Readers' Comments

From: Michael Hallager (Comsolve Networks) For : The Editor (for publication) Subj: Easy CD Creator In regards to the story on Easy CD Creator I have the following information to contribute:

I was using Easy CD Creator v4.x under Windows NT Workstation v4.0 with Service Pack 6A. This was on a 100% SCSI based PC system using a NEC 40x SCSI CDROM, Sony 10x4x32 internal SCSI writer and a Seagate Cheetah 9.2Gb SCSI3-160 HDD. I believe that this problem may affect other systems. Although it is not the same problem as highlighted in the news article - I am supplying this information in the hope it will assist someone. I spent hours looking around Adaptec's and Sony's website to no avail. What happens is that as soon as you start up Easy CD Creator the system blue screens - Highly unusual for NT (Even from a cynical Linux user... :-). The fix is to install an IDE driver, even if NO IDE devices are being used, which is readily available from the Intel site, under the SCSI drivers section of Control Panel.

I would be prepared to send anyone who E-Mails me: michael@comsolve.net.nz a copy of this driver. The file size is not very big. Hope this assists someone... :-) Best regards, Michael Hallager Managing Director Comsolve Networks (NZ) Limited From: Dave Morel For : The Editor (for publication) Subj: "Constable A" There are many important points in here, but is there a conspiracy? The police have asked the media not to publish details about Constable A, and the media have generally complied - this is a public request, it's not hidden. So the fact that the news media have not published the url is simply consistent with that position. Whether that is "unofficial" pressure is a matter of opinion - the Police have certainly been completely open about it. Today your mail can be opened, your telephone tapped. So why should your email be sacroscant? It's just another communications medium - it's not sacred. The question we should be asking is where the line should be drawn between complete privacy (government can't look/listen at all) and open slather (government can look/listen at will without any surveillance). The line should be somewhere, and once it has been decided where the line is drawn, we need an approval/monitoring regime to ensure it is not abused. Editor's note I've had a number of private emails suggesting that the media's attitude to publishing the URL is simply consistent with their policy to publishing the name/photo of "Constable A." While this may at first glance appear true -- I take issue with this excuse. The website containing this information is deliberately designed so that you can't accidentally stumble across the picture -- which is why I chose to link to it, even though I have never published his name or photo myself. Indeed, the constable's name has already been widely posted to the Internet and his photo has always been available to those who wanted to do a little digging -- so I can only assume that those who haven't already seen this information have simply chosen not to. I believe it was fair enough that the mainstream media chose not to publish the name/photo -- because the formats which they use (print and broadcast) do not give them the ability to let a reader/viewer/listener) choose for themselves whether to accept that information. It is probably unreasonable to dump Constable A's picture on the 6 o'clock news or the front page of the Herald -- but if you have to go through several web-pages then click on a clearly labeled button in order to see what has already been deemed by the courts to be legal information then that's a whole different story. After all -- nobody is going to force anyone to visit the site and click on the links and button are they? If people really feel that the information should not be made public then they have an issue with the courts -- not with a website operator who has simply published legal material in a manner that puts the choice back in the hands of the public. While the mainstream media might have a right not to thrust this information upon us by publishing or broadcasting it directly, I don't believe they have a right to withhold it from us by refusing to carry a link to a website that gives users a choice as to whether they want to view it or not -- removing that choice is censorship and only serves to damage the publisher's objectivity and credibility. Note also that I have not made any judgments as to the rights and wrongs or culpabilities of any parties involved in the actual shooting itself -- I believe that for anyone who does not have first-hand information to do so is irresponsible. Unless you were there on the night, chances are you are basing your opinions on second or third-hand information and that's not a clever thing to do. My only gripe is with the way the media are denying the public the right to choose for themselves whether they access known and undenied facts (ie: the identity/photo of the officer). Aardvark From: Ian For : The Editor (for publication) Subj: Never assume it's paranoia I'm inrigued by your assumption that the absence of URLs from mainstream media coverage of net related stories suggests that there is some sort of cover-up going on. Isn't it more likely that it's the mainstream press once again failing to realise that an internet story without a URL is like a history book without dates or a geography book without maps? Never ascribe to conspiracy or malice anything that is adequately explained by cock ups. "Aotearoa Widget Corporation, Australasia's leading distributor of widgets, has shown an increase of over 200% in sales since implementing Gnomovision's database handler last June. Consumers wishing to experience AWC's product in the comfort of their homes can download a trial copy free of charge from their website. CEO Lou Costello said last week 'This has improved our company's profitability more than I could ever have imagined.' Gnomovision is owned by a company in the Waikato." Typical sort of mainstream media story. And AWC's URL is...? And Gnomovision's URL is...? This is still typical of these mainstream media people. It's considerably better than it was a year or so ago, but it's still not good, I'm sorry to say. As for you, you are right, you made it quite clear what I had to do to find out the guy's name: I chose not to click the link from my office, instead ducking out to a local cybercafe.