but the content of the emails too.However, even when customers manage to sign up, out of the companies that successfully delivered a welcome message to the inbox only 45 per cent included a special offer for the new customer. By including a special offer, companies are able to show their thanks and start the relationship well with the customer, meaning they are more likely to read their emails and use the company in the future.Furthermore, by failing to follow email marketing best practice, many UK organisations risk generating spam complaints. According to Return Path, if a welcome message does not arrive within 24 hours it increases the chance of the subscriber marking the subsequent email as spam. This harms the company’s “sender reputation”, which reflects the likelihood of their emails being delivered successfully.But is it just too difficult and time-consuming to follow best practice? Not according to Return Path. Guy Shelton explains that ‘The steps that organisations need to improve their sender reputation are quick and simple to take’ and the easy steps can help organisations ‘build strong subscriber relationships, experience better deliverability, increase conversions and improve return on investment (ROI).’Return Path’s research has pointed out some major problems with email marketing in the UK, and it will be interesting to see how companies react. Return Path believe that it is easy to get right, and with their advice, companies can greatly improve their email reputation and therefore make more money.