A thug department in the UK says it will note down wolf-whistling as a "hate crime", but we shouldn't worry because people won't be prosecuted.

Most of these unpleasant things, I myself would never do. But the idea that it is wrong to take occasional photos on the street of people you don't know seems very dangerous. Does that include thugs?

Now, taking the photo and identifying the person's face starts to be menacing.

Workers on strike against Trump's casino held a protest at his office in New York.

When thugs shoot and kill people, mainstream journalists use "copspeak" in their articles to slant them to favor the thugs.

Marcy Wheeler reports that her own investigations of 7 drone bombings found 57 to 71 civilians killed. That is nearly as much as the total that the Obama regime says it killed in over 470 drone attacks.

An experiment demonstrates that people will agree to nearly anything in the terms of service of a web site they want to use. Including giving permission to show all their personal data to employers and the NSA.

The terms they agreed to also involved promising their first born child to the owners of the service -- but those few who bothered to read the terms perhaps recognized that this condition would be legally unenforceable in the US.

Alas, permission to give the data to employers and the NSA would actually be legally valid, as far as I know. (Not that the NSA would hold back due to lack of permission.)

The lesson here is that the idea that "you are the owner of data about you, and it can't be used without your permission," is the wrong approach. We can't solve the surveillance threat that way.

We need to prohibit systems from even collecting data about users beyond what we judge necessary for the job being done.

"Innovation" in the digital field means "clever ways of tracking, manipulating and restricting people". We must stop assuming that innovation is to be promoted.