22 posts • joined Monday 27th July 2009 21:25 GMT
Re: Additional Verification
NO. People do not need to "wise up" to anything. It is NOT the place of retail businesses to start demanding sensitive, potentially exploitable PII from customers in order to back-up purchases. That kind of fraud-prevention is the duty of the banks and card-issuers; they are are the trusted holders of individuals' sensitive personal data. Anyone who willingly hands over such information to a retailer deserves everything they get. I can remember having to demand to speak to the store manager of a PC World branch because (even though I was paying cash for a small-value item) I refused to give my postcode at the checkout. The drone on the till simply could not proceed with the sale without that piece of information because of the way the company had chosen to design it's point of sale procedure. This unregulated harvesting of PII by the retail sector needs to be clamped-down on hard, with legislation if necessary.
I repeat: IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF THE RETAILER TO DEMAND SENSITIVE PERSONAL DATA IN ORDER TO VERIFY A CUSTOMER'S IDENTITY: THAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION PROVIDING THE MEANS OF PAYMENT.
Grados SR60i all the way - the antithesis of Dr. Dre(adful)'s pieces of expensive crap....
They're ugly, uncomfortable, cheap and plasticky looking, and they sound HEAVENLY.
Re: What a sham
"Any other person would have been sent to the country where they committed the crime to be prosecuted."
So that that would be the UK then, in McKinnon's case; he allegedly committed these crimes whilst sitting in a bedsit in North London. The UK has relevant laws applicable to this alleged crime, so the case should be tried here. There is no possible justification for extradition other than a vindictive thirst for revenge by the American authorities for making them look stupid, or US dissatisfaction with the (perfectly appropriate) length of custodial sentence he would receive in the UK if he were to be found guilty here, compared with the ludicrously disproportionate jail term he would get in the US. 99 years for a crime where no property was damaged, no money was stolen and nobody was injured or killed? That's not a Justice system; it's something altogether different and oppressive.
While Americans still think they rule the world (which they don't- China owns them lock, stock and barrel) they seem to think that they can help themselves with impunity to the citizens of other sovereign states while their citizens are nobody's property by their own. And they wonder why much of world despises them.
So what the f**k is someone who actually cares about audio fidelity supposed to listen to music on after that? Mp3 is crap, so is AAC , and FLAC is too much of a faff to get it to play through a proper hifi rather than shitty PC speakers.
Just goes to prove the music business doesn't give a flying one about quality.
So what if....
....in not interested in sticking my iTunes music collection on iCloud, but want to continue to use my MobileMe email address, iCal sync, address book, etc.? I now have to put up with ads? Time to move on, perhaps...
"Huawei's solution is very IP-based, converting traffic to Internet Protocol before back haul, which makes it cheaper to handle."
For "handle" substitute "intercept and direct to China". Here's hoping none of the UK's security services use mobiles on the EE network. I really don't understand this obsession with outsourcing everything of any importance to foreign companies in the apparently naive belief that they won't abuse the access it grants them to our sensitive information for their own national interest. The UK must be the laughing stock of governments like China's (whose Peoples Liberation Army has close links with Huwei)
Are we really incapable of doing things for ourselves anymore?
The gall of some people...
"Google is the only browser manufacturer to have individually come out against California's proposed law, signing its name to a letter to state politicians claiming that the bill "gratuitously" singles out advertising companies for special regulation."
Damn right they should be singled out for special regulation. There's nothing gratuitous about it: they have chosen to invade peoples' privacy in the pursuit of selling them stuff, using means that in any other sphere of human activity could and would result in them being prosecuted and imprisoned for covert surveillance/cyberstalking/data theft* (*choose your favourite illegal activity and delete as appropriate). So tell us Google, why exactly *should* advertising have a special exemption from, for example, the The European Convention on Human Rights that states that all it's citizens have the right to a private life?
That's Google going through your coat pockets for any useful information that they might be able to use to sell you stuff...
It always makes me laugh...
....in even current US TV shows when the authorities try to "trace" a phone call placed from a mobile, then fail because the suspect hung up too soon. The fact that the phone's location can be determined at any time, whether in use or not, as long as it is powered on (and how many people ever turn off their phone these days?) seems to have escaped them...
Unless, of course, it's a ruse to lull your average would-be criminal into a false sense of security.
