174 posts • joined 17 Jul 2009
Free asda wifi
Filtered by mumsnet.
So while it might let you visit competitors to check prices, is sure as hell doesnt let you run a VPN to make sure your connection is secure.
Wont someone think of the 'my data is my data, dont you dare spy on me'
Great.. More people fannying around a the front of the queue
For a quick transaction it sounds like a PITA.
'Oh hang on, I know I left my phone in my handbag SOMEWHERE'
'Oh here it is'
Find and launch the app.
No 3G. Error
Wait for 3G to lock.
Quit and Re-launch App
Secret code (8 characters long, but characters 4, 3, 7 please)
Wrong Try Again
Wrong Try Again
'So sorry, I get flustered when I'm in a rush'
'How much was it again?'
QR code generated, trying to get it in frame and photographed.
'Oh, wrong bank account, hang on, I need to launch my current account App'
Filtering sites about proxies
As the reg previously reported, BT filters sites that provide information about bypassing the filter... So how long before the linked chromestore becomes filtered?
VPN already blocked by NetMums
The 'Free Family Friendly WiFi' available at ASDA is filtered by NetMums.
And guess what...Your super secret VPN pron source is already blocked.
Yes, yes, only right that Free WiFi available to general public and kiddies should block porn. But blocking a VPN isn't blocking porn.
And as its NetMums that are driving the filtering, you can bet that the scope will creep to include VPN and proxies in your own home.
Re: Video/Movie Industry still needs a
Maybe didnt explain myself correctly.
Rather than having to know to search in Netflix, or Hulu, or Catchup TV, or iPlayer, or 4OD, or LoveFilm or..or.. or..
I have one front end app, call it AppleFLIXodPlayer or whatever. So I have one bill to pay (to Apple) and when I log into that I can search without knowing or caring what service ACTUALLY has the broadcast rights.
Apple gathers the metric on what I watch, then automatically pay through a fee to whichever service was actually hosting it (invsibily to me).
Video/Movie Industry still needs a
Regional distribution models, regional pricing, format/quality variations, streaming/buffering.
All the things that drive people to torrents, because quite frankly the quality of the product on a torrent site is often quicker/better than trying to do it legally.
An iTV has been talked about for sometime, it's probably in a lab somewere, but likely its tied up in Hollywood negotiations.
At the very least I could see a market for a device that wraps all the various online video services behind one front end/account. So the user doesnt have to care which service has licenced which series of the show, or which sequal to the movie franchise.
Connect, search, select, play. All the billing etc handled invisibly.
Now THAT I could see being an apple product. Its nothing new or clever, but the integration would be where they succeed.
She said: "We do not consider the data to provide an accurate representation of the number of purposeful requests made by network users. [There are a] variety of ways in which websites can be designed to act, react and interact and due to the potential operation of third party software."
So they admit that their own statistics for their own filtering software are probably junk, and yet theyre happy to propose filtering and blocking on ALL of us because of some statistics about protecting children and the harm of pron.
"Some parliamentary staffers also hit back at the claims, blaming overzealous smut filters for mis-classifying innocent websites: The problem with the Porn Story Parliament Computers thing is that sometimes PICTs filter blocks news stories as pornographic"
Our elected representatives are researching news of the day on a filtered connection that may or may not be providing them with the full range of results. Then they decide if theyre going to be bothered to vote on a motion that they may or may not be fully informed about?
And they wonder why those of us with a least a passing interest and knowledge of how the series of connected tubes works, are telling them that the proposed new laws are a disaster?
You should be so lucky
It will still likely require a visit to the main dealer so that an 'approved' rubber stamp can go in the service book. At the cost of £150 per hour plus vat and parts (ink).
Car Manufacturers arent going to let Nokia take a revenue stream off them. Updating/servicing onboard tech is likely to be a nice little earner for them.
Any chance of digging a bit and find out some technical detail?
I'm struggling to see what sequence of events would get documents from work to be auto-magically published publicly online?
Is it a dropbox 'feature' I'm not aware of?
Some facebook thing?
Some sort of shared folder Limewire fail?
So they didnt have a policy/process for home working. Does that mean she just email stuff to her home account? Or do they have homeworking solution, just badly implemented?
