BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DRM has a 'Chilling effect' on genuine technological research, preventing legitimate reverse-enginee...

DRM has a 'Chilling effect' on genuine technological research, preventing legitimate reverse-engineering of technologies for research purposes, particularly in university departments which don't get funding for this because of the potential legal issues. In the USA “The DMCA has also been cited as chilling to legitimate users, such as students of cryptanalysis (including, in a well-known instance, Professor Felten and students at Princeton), and security consultants such as Niels Ferguson, who has declined to publish information about vulnerabilities he discovered in an Intel secure-computing scheme because of his concern about being arrested under the DMCA when he travels to the US.”
There is a logic which says that DRM may actually lead to reduced sales, hence not even benefiting a...

There is a logic which says that DRM may actually lead to reduced sales, hence not even benefiting artists (protection of their revenues is the rationale used by record companies). As argued above, DRM allows overpricing. Sony and EMI have recognised this in China, where to combat DVD and VCD piracy they have cut DRM spending and now sell their VCDs for around $2. As a result, they can now compete on price with the pirates, people pay a small amount more for a genuine version, and EMI have doubled their profits in the VCD market since 2005, almost all attributable to increased sales. For domestic users, DRM makes it so difficult to manage your media (i.e. if you lose your hard disc then you lose all of the itunes that you've paid to download) that it actually creates a positive incentive to download pirate mp3s rather than legitimate itunes songs. The same is true with firms using Windows XP and other such software.\ Internationally, overpricing encourages piracy in countries where the major media producers haven't got a local pricing policy, and so here all copies are pirate and the entire revenue from that country is lost. DRM also ties artists to a single format and form of copyright protection, as well as drawing criticism from the anti-DRM lobby for their music. It is hugely ironic that free-spirited artists who would have opposed corporate control, such as The Clash, Sex Pistols and Leonard Cohen are now effectively endorsing it because their music companies distribute DRM-protected disks.
Shopping locally supports local farmers and the local economy – rather than huge multinational corpo...

Buying only local produce means making a commitment to paying much more money for your weekly shop. 250 years ago, Adam Smith demonstrated that there is an economic law of comparative advantage. This states that each country or region should focus on producing those crops and manufactures to which it is best suited, exporting these and using the income to purchase things which other countries can produce more cheaply and efficiently. This way everyone prospers, gaining the most profit from their special areas of economic expertise, while spending less to buy those things in which others excel. Deciding to buy only local produce flies in the face of economic reality, because much of the food that can be produced nearby would be much cheaper if imported from another country with cheaper land and labour, a more suitable climate and greater economies of scale. The bottom line here is that shopping local can only ever be an indulgence of the rich – ordinary working families must follow the rules of comparative advantage and buy their food cheaply from supermarkets, which can seek out the cheapest and most efficient sources of each foodstuff.
Local shopping benefits the environment. At the moment most food in the stores has been transported...

Buying local is not actually environmentally friendly. The idea of food miles sounds wonderfully green, but the concept is deeply flawed. Often it takes much more energy (for heated glasshouses and fertilisers) to grow fruit and vegetables locally than it does to grow them in a country with a more suitable climate and then transport them by road, sea or air. Studies have found that it is better for the environment to produce butter, cheese, lamb and apples in New Zealand and then ship them to Britain, than it is to buy the same items from English producers. And most of the food miles travelled by products come from consumers driving to and from the shops. Indeed, the carefully packed lorries of the huge supermarkets are a more energy efficient way of distributing food than having lots of small producers driving pick-up trucks to farmers markets.
Local shopping is good for the whole community. Rather than the impersonal experience of visiting a...

Buying local produce from farmers markets may be a wonderful social experience, but it also acts as a form of protectionism (which is why farm lobbies are keen on it). As well as artificially increasing family food bills in developed countries, the cult of localism also hits farmers in the developing world by denying them an export market. Over the past decade or so countries like Kenya and Peru have begun to develop their way out of poverty by exploiting their comparative advantages in agriculture. Their commercial farming operations provide fresh fruit and vegetables for rich consumers in developing countries. Farms growing crops like beans, broccoli, plums and cherries have provided good jobs for hundreds of thousands of poor people, and brought their countries valuable income and investment. We should not sacrifice this massive benefit to the pursuit of protectionist “localism”.
Buying locally-produced food means that it will be much fresher and healthier. Typical supermarket ...

