45 posts • joined Friday 17th July 2009 12:13 GMT
Re: Fine if you don't care about privacy
"I suggest you look up on Google how Microsoft DRM encryption works. The US can have all the laws they want to requiring access to data, but if I am a UK company, and keep my DRM infrastructure in the UK, then the USA can demand all they like, but they are not going to get access to my data, unless they fancy spending a few trillion compute hours trying every key combination...Microsoft woudl never have access in this circumstances."
Have you read 365's T & C's? Judging by your comment, you haven't. Neither did you read what I wrote, but I will repeat myself for clarity - "check M$'s T's & C's for Office 365 - there is a "We can look at your data/documents/contents anytime we want to" clause". I have had personal experience with this issue, through a customer questioning it (via their solicitors) with M$. Do you really have that much blind faith in M$ to trust them implicitly with your customers data?
"You havn't allowed for the cost of the Exchange Server license, the storage, backups, infrastructure, the management of it...."
A lot of my customers already have Exchange, either via the full product or SBS - but admittedly I didn't make that point. To answer your point though, most customers will have a lot of infrastructure in place already - if it's working why fix it? It's just costing the customer more money to change. And, again, you are losing control of your data.....
"You just don't have a clue what you are talking about. It makes near zero difference where I store it if I control the encryption keys. If I was a UK company then the USA can't touch me. The only way anyone is getting that Data is via a UK RIPA order - which applies the same if the data is onsite or in a cloud in Timbukto..."
Obviously I don't! I obviously haven't read the Patriot Act, which enables US Government agencies to walk into any datacentre and remove physical servers (so if your data is cohabiting on a server which has a "Person/Company of interest" to that agency, they will just take the whole server - including your data). So, using your analogy of you being a company in the UK and the USA can't touch you, they CAN touch your data! In fact, they can walk away with it at any time they want to! And IF the datacentre is in Timbuktu, the data [you have] stored on it will have to comply with the laws of both the UK and (in this case) Mali. An example of this is that you are not allowed to store images that are considered pornographic on a server in most Muslim countries. So, that topless picture of your other half could get your data seized. Encryption? Just ask Blackberry/Skype etc. about the trouble they have had in Saudi Arabia!
"Again - you just don't have a clue. You are not liable for anything for data access that was required by a law that you are subject to."
I suggest that you seek the advice of legal counsel. If the data is of a confidential nature - you (as the person creating that data) are liable for it - (at the risk of repeating myself) have a look at the Cloud provider's T's & C's. They are not liable and the contract you sign with them ensures that. In the example of 365, M$ SPECIFICALLY state they can examine your data at any time! And if the datacentre is in a different country, you are subject to the laws of BOTH places. Not all countries have identical laws, so your argument doesn't really stand up, does it? And before you start saying "use a datacentre in your country", just try getting a cloud provider to tell you exactly where your data IS being stored. Good luck with that one, by the way........ Remember, ignorance of the law is not a valid legal defence.
But it is interesting that you obviously place so much blind faith in cloud providers. Excuse me, but I don't trust anyone with my customer's sensitive data. The cloud (for sensitive data storage) means keeping the customers data in a place you can't control that also happens to be a legal minefield. If you want to run the risk - that's your choice.
Re: The economics of the Cloud are too irresistible to corporate bean counters.
Maybe the cloud salesmen could become more honest (sic)? They obviously don't tell the client the legal ramifications of storing data on the cloud. Nor do they tell them the horror stories of data loss that have already happened (twice to Amazon's cloud system, for example). They'll just sell it and run away, leaving others to clean up the mess when it goes wrong!
Re: Fine if you don't care about privacy
""All of your data, unencrypted, in the hands of a US company. What could go wrong?"
Well firstly it's not unencrypted - all traffic and data are encrypted. Secondly you can supply a second level of protection to sensitive information via Active Directory DRM that Microsoft (or the US government) would not have access to."