You'll probably not see this now.
But if you are using MacOSX and running everything in a VM... try turning off Unity. Thats the feature that makes the windows apps appear seamless to you. Much better reliability if you run the VM 'in a VM' .
Rhetorical Question really
But why do people have to 'claim'?
The banks clearly have the data, and the analytics to decide if you've got a valid claim. So, err.. Why dont they just hand over the cash that they took during the mis-selling?
Oh thats right... It's profit if it doesnt get handed back.
And why aren't the Government using the law for these things?
Because they suspect that the Government case isnt as strong as they think.
If they really thought they had a legal case against the Guardian they could have used the appropriate laws to sieze and prevent publishing a story. "D-Notice" isnt it?
If they really thought the lad Miranda was carrying stolen property (the documents from the NSA) they could have arrested him on suspicion of handling stolen property.
But no, they used terrorism law and thinly vieled threats, with no requirement for the 'suspect' to have any rights or priviledges.
If they'd carried out either of these acts using appropriate laws with oversight there wouldnt be half the political fuss there is now.
Data protection act?
If you thought you might be on their lists, couldnt you request copies and corrections to be made to it as per the Data Protection act?
At least then you'd know if they had someone on you, and what that might be.
As theyre not a Government agency they'd have no 'secrecy' get out.
Copied from Wiki.. So it may or may not be 100% accurate, but I'd have thought that they could fall foul of sections 4 and 5 at least.
1.Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless- 1.at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
2.in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.
2.Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
3.Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.
4.Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
5.Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.
6.About the rights of individuals e.g. personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects (individuals).
7.Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.
8.Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data
So if you had a successful commercial site paying your bills that suddenly became unavailable because of this...
1) Complain to? You're probably not a customer of all 4 ISPs so you dont have a business relationship with them. How do you get your site unblocked?
2) Notify? Other than seeing your income suddenly drop, how would you know you were blocked?
3) Sue? Who's responsible? The ISP? The court? The copywrite holder? Who pays me my compensation?
Even if you were quick of the blocks, noticed the problem, figured out what it was, and had it up and running on another service within a day or two you could have lost thousands and have spent hundreds sorting yourself out. Through no fault of your own.
Internet filtering...The new cluster*bomb*.
Why did I hear this as a thinly veiled threat?
"It's true, we have significant capabilities. What's also true is that we show a restraint that many other governments around the world refuse to show, and that includes some of America's most vocal critics."
Don't push me too much or I'll stop restraining those three letter agencies?
Later that day...
Infosys has announced that it has secured a major US Government Contract.
"To facilitate US Government cost efficiency savings, Infosys are proud to announce we're the sole offshored centre for administration of key US Government security systems. You can be rest assured that security and professionalism are at our core values"
"Hello <crackle, hiss>, I am "Bob" calling from Windows support, there is a problem with your computer"
"Umm, really, OK"
"Yes, <pop, snap>, Normally we try to install some malware on your PC at this point <zzsttzzzz> But your NSA has paid us to do it already"
"So we already know your bank details, social security number, and what you like to do in your own home. Your tax dollars at work <hissss>"
If you're happy to say "that parents have always been in control of what television programmes their children should view. "The 'off' button is a great regulator," he said"
The same applies to computers, and smart phones.
PARENTS have the power to regulate what the kids see.
So stop forcing mumsnet parenting on the rest of us.
Just maybe he'll be able to educate them
If only even a little.
The people complaining about the filters aren't the ones confusing child pron with adult content filters.
We all agree the *illegal* content should be removed and those responsible prosecuted. Using the existing laws.
The issue is that those in positions of influence keep using "protecting the children" as an excuse to inflict impractical and shoddy solutions on those of us accessing *legal* content.
Who defines that its something adult? By the sounds of it, it depends on what commercial package each individual ISP has installed. That could end up in dozens of different implementations.
What about sites that are incorrectly classified as adult? If you're running a commercial online site, that has some content that some may argue is adult (safe sex advice?) then what happens to your business when you're suddenly branded as adult. That could put some businesses bankrupt. Or do you go to each ISP in turn, begging them to re-catogorise your site? You're not their customer, what reason do the ISP have to help you out at all.
