And the inventive step is?
Fed up of seeing rather obvious solutions patented.
The clever bit is the algorithm. Applying it to the problem of software updates is rather obvious.
93 posts • joined 4 Mar 2008
Fed up of seeing rather obvious solutions patented.
The clever bit is the algorithm. Applying it to the problem of software updates is rather obvious.
BBC are saying:
"Employers who state they do not need a licence could be inspected without warning at any time"
BBC conveniently forget to say that TV licensing don't have a right of access without a warrant.
Back in uni days our hall warden told us all the staff new to refuse access to TV licensing, thereby giving us a few hours to stash the telly in the room of someone who did have a license, if indeed TV Licensing did come back with a warrant.
In the one event TV licensing appeared on campus, no warrant was forthcoming.
I'm not sure of all the facts but this is what the warded told us. Assuming it's legally correct, anyone feel like a Freedom of Information Act request to TV Licensing?
1.) How many warrants to access premises were applied for and
2.) How many were granted?
John, I don't believe there is a rift here.
Possession of indecent images of children, in whatever form, be it electronic or print, is a criminal offence.
As far as I'm aware, this is a "strict liability" offence, meaning outside of a very few well-defined statutory defences possession is a crime.
I don't believe artistic merit is a defence, therefore if the police advised it to be removed from display they should also have arrested and charged the owner or keeper of the work and left the rest to the courts.
No rift - it's either illegal, in which case you can't own or view it via the internet or in print.
Erm lets wait a minute, you can feel sorry for freeloaders stealing music (albeit with the caveat that the strong arm of the record company action may lack rigour in its evidence gathering) yet you find it hard to feel sorry for a $33m judgement against someone who's simply used the domain name system to register some domains and make a bit of pocket money?
Okay, I HATE cybersquatters too, but I put the blame fairly and squarely on the registration process where registrars have for years been happy to sell 'em cheap and let the battle commence.
If a .com domain cost something reasonable for a business, say $100 /yr , whilst .org and .net and others were available to hobbyists etc for current next-to-nothing fees, then legit businesses wouldn't have half the trouble they have today with squatters and web-counterfeiters.
But the system is as it is and then along comes another stupid multi million $ judgement where at the most a grand and a slapped wrist would have sufficed...
Shurely if it was worth speculating about the manufacturer of the drive then it would be pretty easy to open up the case and tell the readers something about the disk within? If you did that and there were no markings then at least report this to the hw/curious amongst your readers!
So what if PHP is just a bastardised version of Perl? Having written a fair bit of perl CGI in the 90's give me PHP anyday...
What is it with all these PHP haters? Enjoy life!
If you really want to do things properly then /shurely/ you should write everything in C, C++ or Objective C!
As an old hand raised on 8080, Z80 and 6800 assembler I've heard it over and over again. A new language comes along to make life easier and a load of the old reactionary self-preservation society members make their case for keeping things the way they are.
Believe it or not young whippersnapper they said exactly the same about Java!
As for the glaring holes about support for longints - what is a long int anyway? I'll tell you what it is on a 32-bit platform - it's the same as an int!
I'd like to think I've moved with the times and I'm pretty impressed with PHP. It certainly is not slow compared to rivals such as C# ASP.
Would I be one to suggest that police forces up and down the country have yet to come to terms with the fact that transgression of RIPA is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE!?
Oh no sir, none of this "we'll have a listen even though we know we can't use it in evidence" of days gone by.
The cops don't want criminal prosecutions for what reason?!
Oh - isn't the EU already investigating the UK for inadequate protection of electronic communications???
Surely if Phorm create an "offline copy" (or mirror, call it what you want) it really blows a hole in their RIPA compliance argument? If processing is not done in real time then the offline copy surely has to include all content, doesn't it?
Blimey Charlie how has no-one ended up in court over this? Having said that just look what happened with the News of The World scandal - next to NOTHING.
At least the EU is on the case. Hopefully mere citizens may end up with some effective laws to protect our internet and our phones.
Erm, has anyone at the Gruan put 2 + 2 together and made 3.14159265?
Full circle dudes, there's ALREADY EU infringement proceedings initiated against the EU for inadequate protection for ordinary citizens against wiretapping and other electronic surveillance of communications. Erm, one of your own guys wrote about it:
(But El Reg coverage better).