Sorry, but both the US Gov and the British Gov have laws in place that ensure that ANY agency can force decryption of data they wish to look at, so your encrypted data is still viewable by government agencies. Encryption would only stop some hacker from viewing it. Also check M$'s T's & C's for Office 365 - there is a "We can look at your data/documents/contents anytime we want to" clause. If you are storing confidential data, this leaves your company open to all sorts of legal headaches - especially if your are operating cross border (UK company, data centre in US/mainland EU for example). The data encryption would only protect your data for point to point communication (i.e. at transmission) - not actually at the static point of storage.
""Add to that the rental cost versus just buying MS Office (or indeed using those copies you already have) and using it for 5-10 years as a lot of us have done, nope - not attractive."
Erm, no The cost of physical installs of Office is included in the rental cost. the major advantage of Office 365 (apart from no infrastructure and limited management costs) is that it scales up and don on a monthly basis as you require. Don't need it next month? No problem - just stop paying for it."
For an SMB, 365 would cost £145 per year (www.office365advantage.co.uk) verses £170 for 2013 Home and Business (www.ebuyer.com). So, it would take less than 15 months for 365 to cost more than a retail box copy of Office 2013!
""Even though MS offer EU-hosting, it is still not good enough. Do you trust MS? All of its employees around the world? Any foreign gov where a data centre is hosted?"
I trust Microsoft a lot more than I do Google who are the other major alternative, and who's core business is selling your data to dvertisers. If that's not good enough then there are plenty of EU based companies like Colt that will sell you a similar platform on EU only datacentres..."
If you are storing ANY data that could be considered confidential (by any court of law), neither M$ or Google (or any others for that matter) would be a sensible place for storing data. The legal risks are just too great.
""And yes I know the courts can ask for access to your data even if encrypted, but (A) that requires some form of due legal process, and (B) at least you know if is happening."
No you don't necessary know if it is happening. There is a requirement of confidentiality on those requested to provide access to your data."
True, but if someone DOES find out, then you are legally liable for your confidential data being exposed to a 3rd party (even if it is a Government agency), NOT the cloud company! (Read the small print!)
Re: First impressions were not great
I think the point is this: From Win 95 to Win 7, if you had used one, you could use any version of Windows. My Mother-in-Law happily found Solitare within 50 seconds of using Win 7 for the first time. That is now almost impossible with TIFKAM.
What M$ should have done is give us the choice at install - TIFKAM or the "Classic" desktop. Win 8 is faster than 7, but the alien environment will put a lot of people off. Look at Server 2012 - what the hell is a touch screen interface doing on a Server OS (or indeed a desktop)? Unless, you are after running Exchange 2010 (oops, sorry - not officially supported by Server 2012) or SQL on a tablet?
What where you thinking M$?
The best example of using old tech (imho) was the Soviets in the Mig 25. When one defected in the 70's, the Americans where laughing their heads off with the use of valves instead of transistors. Until, that is, the British pointed out that the valve is pretty much impervious to EMP and in the event of a nuclear detonation, the Soviet aircraft would still be flying (and free to attack the USA)! Imagine the stampede, as US scientists rushed to harden the electronics of military jets!
Second the "License Activation" issues. Server 2012 from the MAP can only be activated once - after that it won't activate. So keep this in mind if you're thinking of playing around with it.
I think you answered your own argument - the guy with the megaphone has the right to his own opinion and the right of free speech (even if you don't agree with him). The fact that you disagree with a person's right to express himself is a worrying attitude akin to extreme facisim or communism, where freedom is severely curtailed. Are you worried about his comments possibly being anti-Apple?
Let's face it, Apple have managed to convince people to take 1 or 2 days off work, to wait in the cold and rain so they can spend £500-600 [in a recession] on their product! Now that's "religious cultism" as you put it.
This issue is only valid
For so-called "keyless" models. Models that you need to use the key (to start the engine, for example) have an embedded chip which a sensor in the steering column reads (it also charges the battery of the remote). So, any thief would need the rolling code that the remote transmits, the chip embedded in the key and a copy of the metal part.