Buying local foods from farmers markets does not necessarily mean that the produce is fresher. Today supermarkets’ efficient supply chains mean that green beans are on the shelves in Britain or the USA within 24 hours of being picked in Kenya or Peru. As most farmers markets only operate once or twice a week, the chances are that their produce is no fresher than this. In addition, farmers markets are a great marketing brand, but there is no guarantee that all of the goods sold are really local at all. British farmers markets often feature such items as olives and coffee beans, which cannot accurately be described as local. And if there is no source for a particular product within 20 miles or so of the market, a producer from much further away will be allowed to come in and take a stall.
Shopping for local produce is also part of a wider movement to rediscover and celebrate local food c...

We should be grateful for the advances of transport and economic globalisation, which have brought such a wide range of foods to our shops. Our grandparents ate largely local produce, and this gave them a very dull diet with a very limited choice of fruit and vegetables. They understood the importance of seasonal variation all right, but that meant they had little access to vitamins in the cold winter and spring months. Our diet today is much healthier and more varied as a result of globalisation, and we should not try to turn the clock back to the bad old days when only local produce was available.
By creating a market for a wide variety of agricultural produce, shopping locally will encourage loc...

There are other, better ways to be environmentally friendly than insisting on shopping for local produce. Locally grown food may be very intensively reared, so if sustainability is important to you, buy organic food regardless of where it comes from. If you have a garden, grow your own vegetables and fruit. And if you truly care about the environment, eat less meat as raising livestock involves much more carbon emissions than arable farming.
Shopping locally supports local farmers and the local economy – rather than huge multinational corpo...

Shopping locally supports local farmers and the local economy – rather than huge multinational corporations. Typically farmers are forced to sell to middlemen or big business, such as huge supermarket corporations. This means growers see only a small fraction of the price the public eventually pays in the store (as little as 18 cents of every dollar in the USA). This drives down farm incomes and is forcing many farmers off the land as they can no longer make a living. By selling directly to the public at farmers’ markets and farm shops instead, producers can ensure that they get a fair price for their crops and livestock. The income this provides is particularly crucial for small producers, and for farmers committed to more sustainable, less intensive methods, such as organic production. Consumers who want to support their local producers and sustainable farming over big agribusiness and retailers should therefore aim to shop locally wherever possible.
Local shopping benefits the environment. At the moment most food in the stores has been transported...

Local shopping benefits the environment. At the moment most food in the stores has been transported huge distances, often from countries far away. Even locally-sourced food may be trucked hundreds of miles to a big distribution centre, before being sent back to a store near its point of origin. These “food miles” represent an enormous environmental cost in terms of carbon emissions and contribute hugely to the problem of climate change. This is especially true of food that has been air-freighted, a very environmentally damaging practice. In addition, shopping for locally produced food reduces unnecessary and environmentally-damaging packaging
Local shopping is good for the whole community. Rather than the impersonal experience of visiting a...

Local shopping is good for the whole community. Rather than the impersonal experience of visiting a huge out-of-store retailer, shopping for local produce brings consumers into contact with a whole range of different people. Buying from those who actually grew the food and moving from stall to stall turns shopping into a real social event. Dealing with those who actually cared for the livestock encourages much more conversation and forges social bonds, creating sustainable communities and linking urban areas to the countryside surrounding them. Consumers also get a chance to learn about where their food comes from, to enquire about animal welfare standards or pesticide use, and to raise environmental concerns, while gaining an appreciation of the pressures on local farmers.
Buying locally-produced food means that it will be much fresher and healthier. Typical supermarket ...

Buying locally-produced food means that it will be much fresher and healthier. Typical supermarket fruit and vegetables are often picked 4-7 days before they make it on to the shelves, and so may be nearly two weeks old before they are actually eaten, by which time much of their goodness will have long departed. To cope with these long delays, many fruits are picked in an unripe state, so that they do not start to rot on the supermarket shelves – meaning their full flavour has never developed out in the sun on the tree or plant. By buying locally consumers can ensure that they get the tastiest, healthiest food. Experience also suggests that people are more likely to vary their diet by trying new foods if they come from local producers, who can offer tastings and recipe advice.
Shopping for local produce is also part of a wider movement to rediscover and celebrate local food c...

Shopping for local produce is also part of a wider movement to rediscover and celebrate local food cultures. The Slow Food movement emphasises the cultural importance of local cuisines based upon the range of foods that are available within a particular region. By treating the whole world as our larder we have gained an enormous choice of foods, but at the cost of our own culinary heritage and folk traditions. We have also lost a sense of seasonality, expecting asparagus and strawberries all year round. Local food restores this connection with the rhythm of the seasons, and connects us to the land around us and to our ancestors who helped to shape it.
By creating a market for a wide variety of agricultural produce, shopping locally will encourage loc...