Met police refused to act against BT when they intercepted thousands of private web sessions in the name of advertising.
There is NO protection in the UK for ordinary people against the commercial snoopers.
I heard the speech and the Tories sounded like they stumbled on Ofcom without really understanding the reason why Ofcom MUST be broken up.
The reason is that Ofcom has a third role, besides policy advice and regulation, and that third role is to foster investment by telcos in the kind of services the government wants to see - a kind of executive role to add to the other 2 roles.
I recently asked Ed Richards directly if he considered Ofcom to be a "light touch" regulator and whether he saw any problems with that. His answer was similar to that published on a BBC Q&A session:
"Ed Richards: I don't like the expression "light touch" regulator. We try to be as unintrusive as we can be, not to intervene unless we have to, but if we have to and there's a public interest in intervening, we are willing to do so swiftly and effectively."
What struck me from my conversation with him is that he doesn't see any problem with a REGULATOR being "unintrusive" (his word, not mine).
The failures I see of Ofcom are too numerous to mention in full; unfathomable pricing plans for voice and data leading to a breakdown in competition in the market being just one example.
But how is a regulator supposed to look after the consumer when that same regulator is also tasked with getting the telcos to invest in areas the government wants AND formulating policy?
Ofcom MUST be broken up ASAP and three separate bodies must:
1.) Serve as a regulator to champion the consumer and enforce the law
2.) Formulate communications policy
3.) Foster innovation and investment
I'm in the longest pseudo-realism dream I've ever had.
I'm currently dreaming the Wacqui is no longer Home Secretary, plans for ID cards are being scaled back, APCO and UK police forces' use of innocents' data and retention of that data is coming under scrutiny and the opposition has already pledged to reverse the trend towards a surveillance/Big Brother state. Only this morning I heard Call-me-dave Cameron arguing for a refocussing in powers at Ofcom and that's just the start.
Before I wake up from this dream I hope to see the ICO and NHTCU budgets increased tenfold, ICO being given proper powers and all the crazy intrusionistic labour ministers leave office.
Dennis are you illiterate or simply unable to draw the correct conclusions from a rather basic logic construct.
I said the statute books are now littered with many more crud laws LIKE the OPA.
That sentence doesn't imply that the OPA is a Neu LieBore creation. It just states that the lefties have done nothing to help clean up the statute books. There's now many more dubious offences littered with subjective tests, there's more overlap, and much more oversight of our private lives.
Think before criticising.
WTF What a Total Farce
Shame that the recent government had littered the statute books with many more crud laws like the OPA over the last 12 years which will probably lead to many more legal FAILs of this nature...
Hands up if you don't understand the technical implementation and associated philosophy of the 'net? Oh, 99% of the Labour party I see, and 98% of the Tories.
Well let me tell you a story about a small website called Bing from a little-known software company called Microsoft, based up there in Washington state, U.S. of A.
Many corporations think they have pretty sophisticated firewall and censorship systems. On a much smaller scale to national ISPs they can afford to implement technology that just wouldn't scale to a network level.
But along came this crazy little software company with a search engine called Bing, and before you know it all the kids in the sales team were accessing hardcore porn on their lunch breaks, using Bing as a proxy. Could you even imagine it?
In a democracy, any censorship has to be open and transparent.
On the internet, it's nearly impossible to prevent circumvention without draconian clam-downs on freedom.
So there you have it, serious robust policy or cheap gimmicky headline-grabbing politics written by Meerkats. Simples.
Whilst I know jack about interception and the other raging Phorm debates surely this is clearly a breach of Data Protection rules?
BBC and SKY reporting she's going - can we expect more of the same from the identikit replacement liebore politicians or will we finally get a Home Secretary with some balls to stand up to the incessant demands for power from MI5/6, APCO and unelected civil servants?
http://twitter.com/JimboGunn Fri 15 Apr 10:46
@rickwray Erm, but aren't Virgin Media already offering that Ferrari to a % of customers for the price of a Ford? #digitalbritain
http://twitter.com/rickwray Fri 15 Apr 10:49
@JimboGunn well it's red and temperamental I guess
Hats off to Mr Richard Wray (rickwray)
There's a typo in the title - you missed an 'i' out between the 'u' and the 'n' resulting in the word "run"
BBC Licence Bullies don't tell you is that you can watch the BBC live streaming service so long as you use a laptop with a self-contained and removable battery and a WfiFi link (with built-in antenna). Check out the conditions.