So, in fact, it is more modern BMW's that are at risk. I think the next question is, how many other cars (not only BMW) are at risk? With keyless entry becoming ever more popular (for people who are just too lazy to turn the key in the ignition), this is not an issue that's going away soon.
Re: "forced to watch"
Ah, but if your playback device (TV, PC, Video etc) is *capable* of receiving broadcast signals, then you MUST have a TV license - whether you actually watch the broadcast or not.
For god's sake
Keep it quiet!
Raspberry Pi is brilliant, but if we/they shout too loud, Apple will send in the lawyers (in their continued quest to sue everybody on the planet) and get some judge to ban us from having Pi (other than Apple)!
Re: Spouting Rubbish
Also, the comment does not take into account what type of data is stored in the cloud. Certain types of data (for example medical or children's information) cannot be stored in the cloud, as cloud providers will not take responsability for loss of data by hardware failure/hacking.
In other words, if your data is sensitive - you can't store it in the cloud, but if you do, you are still responsible even if you pay someone else to store it (so what's the point?).
Who is responsible if data from "your" cloud [area] get stolen/hacked etc?
Working for a company which has very sensitive data, I was told by a number of cloud providers (when the company toyed with the idea of moving to the cloud), that if the data was stolen from them, they (the cloud provider) would NOT be responsible legally. So if you do lose sensitive data - it's your fault!
believe anything Hunt says. I wrote to him before the current gov. where elected, voicing my reservations about the Digital Economy Act. His reply was crystal clear - that the Conservative part opposed the bill and would never allow it to be passed. So what happened? The Conservative Party supported the bill and it was passed in "Washup".
We all knew Murdoch had dirt on the MP's - it was only when it was going to be released. Note too, that Labour are (generally) quiet on this issue - Murdoch must have something really incriminating on them!
As far as Hunt's innocence goes, are you really suggesting that he knew nothing of what his "Special Advisor" was doing? The buck should stop with him. Hearsay or not, Joe Public has been sent to prison with a lot less evidence.
Don't get me wrong though, I am no lover of Murdoch. He has far too much power - and it shows.
"which are of particular use to Brits since apparently nearly one in ten of them take their phones into the shower" - eh?
Gimme my GUI!
I love the GUI. I want the GUI. Yes, PowerShell etc. are very useful for certain operations, but getting rid of the GUI defeats the object of having "Windows". You might as well dump M$ and use Linux instead, if M$ are going to force us to use the CLI. The whole point of Windows ARE the windows!
And I guess, with this new direction, SBS products are going to be dumped, as they where designed to be setup by pretty much anyone? Those enterprising [end] users who have setup their own copy of SBS sure as hell aren't going to be able to make the transition to CLI only - even if there is an option furthar down the line to install a GUI.
It don't add up
The maths doesn't work.
Sky have 10 Million subscribers. Let's assume that (very generously) 50% have Sky Sports. Seeing as all of those subscribers have purchased Sky Sports for the football, let's guesstimate how many will want to stop watching their favourite team, to watch F1. I doubt that Sky will get 50k viewers, let alone the millions they will need.
Why will they need millions of viewers? Companies want to advertise to the biggest audience possible. With Auntie Beeb, F1 was regularly getting 8-10 million viewers. How are they going to feel when this drops to tens of thousands? If I had a company that was paying millions to put the name on the side of an F1 car, I'd be pretty peeved right now. Who knows what will happen when the advertisers start deserting?
The Beeb only dumped F1 (in full, I know they will be broadcasting some of the races) because they wanted to keep Wimbledon - which according to a family member who works for Aunite, they are probably going to lose in 2014 to Sky anyway.
I think you will find (according to the Road Traffic Act) that pedestrians do NOT have right of way on roads (only on pavements). Think of the chaos caused if pedestrians where allowed to roam like sheep on a major dual carriageway?