By creating a market for a wide variety of agricultural produce, shopping locally will encourage local farmers to grow and rear a wide variety of crops and animals. Intensive modern farming often consists of huge agribusinesses growing monocultures of wheat, corn, rape or soya over vast areas, with little room left for nature. Even livestock farming can impose one type of farming practice upon the environment and drive out plants and animals which cannot cope with those methods. More varied farming practices are valuable for promoting biodiversity, encouraging a whole range of birds, animals and plants to establish themselves in field margins and adjacent wild areas. Local variety is also good farming practice, as it means that any disease or pest infestation will not be able to spread quickly to devastate a whole region.
ID cards will help protect cardholders against identity theft and fraud

Identity theft or fraud involves someone using your identity to, for example, open bogus accounts, apply for loans, buy goods over the phone or internet, or take over one of your bank accounts. By registering and using your card to prove who you are you will be able to protect yourself and help reduce identity theft. The National Identity Scheme is designed to be more secure than current ways of proving identity. It will make it extremely difficult for someone else to impersonate you, even if they have your ID card, because only you can be matched to your biometrics.
A unique ID number will increase 'identity fraud'

I accept that there is a danger of more ID fraud. Fraudsters will target the best source of data. But they already do! Hence the importance now of protecting credit card data etc. We now live in the computer age and cannot turn the clock back. Making data more difficult to collect simply increases the social costs we all pay. Instead we need to concentrate on legal protection legislation and active improvement of data security. This will never be perfect but it is more effective than trying to stop the further collection and use of data. What is it that the government will do with this "unprecedentedly detailed picture of your life"? Even if they wished to go to the effort of track the movements of one person how is this actually harming you?
ID cards will help combat illegal working and reduce illegal immigration to the UK

There are an estimated 430,000 illegal migrants living in the UK, and employers currently have no reliable way of establishing whether or not a job applicant has a right to work here. The National Identity Scheme will help employers find out about the immigration status of job applicants and about any visa restrictions which mean they cannot legally work in the UK. This will speed up the checking process and could be an advantage to those immigrants who are entitled to work. It could also help to identify people who try to work here illegally and could deter potential illegal immigrants from coming to the UK.
The UK is a liberal society and unused to ID cards

Yes and unlike European cities the UK is descending into the grip of yob culture. Binge drinking and aggressive antisocial behaviour make our cities and towns virtual no-go areas at the weekend. People are too afraid to intervene for fear of attack with knife or gun - the dangers we face are not from international terrorists but from our own indisciplined and disrespectful youths. High time we joined Europe and required all our citizens to carry ID - and change the law requiring people to cooperate with police officers.
ID cards will provide a reliable way of checking the identity of people in positions of trust

There is no such thing as a 100% secure system. The more layers of access, the more security is diluted. The more the potential worth of the data, the greater attraction to hackers and criminals. Labour's success rate with IT projects is significantly lower than Eddie the Eagle's ski-jump records. Governments will make personal data available to anyone they think has more than one foot on the jobsworth ladder, so your private details will be open to scrutiny by any Asda trolley collector and the local park lavatory attendant. When security is breached (ie on day one if not before) everybody will try to cover it up, through embarrassment, fear of financial penalties and because they will not know how it has happened or how to stop it. This will mean that when the axe murderer who has just escaped from the local lunatic asylum says he is Jimmy Savil, if his card confirms it, nobody will seek to question its validity.
A unique ID number will increase 'identity fraud'

As has been the experience in the US (where they use the SSID) and Australia (where they use the tax number), using a single ID number for a whole range of transactions actually increases 'identity fraud'. Criminals are more easily able to discover and link together seperate pieces of information, facilitiating fraud and eroding privacy. The card itself is only the tip of the iceberg. A single number (the 'National Identity Register Number' or NIRN) will, over time, be used to index and link together every record that the government - and potentially others - hold on you. Every use (when, where, with whom) of your card or check on the ID database will be recorded, creating an unprecedentedly detailed picture of your life.
ID cards will allow the police more quickly to identify suspects and people they arrest.

