* Posts by David 164

282 posts • joined 28 Aug 2009

Page:

Kaspersky: That 2 years we took to warn you about Regin ? We had GOOD REASON

David 164

The problem with these arguments is that by keeping the bones they do have secret from the community they are denying the ability of others to present their own bones, so why Kaspersky and Symantec and others may not have had all the bones individually they may have had enough of the bones separately to build a model of the Dinosaur much earlier that 2 years after the first bone was found by either company.

And last I check the UK was part of the European commission which has been targeted. It not beyond the possibility that Five eyes or one of the Five eyes countries found Regin but decided to reverse engineer it and use it themselves, which is one of the the big risks of using cyber weapons once they are out there anyone can get hold of them and start using them themselves.

China is also conveniently missing from the list of targets, they aren't slouches in the cyberwarfare industry.

0
0

Google opens Inbox – email for people too thick to handle email

David 164

I bet the real purpose of this apps is to allow google to experiment with new or enhance features which will eventually be rolled into Gmail.

0
0

EU probes Google’s Android omerta again: Talk now, or else

David 164

The unhappy phone maker was Nokia and Google they been effectively controlled by Microsoft for a few years. The others haven't complained that much. An if and Google is cheaper than developing there own OS or paying Microsoft for there's.

1
1

Feel free to BONK on the TUBE, says Transport for London

David 164

It going to be interesting to watch the number of contactless payments in the 6 to 12 months as buses are no longer accepting cash, which will lead people to realise they can use their bank card rather than having to wait for the next bus and hunt for somewhere to top up your oyster, impossible to do late at night.

0
0

When PR backfires: Google 'forgets' BBC TV man's banker blog post

David 164

Re: That makes no sense

The what the British ICO suggests Google did forward all complaints automatically on to the ICO.

0
1
David 164

Re: and so, ad infinitum

May be you should explain it why money that would need to be spent on the ICO to govern this silly EU law couldn't be spent elsewhere within the Government, given that the ICO and NHS come general taxation and not from any special taxes set up to specifically to pay for them.

1
0
David 164

I like the way you assume people have to be a yank to comment on this stupid ruling.

1
1
David 164

Re: and so, ad infinitum

It not free, it my tax money being spent and the ICO would have to expand to deal with this if Google just sent every request to the ICO.

An I rather the money be spent of the NHS and plug some of that 4 billion pound deficit than the ICO managing a EU judges rulings.

3
2
David 164

Except no one going to question Google getting it wrong, sure the BBC reporter or the Guardian might question the first one or two times but they will get bored and move on to other things. An as long as the person filing the request get their way they are unlikely to question it either. An Google isn't required by the law to forward the request onto anyone either. They aren't even sure, an it isn't spelled out in the ruling whether Google can share any details of the complaint with the website.

If Google is applying this to comments made on a website, I could see most sites removing their commenting system altogether. Which is a shame because the commenting and debating stories on sites is one of the best parts of the internet, especially when it comes to questioning one sided reporting that happens on some subjects.

6
3
David 164

Re: and so, ad infinitum

It interesting that as Preston bought up the article again, does that count the article has being relevant again and so is now allowed to be in Google search index again?

Another legal point to be argue in court, when does a no longer relevant article become relevant again.

3
0
David 164

Re: and so, ad infinitum

Google is entitle to reject it, it doesn't have to and indeed why should a company spend it own money rejecting bogus requests and having to defend itself in court, when it cheaper, easier to just grant the request and move on to the next request.

3
1
David 164

Re: To what end?

Yes their own legal advisors and internal experts, who wrote a legal opinion that the judges should throw out the complaint and refuse to grant the right to be forgotten. They were ignored by the judges.

5
4
David 164

if I was running google I would be automatically granting each request, not even bothering to notify the BBC or even bothering to read the requests themselves, I'm certain smaller search engine who can't afford to hire an army of paralegals, will do just that.

3
0

If Google remembers whom it has forgotten, has it complied with the ECJ judgment?

David 164

Re: spirit of the law

There no such thing as the spirit of the law, there the letter of the law and only the letter of the law. If the EU judgement was written with loop holes in it then it up for the judges to close them.