BUT, the area of the zig-zag lines at a pedestrian crossing, is defined by the Road Traffic Act as a "Pedestrian controlled zone" - ie: if you hit a pedestrian within the zig-zags it's your fault.
The UK does have a jaywalking offence, but it is seldom used. UK law, however, is very biased towards the pedestrian - even if the pedestrian is found to be the cause of an accident.
Teaching kids (and some adults) to USE crossings and only walk when the green man shows is sensible. Everyone (pedestrians and drivers) should take responsibility for their actions.
As for the idiot driving uninsured and using 2 mobiles whilst driving? Lock him up and throw away the key.
How dare you..
suggest that cuddly Apple have had any nefarious intent. They are perfect and should be allowed to do anything they want.
Not like that nasty Micro$oft or Google!
Please Sir Steve Jobs, take my wife - kids too.......
There is another factor too, as to the price difference.
Diesel is (nowadays) much more polluting than petrol. The levels of PM10's and PM2.5's created by diesel engines are huge - even with particulate filters in the exhaust. The PM's are [mainly] hydrocarbons made of Benzine rings (a known carconagen).
Hence the EU decided (in the clean air/pollution laws) that because of the pollution created by diesels, the tax levied should be higher [than petrol]. Alas, only the UK abides to this (other EU countries ignore the law because diesels are much more popular on the continent than in the UK).
If you follow the history of diesel vs petrol prices, you will note that after the EU laws kicked in at the turn of the century (2001 to be precise, and coincided with VED - Road Tax - changes), diesel cost has overtaken petrol.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
doesn't the 802.11 standard require that the fastest possible speed (Mbps) will be dictated by the slowest device connected to it? So an "n" network will only run at a maximum of (for example) 11Mbps if you have a "b" device connected - regardless of what standard the rest of the connected devices are.
And that's before allowing for interference from neighbours, steel beams, distance etc.
@The Fuzzy Wotnot
But their shareholders (and, one would assume, the US Gov) are quite happy to profit from business with the likes of the KKK - which actively spreads hate and religous intolerance. You don't see the State dept writing to the about that do you? It's the hipocracy of what has [and how it has] happened.
And as for supporting something worthwhile, have a read of Katrin Axelsson's letter to the Guardian here:
Watergate? Or as someone pointed out, "The Pentagon Papers Case"?
Why are so called journalists of the World's press desperately trying to crucify Mr Assange? Maybe because there are actually very few "Free" news organisations who are prepared to report the whole truth - the rest just pander to the American Government and feed us the propaganda. Very little is said about the person who leaked the documents - why? It is the lack of security in the US Gov that enabled the documents to become public in the first place.
As the saying goes, "Don't shoot the messenger". Unless, of course, you are the US Gov. Then you get to do anything you want, with the blessing of so-called free press, and you are answerable to no-one.
The ORIGINAL OS (iOS) is NOT free. The cost is built into the price of the phone. To make an M$ comparison, if you buy a copy of Windoze, the updates are free!
As for Operators releasing bug fixes, that was true of all Phone OSs, until (admittedly) the iPhone (the noteable exception being some versions of WM5/WM6). And, it is up to the Operator to release the bug fix, not the original writer of the OS. Especially as many customise the OS for their own purposes. So really, your argument is with the Operator, not the OS manufacturer.
You missed a bit....
The part where Mr Jobs would be breaking the sound barrier whilst heading for Apple's legal dept if YOU DARED put Linux (or Windows) on Mac hardware - that's directly on the system, not in Boot Camp.
Remember, you might be able to buy iOS (eg Leopard etc) in the shops, but it's T&C's only allow you to install it on Apple hardware. So to use Apple iOS in this article is completely pointless, unless you could actually buy an iMac WITHOUT an OS.
I think that you are missing the point.
Mr Williams may well have an axe to grind. This is the 3rd time he has had his camera/film confiscated. Why? Because he films protests and the Police have delayed the investigation until no prosecution can take place if the Police have acted unlawfully (funny, that).
