14 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
Re: I can understand the potential foreign trade implications...
Hi Marketing hack,
While you're correct, and they can do that, U.S. Law as it currently is (under my understanding) means that there's no difference between a U.S. server running in New York or in Berlin - if the NSA wants access, the U.S.-headquartered company is required to provide it and then required to lie about providing this access. This is why, through no fault of their own, _no_ U.S. company is trustable - the legal framework they are subject to simply precludes this.
A carefully-structured EU company, however - at least, until the EU gets around to implemented this law themselves (surely it's only a matter of time) - could create a U.S. division that it _knows_ will get compromised by the NSA and only provide the minimum data necessary for it to function. Would seem a tad risky - I'm sure that any competent spook, given legal access to a chunk of a network, would duly attempt to break into the rest of it and nobody with any sense would _want_ to go up against the NSA - but the structure could be put in place.
Oh, we've got plenty of those!
In fact, they've proved perfectly willing to spend budget they don't even have! (why yes, every new starter does need the latest Mac Pro. Even if they're doing admin work.)
That'd be our friends in Marketing, who are also fond of getting the company to sign up to nice, shiny systems without asking IT. Which we then - legally, that is, given our data protection and PCI obligations - can't use. Ta very much!
Re: They haven't since about 2007 (@AC)
True enough, but isn't that what apple have *always* done well? They're very competent integrators, and this is from somebody who is in no sense a fanboy(i?)
Just don't expect them to bring out any ground-breaking technologies. Or "Get" the more boring sorts of businesses that I work in. That's all.
Ahh, many misty-eyed memories of belting around that double apex corner at Oulton Park, flat out on a car with minimum downforce. That game didn't _need_ force feedback gubbins to let you know the car was on right on the limit...
Re: I don't want control
Sometimes even being involved isn't much help. We recently ran a tablet test here, assessing which of the tablets was best for our needs. The best option for us was, surprisingly perhaps, a Surface tablet.
So, shortly therafter, we purchased over a hundred iPads. "They work better", we're told. Not according to the testing we did. "They're faster", we're told. Not for the specific situation we had. "They're more reliable", we're told. Not judging by the support issues logged.
I really would have preferred if they'd said at the start "We're getting iPads because we want iPads." Don't make me spend money and time on doing the process "properly" if you have no intention of listening to what I'm going to say.
To be fair, it's not *everybody*. Courtesy of the "Special Relationship" (which at times seems to resemble nothing more than Stockholm Syndrome) and the intelligence agreements between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA, it's all gravy as far as they're concerned. To be honest, I'm surprised the NSA even bothered tapping Americans. I understand the process used to be that the NSA's uk subsidiary did the job, neatly side-stepping any troublesome hiccups like an American's constitutional rights...
Re: GCHQ are doing their job
I suspect the answer to your question is "When it became easier to treat us *all* like criminals than think about targeting specific individuals."
My worry is the old Franklin quote - I suspect that although hoovering up every damned thing has been sold to The Powers That Be as cheaper than performing competent analysis (not that I'm qualified for such, but that's not the point) it's actually not as effective as believed, leaving us all worse off for very little benefit.
Which to be fair would be about par for a government program conducted in utmost secrecy.
There's actually already a rule in the UK that any corporate structure deemed to exist only to reduce tax doesn't exist as far as the tax man is concerned. It's quite a neat rule, I think, however, to be able to use it we'd have to hire some civil servants (i.e., Tax Inspectors). How long would any other business that decides to sack the sales team last? Only in government...
Re: >"Well, are all 36,866 stations using the same formulae?"
I think you may have overlooked the weighting calculation - your quote specifically mentions that it compensates for station distribution by performing calculations regarding distance between stations. If your location is (possibly) incorrect, then so is the distance, surely?
Not passing judgement on the research itself, merely the apparent contradiction in your comment...
The solution's mostly there already
There's already the facility in this country to ignore company arrangements that are in place solely to reduce the tax bill - what might be an idea is to stop sacking the people in HMRC who police these things. Large corporates are increasingly able to pay whatever they like as HMRC is increasingly unable to go to court and get the more creative avoidance declared evasion. As ever, the law is already there to deal with the situation but the will to enforce it is sadly lacking - you'd almost wonder if the point is to engage in some "isn't this awful" hang-wringing for the voters while ensuring that valuable donors aren't truly threatened.
Re: Who Cares?
Who cares? Andy Coulson is likely to be a member of the next government, and clearly believes that privacy is only important as long as it doesn't get in his way. You might find that he finds all of the rather shady tricks new labour have been up to recently too convenient to get rid of, and he's got Dave's ear, that's his job, remember?
So, how long before ACPO decide they outrank ECHR?
We could run a pool on how long it's going to be before ACPO issue guidance to police forces throughout the country essentially stating that those Europeans are a bunch of killjoys who should keep their noses out!
On a serious note, I'm a little surprised that nobody has asked the ACPO representatives quite who the hell they think they are, making announcements on what the law is or isn't. That sort of announcement would seem to be somewhat above a Chief Constable's pay grade...
That's actually the nickname for the Guardian, from it's history of poor typesetting and sub-editing. Good spot, though.
I suspect the 'loophole' the chief constable wishes to close is the one where the Police get to decide who's an expert witness. His main point of contention seems to be that somebody, somewhere, has given this man the opportunity to look at something that the chief constable did not approve of - obviously a heinous offence ...
- Apple stuns world with rare SEVEN-way split: What does that mean?
- Special report Reg probe bombshell: How we HACKED mobile voicemail without a PIN
- RIP net neutrality? FCC boss mulls 'two-speed internet'
- Sony Xperia Z2: 4K vid, great audio, waterproof ... Oh, and you can make a phone call
- Pic Tooled-up Ryobi girl takes nine-inch grinder to Asus beach babe