125 posts • joined Wednesday 1st July 2009 19:50 GMT
Re: FACT talking bollocks
Nothing, they lied to the judge in the US court saying I was living in the US - the judge passed a summary judgment on that basis for I think about 45k USD which could not be served (because I lived in the UK not the US).
FACT talking bollocks
FACT are talking complete bollocks. When I got sued by the MPAA for DVDR-CORE I sent them a very thorough and long business plan to make the site "legit" and pay the industry their dues - they flat out refused - they have zero interest in allowing torrent sites to go legit.
This is nothing new
I was part of a Nominet "forum" on the "suspension of domains involved in illegal activity" as Nominet were looking to develop policy on the issue. The process lasted well over a year with many meetings discussing what Nominet should do. Civil society wanted Nominet to insist on court orders with the exception where there was a risk of significant harm in the short term (in other words would people be at risk of fraud or identity theft over the weekend when a judge is not available to issue an order) but the police and industry wanted to carry on just having stuff shutdown on request.
The police have literally forced Nominet to suspend thousands of domains without a court order - they threaten Nominet with charges under Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) leaving Nominet with the decision of either having to pay significantly high legal fees defending the charges or simply shutting down the domains - up until the point of the policy discussion, they always chose to shut down the domains. I am yet to receive any information since the discussions ended illustrating that Nominet have changed this policy. The discussions ended at a stalemate between civil society and the police.
The police state that because Nominet receive fees for domains, they are receiving proceeds from a crime when that domain is used for "illegal" purposes - the entire premise is a stretch at best, we had some top legal people on the group who completely disagreed with the police's position since Nominet receive their fees before the domain is used to commit any illegal activity.
This has been going on for years, I am glad a registrar finally had the balls to stand up to them.
Re: This is the most assine article ever....
It is incredibly easy - follow these simple steps:
1. I steal your phone
2. I take it home, take off my coat, make a coffee and sit down at my PC
3. I lift the lid on my very cheap Canon 3-in-1 (budget model) which has a 2400 DPI scanner
4. I place your iphone on the glass, close the lid and scan the phone
5. I open the scanned image in GIMP or any other half decent graphic editing app
6. I find a complete print and crop the image around it
7. I save the image at 2400 dpi
8. I print it onto plastic (I presume OHP transparency for inkjet will do?)
9. I wait for it to dry and then paint a thin film of liquid latex over it (very easy to purchase on the high street or online)
10. Lift the print, unlock the phone.
I don't understand why so many people are saying "Yeah but who has a 2400 dpi scanner laying around?" - actually most of us probably do - even budget level 3-in-1s have 2400 DPI capabilities nowadays and many have 4800+ DPI capabilities if you are willing to spend a little more.
Apple screwed up - their main USP (which isn't even a USP given the Aria) is compromised within a couple of days of launch and no amount of "How will you get my fingerprint?" "Who has a 2400 dpi scanner?" or other attempts to mitigate this will change that fact.
Re: Believe Apple? Erm no.
Ok first of all your response made absolutely no sense in the context of what you were replying to, but I will humour you all the same.
Your first paragraph is completely irrelevant - the difference between leaving my fingerprints everywhere (along with lots of others people's) is they have to be manually collected at considerable cost. As for your border crossing point - what exactly were you addressing with this with regards to my original comment? Let me answer it for you - absolutely nothing.
Second paragraph - again completely irrelevant to my original comment.
Read the following very slowly so you can take it in and maybe comprehend.
My comment was not about how often we leave our fingerprints behind in spaces we interact with.
My comment was not about the fingerprints we leave on our passports or the cases to our phones and laptops.
My comment WAS about the fact that nothing Apple say regarding the security of the fingerprints automatically stored on the iPhone 5S can be trusted - let me explain again why - again with the hopes you might actually bother to read instead of just responding with random crap.
CALEA is a law in the US which requires all companies in the US manufacturing telecommunications hardware to provide a backdoor into that hardware for surveillance purposes. That means the iPhone 5S (and all previous iPhones, Android Phones made by US companies, Windows Phones made by US companies) almost definitely already have a backdoor into the device BY LAW.
FISA, PATRIOT and National Security Letters all give access to the device and the fingerprints stored upon it BY LAW and kept quiet via accompanying gag orders.