Mr Williams was, at no time, ASKED by the Police to view his images for evidence of a crime/criminal act. Instead, his camera/film was just confiscated.
The excuse of the criminal act being stated an Officer's foot being run over by a wheelchair 8-9 months AFTER the event is nothing short of farcical.
This debate/situation is not about - as you put it - "honest people not lifting a finger to help the Police". It IS about what the Police can legally do and the way they are behaving towards Photographers - against the advice of their OWN ACPO! The Police's continual draconian attitude towards photographers at legal protests - and, indeed tourists on the street - is potentially illegal and must be addressed.
What is the point of
With the [obvious] utter contempt the various Police Forces around the country have for his advice on Photographers and their right to take photographs in a public place, why are we bothering to pay his wages?
The average wage for a Chief Constable is £100k - in these austere times, we would make a nice saving by getting rid of him. Could be spent on something worthwhile - like the homeless (yeah, right!).
Fail? Because after repeated advice Police Officers still don't (or won't) listen.
You are right - this is impossible. We have been repeatedly told by the Banks that chip & pin is totally safe - which must be true. (sic)
Why don't they use fingerprint confirmation, like ATM's in Brazil? Unless someone steals your finger, it's going to be pretty hard to break, and the cost of fingerprint scanners is very low (lower than the cost of these scams, I'm sure....).
Is actually a coffee from Jamaica. It is incredibly expensive, costing up to (and over) £100 per kilo.
It is also regarded as one (if not the) best coffees in the world. You should try some, before getting out the wet herring!
In a strongly worded statement, Chief Constable Andy Trotter, chairman of ACPO's media advisory group stated: "Everyone ... has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs ... is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place."
That was a complete waste of a strongly worded statement Mr Trotter, wasn't it?
It cannot be very comforting for you Mr Trotter, that your officers completely ignore your orders. On the other hand, it doesn't suprise us mere members of the public on little bit.........
You must be a member of the Liberal Party. Oh, wait a minute, they where the party that (after being lobbied by the Music, Film and Media (including magazines and newspapers) industries) wanted to amend the Digital Britain Bill (aka Mandybill) so a Photographer's photographs where free for all.
At least the PP want reform to be discussed - major parties like the Lib Dems just want to quietly agree with whoever can bring the most peer pressure to bear on them.
Fail? Because you haven't bothered to research what you're waffling on about.
Well, isn't this fun? A debate? Exactly what the PP offer in their manifesto. Yet some people (obvious by their comments) feel that the PP is "bonkers"? Huh? Isn't that what "Democracy" is all about? Debate? Exactly what the PP want.
All this was started by the "Mandybill". It's obvious that the history of this bill is conveniently forgotton by some commentators here.
Mandy has no interest in P2P. Mandy goes on a holiday with (and paid for by) David Geffen (of Geffen Records). Mandy comes home and within 2 weeks has the "Mandybill" written and ready to be pushed through Parliment. Suspicious? Industry dictating law? Possibly.
The bill includes such gems as giving Mandy the power to change the law without recourse to Parlimentary scrutiny, and a LibDem amendment (Clause 43 - previously Clause 42) which effectively strips all copyright from a photographers photographs. Ooops, all those arguing the Music Industry's corner, accusing all opponents (including the PP) as being a bunch of "Freetards", are effectively supporting a bill that destroys the rights of people who make their living from taking pictures. This would mean that a number of industries (Newspapers, Magazines, and, indeed the Music industry) would be making money by NOT paying photographers for their work. Who's the Freetard now?
To cap it all, the wording of the bill (Clause 120a), is almost word for word a copy of a draft written by the BPI. Industry dictating law? Looking more likely now.
Yes, we need to look at reducing/tackling illegal P2P, but not at the cost of democratic freedoms - it's not worth it.
