What we can do, and should do as a society, is decide on how that technology should be used. And that means regulating it, in the same way that we regulate other technologies. For example, we regulate cars. Not just who can use them, but how they have to be constructed too. And we also place limits on how the authorities can use them, for example the rules that the police must obey when in an emergency response situation.

We are a democracy, so these rules are made by the people we have elected. so when it comes down to it, yes, this is what we as a people have asked for. And we are responsible for the conditions that the police can use this technology under.

FWIW, the capabilities and resources that the police have to track us 24/7 are an order of magnitude less than Google or Meta has. And they are an awful lot less accountable.

If you follow the links there is a lot of information about the trial, including a whole series of documents identifying the legal framework that authorises LFR, including rationale under GDPR, Data Protection etc.

Of course, this technology could be used for bad purposes. But within a democracy, policing happens with the consent of the people, expressed through various channels including legal (parliament and local government) and police commissioners. What is interesting is the way that these frameworks are used to constrain the purpose and extent of this processing. For example, at the moment the images on the watchlist can only be drawn from custody images.

The police already have powers to seize CCTV and door-cam imagery in order to investigate crime. They need a warrant from a judge - so it isn't justified without good reason such as serious crimes. This is the way you constrain these things - you put the regulatory framework around them. You can't put the technology back in the box, so you put rules and expectations around how it is used.

To your point on bike owners not contributing to the economy. They probably have a similar income, and are paying similar taxes. They are still buying groceries. But where they choose to spend their money is different. It's all still economic activity though.

So the whole thing is in front of the Parliamentary Standards Ombudsman who will report to the Parliamentary Standards Committee. That committee can recommend a penalty of a suspension from parliament (which is then voted on by the House). If he is suspended for more than 10 days, then a recall petition can be launched - and if that gets more than 10% of the registered voters in the constituency (which it would), then there is a by-election to decide whether he is fit to serve.

So Farage has announced that he is resigning his seat (causing a by-election), in which he will stand. he claims that he is accountable only to the voters in his constituency (Clacton). All the other major parties have announced that they will not field candidates against him, claiming he is trying to avoid / pre-empt a suspension and a recall by-election. The only other announced candidate is Count Binface - a 'joke' candidate.

Interestingly, it also turns out that at least theoretically (and with a precedant from 1842) his resignation could be blocked. You cannot actually resign your parliamentary seat between elections - you can only be disqualified. And due to UK history, the main reason for disqualification is holding an appointment from the Crown (i.e. the King, not the more general sense of "the Crown" as the government). So if you want to resign your seat, you apply for one of a couple of reserved crown appointments - the usual one is Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds. That disqualifies you, and then there is a by-election. Now it turns out that these appointments are controlled by the Treasury, which is part of the Government (which of course is just the majority faction in parliament). There is a case from 1842 of the Treasury refusing to make a Crown appointment to stop a by-election. It has been suggested that parliament could vote to stop the appointment (and therefore the by-election), at least until the Parliamentary Standards Committee report has come out.

Ruby is object oriented from the ground up. Everything (and I do mean everything) is an object, and method call is conceived as passing messages to objects.

While Ruby is most often compared to Python (an Algol), they come from very different evolutionary routes, and have converged towards the same point in the ecosystem. I think of Ruby as a cuddly Alpaca compared to Python's spitting camel.

The real problem is: assuming that firmware can be updated, how do you run a nationwide update programme overcoming a population that doesn't really care or have the skills to do it.

Vehicle safety standards (mandated annual safety checks like the UK MoT test) is the closest analogy I can think of - in the UK you can't insure your car without a valid MoT. If you were serious, then maybe tying ISP access to updated router firmware would be the way to go.

Maybe what it needs is a testing framework - Σωκράτης (Socrates), that will demonstrate to you that everything you thought you knew about how your programme would behave (or the thought underpinning it) was at best problematic, or at worst just plain wrong!

But given the downvotes maybe there has just been a massive sense of humour across the pond...

[The "Morning Star" is a left wing UK paper, whose editorial stance is in line with the Communist Party of Great Britain (morningstaronline.co.uk)]

Interesting article though.