Perhaps the Netflix, iPlayer, other on demand services could be listed as Adult. But what if the ISP hosts its own streaming service? It could easily list the others as adult and use that as a commercial nudge to get its customers to subscribe to its own service. Which just so happens it doesnt list as adult.
What happens if a legit site is hacked, as found with the recent spike in hacked sites hosting child pron. Does that suddenly fall into the adult content? Never again to be allowed to be listed as normal, even after being cleaned?
What about sites that children actually want to use? But become the targets of 'grooming'. If youre there to protect children are you going to start listing popular kids sites as adult when they are found to have adults grooming children on them?
The only people this wont effect are the people that want to get access to pron. VPN, Tor, Proxies, or simply just phoning the ISP and openingly saying. "Make pron appear please!"
Go search for the epetition and sign up, please folks :)
Call-Me-Dave, take note..
the court said in June that "requesting search engine service providers to suppress legitimate and legal information that has entered the public domain would entail an interference with the freedom of expression of the publisher of the web page. In [Jääskinen's] view, it would amount to censorship of his published content by a private party"
Your plans for internet censorship have already been considered by the EU Advocate General, are you willing to try it on and end up taking it to the EU Courts of Justice?
Rehtorical question really, ofcourse they will, "publish and be damned". They'll implement it, fight it all the way, branding anyone who opposes them as pedoterrorists.
Presumed guilty then
"the ability of criminals like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden "
Snowden hasn't even been arrested yet, let alone faced trial or conviction.
Is it appropriate to be calling him a criminal already?
How long before the twitter trends?
They've stitched me up #inthedock
Looks guilty to me #1of12
Yawn, when's lunch? #foremanofthejury
The judge is asleep again #thedefenselawyer
Re-write to please the downvotes.
Apple sucks. Their stuff is ancient and they must have copied it from google all those years ago anyway.
Apple offered a preview of the device in September 2006
So thats Google at the same point 7 years later than Apple.
With improvements in tech, you'd expect them to be able to produce something that kicks the @rse out of the 7year old Apple product. And even still be better than the 3year old product.
Frankly, it's a good thing. It's competition, which means innovation in price and features.
The current AppleTV is good, but could be better. So hopefully this might inspire Apple to rev the hardware, or drop the price, or both. And then Google need to do the same to compete.
So if the Huawei filter is automatic..
at deciding if the site is safe or not...
Does that mean it would automatically have decided that Ms Claire Perry and her website was hosting Adult content and then automatically added it to the blocked list?
So not only do the script kiddies get the pleasure of defacing a website, theres then odds on chance that it starts getting blocked by the very systems she has campaigned for. A whole new approach to denial of service. I like it :)
And I can only imagine the red-tape to get a site de-listed from the blocks!!
Ms Perry, "My site is safe!"
ISP Support, "No it's not"
"If you go look you'll see its clean now.
"I can't go look at it, you're on the blocked list"
"If you can't go look at it, how do I prove its clean?"
"Shouldnt have told us to put this bloody system in then should you"
The devil in the detail
Can we see the list please?
The list of sites/content/genre that they've deemed to be Adult and requiring filtered?
Can we know who is on the committee please?
Is advice to curious teenage LGBT on that list?
Is advice for teenage safe sex on that list?
Are historic great works featuring cherubs and teenagers on that list?
Are album covers on that list?
What happens if at visitor uses my unfiltered internet connection and is offended by the pron apparently FORCED on them? Am I held liable for supplying pron to visiting children?
What happens if the ISP filter fails? Are they held liable for negligence?
What stops the list expanding into other things mumsnet disapproves of? Fundementalist religions? Abbortion? Drugs? Violent video games/films?
Who gets to be the 'other' voice here? The mumsnet lobby has secured the ear of "Call me Dave", where is my voice on the committee?
Working in pairs
Didnt they force the East German guards patroling The Wall to work in pairs?
Just a question. If Amazon (or other retailer) fails to secure the rights to whatever gTLD they think belongs to them, what stops who ever does secure it from allowing sites like
Do the domain squatting rules apply? Because copyright and trademark laws wont apply as that didnt give them reason enough to secure the name in the first place?
If whats been done is true...
Then it's all good. They've abided by the law.
However just one thought. GCHQ provided the committee with the evidence. And they've taken it on faith.