So again, THE POINT - Apple CANNOT guarantee that the security of the fingerprints stored on the device will not or has not already been compromised as a matter of law neither could they tell us if it had.
Apple are in an almost unique position with regards to CALEA since Apple are classed as the manufacturer (yes they outsource the fabrication but the design and manufacturing are completely under Apple's control - a US company under the jurisdiction of CALEA, FISA, PATRIOT).
Google may be in a similar situation with regards to Motorola and their original Nexus devices but most other Android devices are manufactured and sold by non US based companies.
Microsoft now they have bought Nokia are also vulnerable to CALEA and were already vulnerable to FISA/PATRIOT.
Now whether or not you give a flying fsck about your fingerprints being stored in a massive database for whatever purpose the government chooses to use them for is entirely your choice - but the vast majority of the civilised world do not want the same.
Next time you respond to a post, actually read it instead of typing completely irrelevant nonsense in reply.
Believe Apple? Erm no.
All this crap about the fingerprint data being secure is exactly that, crap. There is absolutely no way Apple can assure people that the data is not shared with anyone given the revelations about the NSA and their buddies at GCHQ etc.
We simply cannot trust that the NSA don't already have access to the fingerprints and that Apple are under a Gag Order - in fact you have to assume that Apple have already provided access to the phone through a backdoor because of CALEA which requires manufacturers to backdoor -all- telecommunications hardware - last I checked a cell phone was a piece of telecommunications hardware (as are android and windows phones). So before you even begin to think about National Security Letters, PATRIOT, FISA & FISC you have CALEA.
Furthermore, if you have an iPhone 5S and you travel to the US, can we now assume that if your device is taken at the border accessing the contents is now a trivial matter since all people entering the US have to give their fingerprints - which presumably can be used to unlock the device.
Your fingerprints are not safe on this device - there is nothing Apple can do to guarantee their security and that security is probably already compromised as a matter of law. Don't drink the cool-aid.
I wrote this in June, seems very relevant with the news today:
More info here:
There is more info here including both the legal papers served on Google Inc. and further info on Google's response:
Disagree with Bootnote
Actually I would disagree with your bootnote. Under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 there is no requirement for threats of violence or sexual assault - simply the following:
1 Prohibition of harassment.
(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
I recently filed criminal complaints against two of my own online stalkers after a 5 year campaign of libelous harassment from them. You can read about it here:
So don't assume that just because you have not been threatened with violence that your aggressors are safe from the law - because there is a chance they are not if the harassment has been ongoing and "a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other".
It is time we stood up against this sort of behaviour.
Twin blades shave you better?
I would beg to differ with that statement. Last summer I switched to an old traditional safety razor (because I moved countries and the cost of my usual Gillette heads are incredibly expensive in my new country of residence) and was pleasantly surprised to find that actually I get a far better shave with it than I did with my previous Branded 2, 3 and 4 blade razors.
Granted the first couple of times the bathroom looked like a scene out of Sweeney Todd because the Wilkinson Sword blades are incredibly sharp and you have to change the way you shave a bit - but once I got the hang of it I have never looked back.
5 blades costs me the equivalent of £1 and I shave 2-3 times a week (too lazy to do it more frequently) - a single blade lasts me several weeks with -full- (part from legs obviously) body shave once a week so from a single 5 pack I get a good 2 months usage. The razor handle/head cost me also the equivalent of £1 so in total I spend around £6 a year on razor blades with an initial investment of £1 for the tool to do it.
When you consider that Gillette 4 blade heads here cost at least £11 for 3 (the cheapest ones, there are several types available now) which are good for about 3-4 shaves each before they start to get scratchy, it really is a no brainer
Which they could have done through a RIPA warrant, which are very easy to obtain.
As stated, the police do not need additional powers - RIPA gives them the ability to intercept communications - the reason they want extra powers is because they want powers that do not require judicial oversight. All this crap about them needing Communications Data Bill to look at communications is a red herring - they want sweeping powers to look at -all- communications -all- the time - they want to silo everything. They hate the fact that there is oversight in place to (in theory) prevent the total erosion of privacy and turn the UK into a police state.
Amazing movie about evil, intelligent Ants. If you haven't seen it, it is a must.
Brown Paper Bag is irrelevant given so many different ways to identify someone. Gait Recognition, Ear Recognition, Full Body Biometrics to name just 3.