5
2
David 164

Re: The key to this is in the final para

That would probably be declared as contempt of court. Adding a direct link to Google.com search.

Should EU law cover what happens in America, then in that case US law should cover the EU and China laws should cover both the EU and US, according to this article whole point of view. Of cause we don't like all of Chinese laws, just like the US don't like all EU laws and the EU don't like all US laws. Of cause some powers would love nothing more than to break up the internet as a single entity.

An Google has to remember your requests to have links remove so that it doesn't simply reindex them using it crawlers.

3
3

Canada to Google: You can't have your borderless cake and eat it too

David 164

Re: Spanish selection

I'm sure the Spanish FA are already filing the paper work.

1
0

Chrome OS leaks data to Google before switching on a VPN, says GCHQ

David 164

Re: Does ANYONE gives a flying frog about GCHQ at this point?

I just the got the image of GCHQ hierarchy all laughing their heads off at how NSA is getting all the flak and GCHQ is virtually ignored. They are probably rubbing their hand with gleem at getting even more money from the NSA to run their operations as well.

1
0

FORGET OUR PAST, 12,000 Europeans implore Google

David 164

Re: A good way to publicize what you want hidden

That presumes they put in the same system they have for their copyright complaints. they probably will but it not guaranteed.

The judges ruling makes no demands for such a system in their ruling and Yahoo doesn't tell the user that links related to their search have been remove, Bing tell you that links been remove but provide no detail information on each like Google does. I doubt small search companies could afford to build such a system that inform the user of each request and detail explanation of why the link have been removed.

0
0
David 164

Re: Confused

Actually he can if Google decides it wants to, there no oversight of this law if Google complies with the request as this new law effectively cobble together from a number of different laws, made by unelected judges, specifically state that it must be referred to Google/search engine first, only if they reject it can the complainer go to the ICO and from then on through the court system.

No complainer is going to take google to the ICO if Google accepts the request, even if that request doesn't comply with the EU court ruling because hey they got what they wanted, their past whitewash and they aren't going to care if their request broke the ruling and Google aren't going to complain about themselves granting such requests and the user won't know such links have been removed because informing us such links been remove breaks the whole point of the right to be forgotten in the first place.

0
0
David 164

Re: Why is Google in charge of the process?

That up to the search engines. There nothing in the judgement which forces search engines to go to the courts but it does say that the person requesting the removal of the link on search engines must make the request to the search engine first and ask for the links to be remove only then can it go to the ICO refer there by either Google or the person making the request.

This leave Google and search engines in complete control of what happens next after a request is made, most complainers aren't going to refer their complaint the ICO if their requests are accepted and if Google automatically accept all requests who is going to complain to the ICO? no one, which effectively means their zero oversight of this law and that means Google alone decide what is and isn't remove from its index, which is effectively removing it from the internet in many countries in Europe.

0
0

'Inaccurate' media misleads public on European Court's Google ruling

David 164

Re: Not buying this "often-cited"

There only appeals if Google or another online search engine don't agree to your requests and your appeal to the ICO or they choose to pass it only to the information commissioner office, there nothing in the ruling that force them to do that.

An currently there is nothing that says Google or other online search engines have to send these requests off to someone to review or vet that they are being handle probably by the online services.

0
0
David 164

The scary thing is that Google or any online service could accept all complaints, what is stopping Google, apart from Google from automatically processing all applications for removals with zero human analyst. Nothing and that is precisely the problem with this verdict, zero oversight of online services unless they decide to send it off the ICO.

So there is a no argument right to be forgotten if Google or anyone else decides it not going to argue and it be cheaper for online services to do exactly that.

Now Google will probably go through the expense of doing this right or as right as it reasonable can be done, other smaller less well equip companies probably won't, especially ones that don't have army of legal teams to do it, teams that consist of just a few programmers in a room trying to build their lively hoods, they receive a complaint they are more than likely just delete the links and be done with it and continue with their actual jobs rather making sure it fits within the judgement criteria.

An judges verdict reads like they expect no one to try and abuse this system, when we the public and infinite imaginations can imagine all kind of people wanting to try and abuse this ruling to clean up their past.