Does that mean I can decide what proof to provide to HMRC about what income tax I'm due to pay and they can take that on faith?
Why wasnt this done as an independent external audit?
Re: "governments must continue to rely on legal process"
I wouldnt want anything like 11/9 to happen anywhere, but equally I wouldnt want to give any future Government anywhere in the world the easy option of forming a new Stasi.
Would you want a Police officer on every street corner and junction logging who drove past at what time? What size of car, speed, direction, number of passengers, time of day.
Then returning to the station, dumping all that data in with all the other officer reports?
Thats the car analogy to what we're told NSA and GCHQ have been doing.
something to hide
But if it was the accepted default. "Everything everyone does, send, recieve, create, read, is encrypted end to end."
Then it's not suspicious is it?
So if we all start using proxies, vpn, PGP, truecrypt, then it's no longer something unusual.
Why shouldnt the best available encryption and privacy be the expected default on for everything?
Not just to avoid Government agency snooping, but also criminal and insider attacks?
cc Government of the Day.
I 'the upvoter below' do not want.
If you should implement such a system I will take my business else where.
If all of you should implement such a system I will encrypt my traffic via an offshore thirdparty.
That'll screw you over either way, wont it now? Either no business, or no ability to traffic shape the protocols you dont like.
"So, we've got all this data we've hoovered up on people that have VPN'd out of the Great Firewall", says Uncle NSA.
"Oh good, we've got all this data we've hacked from you and other places around the world", says the Peoples Party.
Simultaneously.. "Shall we trade?"
"Great, we can now hunt down some more disidents"
"And we can avoid that pesky Constitution"
Nice PR spin
A queue doesnt ALWAYS mean high demand, it just means limited supply.
But you can make it sound like it's indemand.
" OMG!! 2 hour queues and theres plenty to go round! "
Therefore that MUST mean they're really really popular.
It means theres one person at one desk personally handling each transaction.
Re: The Government will be quaking in there boots.
I wrote to my MP complaining about the proposed changes to the snoopers charter and the default Pron filtering, actually got a reply that he agreed and was forwarding it to the Home Secretary. I'll summarise it again here. Ofcourse, this now means that I've stood up and put myself on one of these very lists that I'm about to describe...
These systems once in place can't just be turned off. We're all told once somethings on the internet it's on there forever, the same will apply to data (meta or otherwise) thats gathered by security services.
Once they've got it, they've got it. Today its just looking for keywords, analytics, metadata etc related to terrorism. But what happens when our current "you can trust us" Government is removed? Either by democratic process or something more dramatic?
That network of monitoring stations, listening post and archives of data, they're all still there and still working. The staff are just following orders from above. What today you may feel is your right, to complain about your Police service, write to your paper, write to you MP, vote for someone different, etc. In the future that may suddenly put you on a watch list.
If tomorrow a radical Religious movement was voted in as Government, would you expect the out going Goverment to remove and delete all the security services that they'd put in place to 'protect you'? No, they'd still be there, now just being used by a different Government that has some very different views on who they're protecting from what. (Some may say we're already there)
I know the old quote, 'First they came for...and I said nothing' is over used, but it's valid and frighteningly more and more appropriate.
Stock control? You're having a laugh.
I've searched the aisle for things, and not found them.
So I go and ask, "do you have....?" Dunno, 'ave ye tried bakery?
So off to customer services, "Can your computer tell me if you even have xyz in stock? So I'm not wasting my time looking?"
"No, it can't do that."
Come on you lot...
One of you, do the decent thing and offer the bloke asylum.
IMHO He would fall pretty well into political asylum seeker now. Given the sh1t storm of protests and finger pointing we now see between governments in the press, it's a safe bet if he returned to his native country he wouldn't be able to get a fair trial.
If everyone is so shocked and horrified
How about one of the concerned EU governments steps up and offers to grant Snowden asylum with guarantee of protection against extradition?
But I doubt they will, as they'll be worried that the next leak is about their spying/filtering/monitoring of their own security services.
If I remember my hateful days of public school (at least it wasnt snowing playing cricket)...
The bowler gets a run up before letting fly. A pitcher has to stand still.