Actually MS -did- get to tablets first, just a long time before the public wanted them...
Re: We moved our hosts outside the UK
hehe I have been a regular reader here since oooo '97ish and I have seen a lot of trolls come and go in the comments but rarely see genuinely dumb responses like the fool above.
The Facebook group was set up because Olswang wanted a medium people are familiar with - the issues with this have been pointed out and an independent web site will be available towards the end of the week.
Re: We moved our hosts outside the UK
That is the dumbest reply to a post I have ever seen on ElReg - you realise that Dutch regulations on Cookies are actually more strict than UK and require EXPLICIT consent (opt-in) whereas ICO in the UK is allowing implied consent (opt-out).
Re: Did they sabotage their own vote?
And there you go wrongfully assuming I have multiple accounts. I said I tested this several times, I didn't say I have multiple accounts. I had plenty of volunteers willing to participate in this test.
Did they sabotage their own vote?
Facebook had a checkbox at the bottom of the vote page to share your vote with your friends - however, I ran several tests of this checkbox with several accounts and it didn't work. Seems clear to me that Facebook didn't want people to know the vote existed or that friends had voted against the changes.
Never heard of Bylaws then?
Biggest load of bollocks I have read in a long time
Title says it all...
First, I have GPS disabled on my phone. Second if it was a hardware thing it would have continued, it didn't - it stopped doing it at some point after I installed an update, which would suggest it was a WP7 thing not a hardware thing.
Just because your Trophy never had the problem doesn't mean it wasn't an OS issue - just as some of the WP8 devices are not suffering from the issues discussed in this article.
WP7 had the same problem - my Lumia 900 used to do the same thing but then it just stopped doing it - so it was probably fixed in one of the 2 software updates I have received.
It is probably the Detica DPI kit they installed to make sure none of you are evil pirates, fucking with your streaming content to make sure it is "legal"...
Re: I'm sorry
Oh and I forgot NFC - something the 900 was missing which is a pain in the ass when you are syncing up the Nokia Play 360 Speakers... (I don't mention NFC payments because I know entirely too much about the security issues but the non payment related NFC benefits are quite nice)
Re: I'm sorry
ok I will bite...
twice as many cores running at higher clock speed
bigger and better display IPS 768 x 1280 pixels, 4.5 inches (~332 ppi pixel density) vs 480 x 800 pixels, 4.3 inches (~217 ppi pixel density) AMOLED
2x as much RAM
2x as much storage (very welcomed)
2nd Generation Gorilla Glass
Bluetooth 3.1 vs Bluetooth 2.1
Full HD Video recording
Bigger battery giving upto 10h extra talk time and upto 100 hours extra standby time
Those are just a few of the differences - all of which are beneficial to the consumer in real terms instead of just being nice to have frills.
Some questions for the author
I was lucky enough to be gifted with a Lumia 900 from Nokia for free and would very much like to upgrade to the 920 purely because the 900 will not be getting WP8.
However, a few questions remain unanswered.
1. Does WP8 support OpenVPN?
2. Does WP8 support opening password protected MS Office documents?
3. Does WP8 support full "file" encryption (I say file but obviously I am referring to the user space/files)?
4. Does WP8 support NTP (the Lumia 900 and 800 both suffer from terrible "time loss" issues).
I know this is a Lumia 920 review and not a WP8 review, but I would really like to know if these issues have been addressed. If they haven't then I don't see how WP8 devices can ever make serious waves in the business sector as these are fundamental issues.
I loved the original I still rank it as the best game ever written. I know someone who works for Frontier and they have mentioned Braben has been "working" on a sequel in the background, a number of times.
I was even lucky enough to acquire a very limited edition anniversary t-shirt from 2009 which Braben had made for his staff at Frontier (there were a couple spare).
Mine is the one with the golden Elite logo printed on the front...
Re: References to GW2
Actually I log in daily praying they have fixed it and your reply is completely false:
1. The game is still littered with bots.
2. The WvW invisibility issue has not been fixed and the last official response I saw about it was that this was by design to remove the advantage people with high end gaming rigs had over every one else.
3. The Halloween Event was terrible, thousands of people got duped into spending $100s each to buy keys they thought would give them nice new weapon skins out of chests - the reality was people were finding that even after spending such a colossal amount of money they never got any skins because of the RNG nature of the game. I saw reports of people opening hundreds of chests and never getting a single skin.