The idiots at the BBC Trust refuse to acknowledge this fact and tone down their dire warnings on their website.
Simon Davies, a man who is comfortable with private companies snooping on internet browsing inside ISPs, is uncomfortable with a set of static pictures taken yonks ago from a public street.
Whilst nearly every privacy and rights movement in the US and UK has seen fit to criticise web snoopers, Privacy International makes not a single statement.
Simon - wake up man, you're fighting the wrong battles. Street View is not going to dramatically affect the course of democracy in this country. Please stick to ID cards, government database, live CCTV, ISP snooping,DNA retention, government data dragnets...
There's enough to choose from, why pick on this cool and innocuous tool
Would be nice to hear some expert comment on this story, especially given the significance that pages about censorship are themselves being censored. Significant because it can lead into a censorship spiral where the public are ignorant that their world view is censored so believe their view to be complete. A great mind tool of opressive regimes throughout history - hiding the censorship.
Grrr.. Ofcom cosy up with the big telcos and fail to act on numerous scandals including mobile phone tariff transparency (hard to find value) overcharging for data and generally screwing customers over with utter crap customer service. Ditto for broadband suppliers.
About the only people Ofcom dare criticise is local radio as it's actually in bed with all the other big business in order to keep them happy for some misunderstood reason that if they're nice to BT then BT will install gold wires to everyones houses.
Well listen up Ofcom, this is BULLSHIT. All the big telcos are going to do is line the shareholders pockets.
Go look up "light touch regulator" and see how it worked for the banks. Happy shareholders, unhappy customers, government left holding the baby.
Maybe a few more companies would be more honest about their security if they knew that, should they deny a breach then they risk confidential data being posted just to prove the breach.
Sorry Dennis I read the full statement over at the Maily Telegraph:
"Now hackers are rarely embraced as being friends but in this instance it's important to thank the team at hackersblog.org for bringing these issues to our attention..."
A company taking prompt action, acknowleding a weakness and thanking the hacker? Whatever has the world come to. I guess guys at The Telegraph are expert at handling PR issues - a few other companys I could name but won't should follow their lead...
I'm reliably informed there is also a blacklist much bigger than this where retail and shop floor staff are blacklisted if there is a hint of suspicion of theft. Whilst you can’t dispute the motives, the reality is that the employee is often not charged so the blacklisting can occur on unsubstantiated allegations alone. Even worse there isn’t “due process” as far as I can see, so it could be possible for people to end up being unemployable because of a vindictive manager after e.g. an employee speaks out and the management don’t like it.
This latest spat just highlights the stupidity of allowing gTLDs. The whole gTLD sale seems to be just a cheap attempt at cashing in by ICANN and I really hope they wake up sometime over the next 9 months and put this whole nonsense to bed.
Who wants them A: ICANN plus maybe a few "entrepeneurs" who want some unchartered territory to try and reproduce the returns on investment of the likes of pizza.com and toys.com, a handful of people who thing they're genius enough to stake 150 grand on a clever play on URL-ify.ing wor.ds and sub.letting a few dom.ains
Who doesn't want them? CIOs of medium sized companies don't want to be shelling out to protect their .arses from squatters, governments who currently like the idea of a national identity and don't want to lose it to .comuk domain splitter, web users who are just about getting used to .tv but prefer .com and .co.uk
GRRRR this type of nonsense makes me really OUTRAGED!!
Such a shame that such an important discussion about civil rights is marred by the fact that no-one, self included, wants to stand up for the rights of people who face allegations of child abuse (or terrorism, in other UK cases). But the fact remains that the legal framework must protect human rights even at the expense of a few cases slipping through the net, because the alternative - a police state where the population lives in fear - is worse.
Strangely calm today
I only used their web-based interface for 2 specific cases and one was fully resolved within 2 days and the other I had a progress update of the escalation within 2 days and a complete resolution within a week. Everything is relative and compared to other ISPs I've used (Virgin and BT) the 2-day turnaround is good.