Given that the bowler probably has 4-5mph advantage in that, I'd think the pitchers throw is more efficient.*
*Purely based on the figures El Reg has provided.
At least the crack addict
Would spend 20 quid.. and get 20quid worth of crack.
The government will take the 5mil quid, spent it on something that ends up costing 50mil and is then scrapped because they calculate its cheaper to scrap it than finish the project.
Whats the Ecuadorian embassy like in Sweden?
Maybe theres a bit more space?
Take the free flight to Sweden then leg it to the embassy there?
At the very least it'd have a different view from the window.
Oh, now I think about it, what happens if the Ecuadorian embassy doesn't get its lease renewed on the current flat? Not likely HMG will look the otherway while they load him and his sofa into a Pickfords van.
How do they know why they're being requested?
So they're able to say if its for a fraud, murder, missing person investigation.
1) How do they (Yahoo!, Google, Apple etc) 'know' that it's really for the stated reason?
2) How are they able to say No, (as Facebook claimed) if they dont think it's a justified reason? If its got a court order.. Its got a court order.
3) What are the numbers for other national security agencies? How many times have GCHQ asked for data?
4) What about data for non-nationals? If the person isn't a US national, do the US laws apply? (equally to other countries).
So many unanswered, and likely weasle words still to come.
Hmm, I'm right in the middle of their age group and I'm firmly stuck on Earth. Dealing with the oh so exciting world of change management and upgrade roll outs.
Where was 'Astronaut' on the list from my Careers Advisor?
What's going on?
They'll have been complaining loud enough and threatening enough that someone's panicked and pulled the release trigger too soon.
Are there 'other' IWFs?
I've never looked into the remit of the IWF.
Are they UK based?
Are there other similar agencies around the world?
Do other-national ISPs use the IWF list for their filtering?
If other "IWFs" exist, do they share their lists?
Or are the UK based IWF being the international censor for this stuff?
And the lightsabres story appears as related...
On my page at least.
Coincidence? I think not.
That walking sticky Chewy was caught with.. It was a real one.. Wasnt it? Wasnt it???!!!
Theres an idea...
The US agencies can spy on all of us.
And GCHQ can spy on all of the Americans.
That way neither need laws to let them do it. They could come up with a new name for it...
Symmetric Hitech Intelligence Teamwork Enhancement
Proventitive Redundant Object Discovery Enquirey Design
Yankie Organised UK Analysis Research Enhanced Failover Uniform Counter Knowledge Engine Discovery
Who pays then?
It's a council, funded by and for local residents (tax payers).
So thats £150,000 less to spend on services. Or £150,000 more to take from tax payers.
I doubt it's likely to come out of the pocket of whom ever left it unlocked, or unencrypted, or someone in management who made the decisions.
Illegal content is already illegal
If its abusive, harmful, obscene or illegal, then it's already... Illegal, use the appropriate court proceedings to remove it.
Existing laws already cover the content they want removed, so use the existing laws.
But they dont *want that*. No, they want a nice 'off the books' list of content they want removed.
A sit down lunch with a nice bottle or two, all on expenses old chap, here's this weeks list, see what you can do eh? Tax? say no more about it what what? Retirment soon? Lordship for you, Non-Exec for me, eh? Jolly good.
If its on the statute books it'll require oversight, judges, courts, appeals. And we'll know when they block a site they shouldnt have. But if its done behind closed doors, if they get caught "oops, sorry mistake by the ISP". If they dont get caught.. It's all gravy.
We apologize for the inconvenience
Dont they already exist..and not just cruise..
Believe there are already bombs of this type.
Dropped from an aircraft they float down under parachute, scanning for tanks beneath them.
If they detect armour, woosh boom.
If they dont detect armour they fall to the ground and sit as landmines.
The point being, they decide if what they sense is a tank or not.
Also, arent there automated guns scattered in the DMZ? deciding if movement around them is a human or not?
- Opportunity selfie: Martian winds have given the spunky ol' rover a spring cleaning
- Spanish village called 'Kill the Jews' mulls rebranding exercise
- NASA finds first Earth-sized planet in a habitable zone around star
- New Facebook phone app allows you to stalk your mates
- Battle of the Linux clouds! Linode DOUBLES RAM to take on Digital Ocean