4. Known exploiters have been permitted to keep "legendary precursor" items and take joint control of the game's market (joint control with the gold sellers) seeing precursor weapons rise in price by over 2000% in the last 6 week whilst the chance of obtaining them through other means (mystic forge) has dropped and dropped -people reporting throwing thousands of weapons into Mystic Forge and getting no precursor at a real world cost of $6000+ dollars if you were to look at the Gems to Gold conversion rate.
As someone who waited for years for GW2, pre-purchased, played the beta weekends and the early starter promo, I am disgusted at the way the game is going. ANet have lost -all- credibility and the game is just PTW now.
And again, I don't have a WoW account nor do I play any other MMOs (I don't have time). Everything that was promised by ANet with GW2 was a le. The events are not dynamic, the world is not persistent and it doesn't remove the need to grind - it is not a genre changer at all, it is merely a very pretty representation of forgotten promises and RNG.
References to GW2
I note you make a couple of references to GW2 but you shold make readers aware that GW2 is a freaking nightmare. The bot problem is severe and completely fucking with the economy. The end game material is severely lacking. There are no raids and the pvp could be a lot better (they recently implemented a "fix" for WvW PVP which makes players invisible to try and simulate lag!?!?!?!?)
Most of GW2 is based entirely around RNG and whilst they allow exploiters to keep the gains of their exploit whilst continuously nerfing honest players ability to do things, the community is getting very pissed off.
And to pour salt on the wounds, if you dare to mention any of these things on the forums the mods issue infractions like they are a fashion item. Meanwhile the bots and exploiters are ignored...
GW2 may look very pretty, but the reality is, it is a terribly boring game with a huge amount of problems. (And no I don't play WoW)
Maybe our Education Secretaries/Ministers should study cognitive/developmental pyschology
Am I the only one who finds it seriously dodgy that our education ministers are trying to tell us what type of teachers we need when they have zero grasp of cognitive/developmental or educational psychology? Do you suppose Gove even knows who people like Donaldson and Piaget are or does he think they invented the toilet seat?
As someone who studied computer science a loooong time ago and also as a recent (ish) graduate in Information Systems (posh name for ICT) I recognise that both subjects are completely different and both are just as necessary as each other.
99.99999% of computer users (whether for pleasure or work) need to know absolutely nothing about computer science but they do need to know how to use computers for things like spreadsheets, presentations, email, MIS, workflow, CRM, accounts, POs etc etc etc.
As someone who has taught thousands of people in an industrial environment who were forced to go from paper systems to workflows fully managed by software, I can say from experience that Gove is an ass.
Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.
You have to have "fame" in order to bring a defamation case to court. In this situation the case is more likely to have caused "fame" than damaged it. since it is likely the person in question would never have become known to the general public at large had the case not been brought to court (she was just a regular person leading a regular life).
Re: ICO will just roll over
Sadly one of the biggest problems we face here in Europe (particularly in the UK) is enforcement. We do have pretty robust laws, but trying to have them enforced is incredibly difficult when the regulators and law enforcement are captured by very industries committing these crimes.
Re: Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 s48?
I included WTA in the original complaint to the Met back in 2010 and still feel this would be relevant.
Already sent Open Letter to ICO
I sent an Open Letter to ICO in the early hours of this morning asking them to re-open their casein light of the FCC report:
I am in the process of writing a second Open Letter to the officer in the Met who handled the original criminal complaint under RIPA that I was involved with when I worked for Privacy International.
The Met originally closed their investigation because they felt that Google's defence at the time (it was just an accident and the work of a lone engineer) would make it difficult to prove mens rea and thus be unlikely to secure a conviction - the FCC report illustrates intent making it much easier to establish mens rea so the Met's previous arguments for closing their investigation no longer holds water.
As stated in the this article it is widely believed that prior to last year RIPA permitted "unintentional" interception (I would actually argue that it didn't) and I was part of the Home Office consultation that made changes to RIPA last year - so again given certain interpretations of RIPA at the time the Street View scandal took place it could be argued that RIPA permitted Google to "unintentionally" intercept. Of course, in light of the FCC report, we now know that notonly was this by design and intentional but the data was even considered for further business use processing, including consideration of use to establish how often people used the Google Search Engine.
Even under the OLD RIPA, this type of activity is not permissable and would constitutea criminal offence.