...If their equipment does turn out to interfere with GPS, the US military will make the necessary adjustments to the base stations using a range of fast-acting, high yield aerial tools...
For what it's worth...there are so many different outfits trying to track you and steal your personally identifiable information online these days, it's extremely unlikely that you'll stop all of them without taking drastic action like disabling some services, which will have a detrimental effect on what you can actually do online.
Your choices are; withdraw from the online world -or- put up with these parasites. The middle ground of a severely-limited -but secure- user experience really isn't worth the hassle.
Am I the only old duffer who remembers the pre-internet days when the word "Azure" was a British Intelligence Services codeword for eavesdropping? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ummmm...wait a mo......
For those people here who are panicking because they think that they'll be taxed on a BT line that runs to their house even if it is dormant:
How do you think BT are going to be able to charge you 50p per month for their copper wires running into your home if you don't actually have a contract with them? Where are they going to get your bank details from? Or your name? Unless you're the only person in the house listed on the electoral register, even if they can find out the names of the dwelling occupants, how are they going to know who to send the tax bill to? Get real folks: If the phone line is off and nobody at the house has any contract with BT, they're not going to be able to tax you!
The problem with this attitude is...
...that Mr. Schmidt's definition of a "miscreant" isn't necessarily the same as your's or mine.
Certain type of activity can be pretty much universally agreed by sane, well-adjusted people to be "miscreant": some examples have been listed in the article.
But what happens when someone decides that your political beliefs are "miscreant"? Or your affiliation to a Trades Union? Or your religious convictions (or Lack Of)? What about your sexual orientation? How about your ethnicity? Or environmental convictions? The protection enshrined in UK/EU laws for these aspects of the individual are fatally eroded by the collection of such data and it's serving-up to whoever has a court-order by Google and others. On that basis, this deliberate and wilful contravention of these laws should be prosecuted vigorously - but will they be? Of course not.
Catching them would be trivial...
If BT are serious about catching these people, why don't they publish a hotline number that victims can call from a mobile WHILE THE SCAMMERS ARE ON THE LINE. Then BT can instantly check the number of the caller (withholding caller ID only prevents the customer from seeing the originator's number, not BT) and they will immediately know exactly who they are and where they are. Pass it on to the police, and hey presto; nasty scummy scammers behind bars. Simple.
Umm, hardly "news"...
This scheme has been in operation since 1990. It's called Sky Broadcasting, and is run by a cunning Aussie by the name of Murdoch. (The really funny thing would be if the goddams hired him because they thought he was "British English" - after all, we non-US speakers all sound the same to them, don't we?!)
Never mind whether the system "requires" rebooting every day, my 'leccy bill was so high last month, I can't afford NOT to switch my computers off every night!
What Virgin meant to say was...
"Advanced Network Error Search
Our advanced network error search helps us make money from you even more quickly.
You all make mistakes when you type in website addresses, because, quite frankly, you're all morons. Perhaps you miss a few letters, or the website doesn't exist any longer. Well that's good news for us! If an address you enter doesn't locate a site, this handy feature will convert the incorrect address into even more money for us, so instead of an error message you will get a list of our highest-paying advertisers, plus some completely useless additional unrelated links.
The advanced network error search is currently switched OFF.
To change your selection, use the buttons below:
Yes - I would like Virgin Media to take the piss out of me even more than they do already
No - I would like the internet to work in the way it was intended, complying with net standards and not breaking programs that I may use which need the internet to function properly."
Paris - because she'll do anything for money too.
Google will have to prize my medical....
...records from my cold, dead hand. That's the ONLY way they'll ever get their snouts anywhere near my precious, confidential data. I'm a healthcare professional in the UK, and deal with confidential medical records every day: I know precisely what's at stake here.
There is NO WAY I would allow the kind of information contained in medical case notes anywhere near an organisation like Google, who routinely ride rough-shod over individuals' rights to privacy in the pursuit of profit. The same goes for Microsoft and all other companies that see private, personal data as an opportunity to monetise individuals.
The line in the sand is right here. This NOT America, we do NOT have a crappy, fragmented, privately-run health system, and we DO have the European Convention on Human Rights.
Google - f**k off and exploit some other country's population.
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Prankster 'Superhero' takes on robot traffic warden AND WINS
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE
- Analysis Hey, Teflon Ballmer. Look, isn't it time? You know, time to quit?