Yes, the music industry needs to compromise, and adopt new technologies - iTunes are a good example, proving the internet can provide a place to make money. In fact, iTunes now makes up 25% of ALL music sold in the US, yet the Music Industry (and it's supporters) seem to conveniently forget this fact.
Some may want a country without scrutiny of the law, where industry dictates law to the [elected] lawmakers for forced approval, but I don't.
As for the PP, a good point to note is it's not just about P2P. Excessive surveillance (the UK has 1% of the world's population, yet 20% of it's CCTV cameras), and freedom of speech are also in their manifesto. If [at the very least] they can be the cause of debate and scrutiny, then we can only be the better for it.
Passed to the courts?
"Problem is, it usually boils down to arresting everyone and letting the courts sort out the resulting mess."
I was personally involved in a case where someone assaulted myself and 5 others, before attacking two women and three children in a car. I can still remember the terrified screams of the children. His penalty? - 6mth suspended sentence. Even if the Police do get it right and try to get the true scum off the streets, the courts just let them off with a slap on the wrist.
So, knowing that they can't get a conviction with the real criminals, the Police try to persuade the Gov. to give them so many powers that they can catch unsuspecting [previously] law-abiding citizens.
They can talk!
Firstly, the Argentine Gov is being rather hypocritical. In the Triple Alliance War of 1864-1870, Argentina seized thousands of square miles of Paraguyian land - which they have refused to give back. Moreover, when the Falklands became British, Argentina was a Spanish colony - not an independent state.
Secondly, there was a treaty in place between Britain and Argentina which shared oil rights, before the current Argentinian PM's Husband (who used to be the PM) had a hissy fit and tore up the aggreement.
Thirdly, when the UN was formed in 1945 (to which Argentina is a signatory), it provided the Law of Self Determination. This gives the people of any land the right to determine if they wish to be independent or be ruled by a remote government. The Falkland Islanders are proudly British, and do not wish this to change.
Forthly, the Argentine economy is in tatters (strangely similar to the economic situation in '82) and stirring up nationistic feelings is a great way to distract the populus of Argentina away from the economy. Although, I admit there was also the Junta trying to cover up the disappearance of 30,000 people in '82.
Lastly, the oil platform is in International waters - if the Argentine Gov want to park their own oil rig next to the British one, there is nothing to stop them. Why don't they?
So - sod off Argentina!
This country has approx 2 million criminal cases per year, and the legal system is near collapse under this weight. How the hell is it going to handle another 7.5 million - regardless of the other arguements against Mandy's Law? The only way, is for every working person in the UK (not guilty of downloading) to become lawyers! Then nothing will get done!
The Gov has been giving us misleading information for years - don't you just love the way they throw their toys out of the pram when the opposition do it?
A good example is road deaths caused directly by speeding. With all the Gov PR about, you would be forgiven for thinking that ALL road deaths where caused by speeding. Yet the Gov's own stats show the figure is only 7%!
Now that's what I call misleading.
As for violent crime, try sitting in the centre of any major city on a Friday/Saturday night. You'll soon get some drunken 14 year old and his mates taunting you to fight them. At least you'll have comfort in the knowledge you will be carefully monitored by the CCTV system, ready to provide footage for "Street Wars".
Paris? Even she is clever enough to detect a politicians bullsh1t!
are so many people pi$$ed off at M$?
Any company manufacturing a product will seek to develop it's product - it's called progress. I am using Office 2010 on a 6 year old Dull running Win7 - works perfectly. At work, I use a 2.6 dual core running Win7 x64 and x64 Office 2010. Again, works perfectly. And I love the multiple Exchange function of Outlook 2010. If the machine you are trying to run Office 2010 on is unable to run it, go buy a new one you cheapskate.
Do people really think that M$ should NOT evolve their product? Try using that premise in the car industry. Oh my god, F0rd have had the gaul to actually make a new car! How DARE they do that to us? That's it - the sky is going to fall on our heads because our favourite car maker has stopped producing the trusty Escort and started making the Focus. Shocking (sic)!