For the record I'm a firm believer in Taffic Managament so long as it's done competently (does not affect latency and the bulk of users are largely unaffected) fairly and transparently. If my neighbour wants to download 24/7 I still want to be able to download the few things my wife and I watch each week. It's inevitable one of 3 things needs to happen:
1.) Heavy users pay a surcharge for peak usage
2.) Heavy users need to be throtteled or capped in some way (so long as this is fair and doesn't affect low and moderate users too much)
3.) All subscribers will be adversley affected by a minority of p2p and download addicts
That said, I think its essential ISPs disclose full details of any traffic management, not only is it fair to the paying customers, but it will also help the ISP by preventing panic and scaremongering amongst paranoid users who become convinced that their ISP is out to get them!
Yes, the evening performance is poor compared to the day, but in Be's defence their daytime performance is excellent (often seeing consistent download speeds in excess of 14Mbps) so when their evening performance drops to say 2Mbps it seems dramatic but is still actually much better than say BT, who used to be my ISP. On the BT 8megs service I rarely saw daytime speeds anything near 8Mbps, saw HUGE latency due to a large number of internal hops, and come evening the problems were actually worse than on Be, even though the day/evening comparison wasn't as dramatic.
I think Be need to start selling to more business customers, therefore getting some revenue for the unused daytime capacity and then investing this money into improving my evening perforance.
I sincerely hope Be manage to keep the edge they currently have, I have nothing for praise for their service (including customer service) and their prices at the moment. I can live with the current evening situation in my area and am glad to see they have plans to improve.
Man (unusually) not Outraged today
(Definately not a Be employee)
When I was young, and my heart, was an open book (they used to say....) I was treated to a workshop by some of the country's leading PR experts. I was working for a major telecoms equipment manufacturer after a spell at Tesco, who also taught me a lot about customer relations.
I was introduced to the 1 in 10 concept: that for every strongly dissatisfied customer who bothered to send you feedback, there were another 9 equally dissatisfied but hadn't got around to telling you. And these weren't just the grumblers, but the people who were likely to take action and stop using your product or service. Not only that, but they were likely to tell at least 10 other people how dissatisfied they were with your service, and these 10 other people would be at least aware of your product's deficiencies.
Currently very close to 19,000 people have spoken out on the Number 10 website against ISP profiling for the sakes of advertising.
If the PR types were close to true, and I firmly believe they are, after all, how many people are even aware of the No 10 website(?) then there are a further 171,000 dissatisfied people out there who do not like being tracked by their ISP for whatever purpose.
And it also means that around 1.9 million people have heard something bad about BT/Phorm from the 190,000 dissatisfied customers.
Next time I hear Drayton et. al telling me that the people protesting against Phorm are extremists and few in numbers, and that "only a very small percentage" of our customer base have signed the petition I swear I'll tell him where to go, and get fired in the process.
The fact is that a good proportion of tech literate customers are aware of what ISPs are up to and are voting with their feet. Big companies like BT are losing focus on core business. They are focusing on deals to attract customers rather than reasons why customers want to stay.
SHORT TERMISM DAMAGES BRAND STRENGTH!
So, apparently not all campaign groups sell out to big business in endorsing (mis)use of private data. Just campaigners from one campaign group so far. Google Phorm to find out, then sign the petition against Phorm: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ispphorm/
Does that mean that I won't get a mobile phone signal on the periphery of cell coverage with a new Sony Ericsson handset, since the handset ‘range’ is to be reduced?
Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security
If those in Government who know bugger all about the internet continue down their ill-informed fear-driven path towards totalitarianism soon enough I won't be able to post this shit without getting arrested.
Dear Chris, El Reg,
Once again I am not so outraged - this is great work from you.
One thing has started to appear on forums is a call for a test case to decide if Phorm breaches RIPA, Computer Misuse Act, PECR, DPA, Copyright, Designs and Patents act, etc.
Would El Reg consider making this a campaign, to call on the government for a test case into data pimping by ISPs (Phorm)?
After all, it would be hard for governments, ISPs and Phorm to say they don't want a test case. If Phorm is legal, then go ahead, lets have a case. If it's illegal, then surely for the ISPs and govt. POV best to find out NOW!
A TEST CASE - LETS HAVE A TEST CASE!
@AC RE: I asked BT a couple of weeks ago....
Word on the blogs and newsgroups is that BT customer service and sales employees have been specifically told to deny they know anything about Phorm if asked.
This method is even older than November of last year.