Terrorists and criminals use false and multiple identity *documents* to disguise their activities, etc. Not all of these are/will be *British* documents, nor are they all particularly hard to get a hold of - terror suspects' 'false IDs' routinely include library tickets and bus passes. Unless everyone is required to carry and present their ID card - and only their ID card - for every transaction, there will still be plenty of other valid forms of ID (e.g. a passport or ID card from another EU country) in circulation. Suicide bombers seem quite content to use valid ID. And note the level of surveillance implied. The government wants to record every time you rent a car, open a bank account, transfer money, book a hotel room, train ticket or flight. It doesn't know who the terrorist or criminals are, so it'll simply create a dossier on everyone 'just in case'. Woe betide anyone who accidentally 'fits the profile' of a terrorist, rapist or who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and then has to prove their innocence... The biometric and biographical checks will NOT prevent multiple applications. The head of the ID programme admitted as much way back in 2005. And the Home Office has never explained how it will prevent 'ID laundering' - i.e. assuming the personal details of someone not yet registered - let alone sort out the mess when the theft is discovered, years after the criminal has been using someone's 'clean' identity as their own. Biometrics are no magic bullet and the more people's biometrics you put onto a database, the worse they perform. Experts predict error rates as high as 1 in 1000 when only 10% of the population have been fingerprinted, and government trials in 2004 showed terrifyingly high real world error rates - 1 in 3 for face, 1 in 5 for fingerprints and 1 in 20 for iris. How would you like to have to prove you weren't somewhere at a certain time and date years ago, when the government ID computer says you were? One final point: ID cards will not be compulsory to carry. The government has stressed this time and again. So, if you don't have to carry an ID card and live biometric checks simply aren't up to the job (and don't forget it'll be the middle of the 2020s or beyond before everyone has been registered, even on the most optimistic timetable) the police won't be helped at all. In fact, they'll probably end up wasting more time sorting out ID problems than catching real criminals.
It will cost £19bn or more

Acccording to the London School of Ecomomic's upper estimate the ID scheme will cost £19.2 billion to set up over its first ten years [see http://identityproject.lse.ac.uk/ for full report and latest information]. The Home Office - while keeping all its workings secret - has admitted that its estimate doesn't account for the cost to other government departments, public bodies, businesses, banks and employers who will have to absorb the cost of integrating ID checks into their systems and processes - which could easily top another £10bn or more. All these additional costs will either be picked up by the taxpayer (i.e. you) or passed onto the consumer (i.e. you). The direct cost to the individual will be far greater than the "£93" that the government says it will charge you for a passport and ID card 'package' (ID registration will be compulsory when you apply for or renew your passport), or "£30" 'standalone' card. If you lose your card or it is stolen you will have to pay for a replacement. If any detail on the card or your record is incorrect you will have to pay to get it changed - or be fined £1000. You will have to pay to be re-issued a card every 10 years, and will bear the cost of travelling to your nearest 'enrolment' centre to be fingerprinted or have your eyes scanned. Every time your details are checked against the ID database, the government will make a charge - which will, inevitably, be passed on to you. Current government statements and requests for supplier 'expressions of interest' put the cost of setting up the 'National Identity Scheme' (which now explicitly includes biometric visas & eBorders) at £7.5 billion, up from the £1.3 - 3.1bn it was originally supposed to cost. The Home Office admits to having spent over £72 million already, and it hasn't yet issued a single 'ID card' contract or specification.
ID cards will provide a reliable way of checking the identity of people in positions of trust

You need to know that people in positions of trust (such as nannies, carers for the elderly, childminders, and so on) are who they say they are. Biometric data in the ID card means that a potential employer could quickly and reliably confirm an applicant’s identity. The Criminal Records Bureau could also use the applicant’s Identity Registration Number (IRN) in order to check that they have no criminal record, for example. Use of the IRN will speed up such searches significantly.
ID Cards will not protect us from terrorism and crime!

Terrorists and criminals are known to use false and multiple identities to disguise their activities, avoid detection and ‘launder’ money. The ‘biographical footprint’ check will make it extremely difficult to register with the National Identity Scheme under a false identity, and the scheme will not allow people to register more than once as their biometric data would be detected. While the National Identity Scheme cannot prevent terrorism, it can make it far more difficult for terrorists to conceal their identity. The scheme will help the security services in their investigations into organised crime and terrorist activities and help protect the UK against threats to national security. The National Identity Scheme can also be used by the police and security services for identification. For example, any fingerprints found at the scene of a crime (including unsolved crimes) that do not match existing police records could be identified by searching for a match in the biometric data held on the National Identity Register (NIR). This will greatly speed up investigations and may even lead to the identification of people involved in previously unsolved crimes. ID Cards can also be an important tool in the fight against hooliganism in professional football events. Hooligans/Ultras can be easier identified and either prevented from traveling to football events or from attending them.