I work in IT as a support tech. So I see everything from Office 2000 to 2007. The people who made the switch from 97-2k3 to 2k7 soon get used to it (if they have some semblence of intelligence). If they are thick as 2 short planks then they will be the ones who winge and moan, then throw their toys out of the pram. One client that I upgraded (H/W & S/W) went from Win 2k/Office 2K to XP with Office 2k7. OK, it took them a while to get used to it, but they are now whizzing around, working a lot more efficently than before.
If you don't like Office, then don't use it - simple. Go get open office/Star writer whatever, just don't start complaining if you aren't going to use the product in the first place (that's called CHOICE, by the way).
And to those who are shocked (huh?) by Word using 100M of memory, does that really matter on an average PC that probably has at least 1G inside it? With prices of memory at an all time low, I'm building PC's with 8G of RAM - and you want to convince me that a program should be rejected because it uses a paultry 100M? Get a life (and more memory)!
Paris? Because even she could use Office 2010!
that the spineless labour government will ever have the guts to stand up to the Americans. The one-sided extradition agreement should be torn up, and a fair and equal one be negotiated. This case is not just about McKinnon, it's also about an unequal treaty and it's inadequacies. Americans are quite happy to send in the Seals to save one of it's citizens from getting a parking ticket, why is our government (sic) so ready to give it's citizens up?
Yes, McKinnon broke the law, but the reaction of the Americans has been disproportionate, misleading and down right dishonest.
And to David, who wrote "If I forgot to lock my front door would any random UFO nut be allowed to give my house a going over looking for evidence of UFOs NO!", just remember that McKinnon used a program that scans systems for administrator accounts with no passwords! Every machine that Mckinnon broke into had no password at all protecting it. To use your analogy, that's like you not having a front door at all - just a open hole. If that was the case in your house, that you had no front door at all, would you be suprised if you where burgled?
And what of the other 5000 hackers that managed to amble through the open door? You don't hear the American politicians calling for the ones from China, Nth Korea, Iran etc. to be executed? Yet, because this is Britain, and a bunch of greedy, house-flipping, self-centred ***** are in power, its citizens are a "soft" target.
If anything, I think McKinnon has done a service to the Americans, by highlighting just how poor their security was. Come on - no passwords at all? That's just a joke.
Paris? Because even she knows what a password is used for....
What happens if you use the P2P Sky Player? That uses P2P technology. As do many other things. TVOD will probably use some form of P2P.
As Mandy (and indeed the Labour Government's recent policies) is preposing a "Guilty until proven Innocent" situation, Joe Bloggs could have his broadband disconnected and be dragged into court for LEGALLY downloading.
What if someone hacks your Wireless? I'm sure that with these laws, Wireless hacking will increase dramatically as downloaders try to evade detection.
This already exists in the UK. ANPR and traffic cameras already record and store ALL passing vehices data - regardless of wether or not the driver/vhicle has been involved in crime or has no Tax/MOT/Insurance etc.
Why don't you look at the case before passing judgment? OK, I can't stand hackers - he has admitted to hacking in to the computers, and should be punished.
BUT, the computers he "hacked" into has NO or BLANK PASSWORDS! To post a message on this fair site, you need a password! You would feel that the largest military power on the planet would, at least, require passwords to access top secret servers? At least it was him breaking in, and not some unfriendly government. Maybe he actually did the US a favour, by highlighting the fact that sensitive data was so easily accessable?
Secondly, the US initially said - in court - that he had NOT done ANY damage to the systems he broke into. Yet in subsequent court hearings, apparently, he did. Strangely enough, the amount (in Dollars) of damage he did was EXACTLY the minimum amount required under US law to prosecute/extradite. Odd that.
Thirdly, if the extradition law was the opposite way round - with the UK Gov not requiring to provide information, but the US must - the US population would be up in arms! It's just unfortunate that the UK MP's are such a bunch of money-grabbing self serving spineless tossers.
Paris? Cause even she can spot bullsh1t!
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know