I remember the BBC had a piece 18 months ago (Feb 2007) demonstrating the work of Drimel et. al.
And Saar Drimer added this to lichtbluetouchpaper showing a modified chip & pin terminal used to play tetris:
Weaknesses have been known for nearly 2 years and it's disgusting that the banking industry haven't woken up to the threat. I know for them it's a cost decision, loss versus cost of preventing the loss, but for society as a whole it encourages crime and victims get stressed out sorting out the aftermath.
Maybe some of these authorities should think about taking action against the vendors of supposedly "secure" systems, mentioning no names, rather than action against the people who discover that the systems are insecure...
You are confusing data privacy and anonymity.
Anyone using TOR needs to read the instructions. Cleartext data at an exit node was never protected, that is not the point of TOR. TOR was deisgned to allow bloggers living under opressive regimes to post anonymously. Being able to read the post at the exit router is no problem, as the post is going to be public anyway.
TOR has separate entry and exit nodes, so even if you monitor an exit node you don't know the IP address of the user, as this is only known by the entry node.
So yes, you can read the traffic, but unless the traffic identifies the user, e.g. posting name and address in clear, it will be impossible to trace back to the user...
... UNLESS, as in the article you posted, you trick the end user into using a poisoned TOR proxy server on their local machine.
TOR isn't really broken, it's just possible to break it for an individual user if that user does not take steps to protect the proxy they run on their local machine.
I'm the first to complain about what could amount to serious breaches of privacy, e.g. Phorm et. al. but I'm bemused about the uproar around street view. What next? Ban the BBC from publishing live news reports in case somone can be identified on camera who doesn't want to be? After all, a live news report puts someone at a particular place AND TIME, which streetview doesn't.
Not outraged today.
Censorship? Most authors would publish comments about corrections and acknowledge corrections in the article.
You are still stating 25% on the first line, and the turnout at 34% is not actually that bad, considering the die-hard labour and lib-dem supporters would have stayed at home. The fact that so many came out under the circumstances is great for civil liberties.
TO answer your question, sometimes. Sometimes the BBC showed a slow motion replay of a call, as well as the Hawkeye decision. In the game between Andy Murray and Richard Gasquet, Hawkeye gave a ball out but the replay on BBC clearly showed a puff of chalk (or titanium pigment or whatever they use to mark the courts).
Buy something, sell it. I know stupid passengers are being ripped off not buying from source but my friendly local corner shop sells milk at a quid a pint and I know that going to Sainsbury's I can get it at 60p. But why should it be illegal? StupidJet
Okay, Phorm we know gets outright sneaky and forges cookies directly in other people's domains, as pointed out by the good Richard Clayton.
Very interesting stuff, but all this shenanigans should be stopped now before we knacker the whole WWW.
THIS IS BAD AND MUST BE STOPPED NOW!
I work in media and a colleague was fortunate to speak directly with a press officer. Aparrently it was pointed out that the passenger had breached the OSA by passing the documents not to the police as required by law but to the BBC. Doesn't matter that the passenger had never signed the OSA the law still applies. Why HMG are allegedly so keen to add this tidbit to press briefings is obviously a diversion. What jury would convict a member of the public keen to see that the security of the security services is improved through press scrutiny?!
I cant wait to see the usual comments on Phorm-related topics, maybe the guys with the http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-twat-o-tron/ can come up with a El Reg phorm-o-tron!
I've been ranting outraged about how Phorm's and other's data pimping kit could introduce network vulnerabilities like this. Just a shame that Cisco have now provided Phorm et. al. with a defence: the network vulnerabilities at the ISP are already there!
Of course I trust Cisco to identify, root-cause and patch quicker than tinpot data pimpers due to the scale of their operations and amount of kit out there....
Not being one to bash fellow hard-working consultants a few more customers should follow suit and sue a few more consultancies for their p*poor implementations hitting corporations and government agencies alike. When your 100M+ shiny new software doesn't do what you ask for and your finance teams are left building mammoth Excel spreadsheets and your customer teams are passing round more post-its than bytes on the LAN please do us all a favour and hit the SUE button. Too many know-nothing 1000-pound-a-day+ consultants and not enough software engineers make for a stinking waste of money if you ask me.
Why not pledge yer money at a real court case. The people vs. BT PLC.