So there are clear grounds for the Met to now re-open their case and for the CPS to seek prosecution - I will be forwarding a complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions as well.
I won't hold my breath for the apologies
Mabe those who so vigorously attacked me after I wrote this article for El Reg at the time http://tinyurl.com/39u3ets will now apologise because it turns out that actually I was completely correct?
I won't hold my breath though.
Seems to be FUD
As stated by both Microsoft and the researcher in the piece, credit card data is not stored locally on the XBox. Furthermore, after I raised an issue of PCI/DSS compliance with Microsoft XBox team last December, they have implemented CVV requirements (which never existed previously) before any purchase can be made on stored credit cards.
So I think on this occassion, the "research" appears to be somewhat misleading.
My blog piece on this last night
If anyone is interested I wrote about this last night:
This gives the Council a unique opportunity to correlate real names with otherwise "anonymous" PAYG customers which does raise some serious privacy concerns. Given the economics of social housing, it stands to reason that many of the Council's tennants are likely to have PAYG phones due to credit issues preventing them from obtaining monthly contracts and with the abuse of RIPA in the past by local authorities, I am concerned this data will be used for purposes unrelated to those published by the Council.
Hi Alistair and thanks for your comment. Unfortunately I don't have access to your email through this forum, however, I think I have found you online and have sent an email. Please do get in touch, I would like to discuss this with you further.
I won't disagree with you there, it is a ridiculous situation.
There is no such thing as a class action in the UK and RIPA cannot be used in a Civil Action as far as I am aware. For a Civil Action we would have to go for something under PECR (Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations) and then we have to prove "damage".
Civil Actions are incredibly difficult in the UK especially around privacy issues.
No such process
There is no such thing as a class action in the UK and I suspect a "group action" would be seen as unsuitable for this situation, but am no expert on group actions.
No they didn't
The Home Office said it might be legal if they obtained consent; no consent was sought or obtained. Home Office never committed and in fact explicitly stated on the record that their opinion did NOT constitute legal advice or a qualified legal opinion.
ICO never cleared Phorm either, they admitted (again on the record) that Phorm probably breached PECR and re-iterated the Home Office on consent requirement.
That is not the case with RIPA, this CPS decision was the result of the private prosecution process. RIPA is treated as a special law where only the Director of Public Prosecutions can grant permission for a private prosecution under RIPA and if granted only the CPS are allowed to prosecute the case.
This is the route I took when the City of London Police refused to press charges; I wrote to the DPP seeking permission for private prosecution, he formally passed it to CPS to assess and any prosecution was completely dependent on CPS assessment, their assessment is not to prosecute, so no private prosecution is possible now.
I have no idea how much this is going to cost yet. First I need to get back in touch with the CPS to find out if there is any process for appeal (they conveniently failed to provide any procedural information of this nature).
If there is no procedure for appeal, then Judicial Review is the next step at which point I will have to obtain a quote from a Barrister to determine costs.
It would be irresponsible of me to start a donation fund until I have had a chance to review all the options available. As stated in a comment above, I need to contact the CPS again next week and see if there is a procedure for appeal, if not I then need to speak to a Barrister to determine the cost of a Judicial Review.
At that point I will be in a position to setup a donation fund for people to help support the Judicial Review.
Hopefully, given The Register's interest in this issue and their amazing coverage and work on Phorm, they can be pursuaded to post a new article once I get to that point, or allow me to do another Op Ed for them as I did on Street View.
It is going to take a week to get all this sorted out, so I respectfully ask people to be patient and sincerely thank everyone for their eagerness to support the process.
Rest assured, I am not giving up on this issue and I will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to see justice, even if that means going all the way to Strasbourg.
apologies for all the typos, as you can probably guess I am getting hit from all sides today.
I stepped down from the running of NoDPI in November 2009 as my work at Privacy International meant I no longer had time to run the site. But the NoDPI group still exists and they are doing some great work exposing other companies on these issues.
Any money donated to NoDPI will be well received for their ongoing work and i encourage people to support them, but i should make it clear that it would not be going to me for my ongoing work.
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Review Best budget Android smartphone there is? Must be the Moto G
- NSFW Confessions of a porn site boss: How the net porn industry flopped
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- OHM MY GOD! Move over graphene, here comes '100% PERFECT' stanene