An is the ICO even equip to handle the 1200 requests so far Google have receive. An if not how much money will it require if every online service decides to send their requests directly to the ICO, does it even have the facilities and case handling software to handle the same request from a single sent to multiple services.

0
0

Hunt's paperless future: NHS watches £60m vanish down plughole

David 164

Hopefully the pharmacies themselves will invest in getting their stock online so that surgeries will be told they haven't got the stock it, when they expect more in. In a ideal world the GP would be able to assign the prescription to one that has got it in stock.

0
0
David 164

Re: Re-orders

It should be but it isn't. Mine doesn't either.

1
0

Europe's shock Google privacy ruling: The end of history? Don't be daft

David 164

Laws can be abuse anyone who thinks someone isn't going to try and abuse this law is an idiot. Just like copyright takedown requests are regularly abuse so will these right to be forgotten requests except right to be forgotten is far more powerful. An this is a massively reinterpretation of a law that was never design to be use in this way.

This will also have a chilling effect on anyone who want to get into the search engine game and in fact it probably push the bar to the point where it simply not worth new entrants from entering the market.

An I don't see how google can do anything other than a team of experts running this program and decide what relevant and what irrelevant plus they will also have to decide if some they declare one week irrelevant has suddenly become relevant this week or how the courts systems can possible evaluate this right to be forgotten on a case by case basis, that could easily be 10s of thousands of every year. Which means the only way to enforce this is through automated technology, an again that leave it wide open to being abuse by anyone who got a past they wish to white wash.

An it not just search engines, their nothing to prevent right to be forgotten notices to being issued newspapers websites with their own search engines or even to the register or to people that maintain blogs with search engine functionality or online archives.

3
0
David 164

No it won't usually be decided in courts, may be the first few hundreds or even first few thousands but our court system could never cope with tens of thousands or even millions of requests that may come from this ruling, certainly not the ICO which has only a handful of staff. Plus these rulings will need to be review on regular bases as what is irrelevant one week could become relevant the follow week or the following month or even following year.

3
0
David 164

Re: So if a tree falls over in Brooklyn and Google doesn't link it, has it really fallen?

This ruling applies to every search engine out there and not just Google only.

0
0

Did Google order staff to 'steal' web ad cash from publishers? THE TRUTH

David 164

Re: What a coincidence...

A scammer would most likely try to boost the amount Google owe them in the last few days, in the hope that Google pays out before it notice the scam.

2
1

Move over Microsoft: RealNetworks has a GOOGLE problem

David 164

Real Player, that the thing that takes forever to open a video, if it does open the video at all?

2
0

Google! and! Facebook! IDs! face! Yahoo! login! BAN!

David 164

Well it didn't make much sense for Google to be handing rivals their data in the first place.

1
0

Google sticks its servers behind genomics alliance

David 164

Re: Hype

Targeting screen testing could prove to be far more expensive through. Some of those tests right now are selling for hundreds of pounds each, when whole genome testing costs are rapidly decreasing to just a thousand pounds and will become even cheaper in years to come.

Once you map a whole person genome and can understand all portions of that genome querying which drugs is more suitable to your condition is just as simple as entering a search query, or more likely a doctor entering your condition and the computer coming up with the best drug for you base on your genetics, I suppose eventually it may even be able to design specifically for your biology. You could even do simulations on how that genome will react to environmental conditions, if you have enough data and knowledge, which could shock some people into changing their lives.

Google is well inform about future measuring equipment, given that own Motorola whom have developed some impressive sensor technologies itself, and project tango shows that Google is working on getting new sensor measuring technology out into the world. They also own android, which Google clearly intends to become the standard operating system for such devices.

0
0

Google's SECRET contracts: Android lock-in REVEALED!

David 164

I think the article confuse the issues, I think the issue is with the packaging of the apps themselves and have nothing to do with Android directly. Mentioning Android in the article just confuse the issue.

The issue is that someone could argue that by not allowing manufacturers to choose which apps they install, that they are using their effective monopolies or certainly dominance in online video or Search to push Maps and or Google Play and make them more popular than they would otherwise be.

The question is, is Google actually enforcing these provisions to the letter, for example Samsung Fascinate came integrated with Bing and Android Market, which would violate these terms.

0
0
David 164

I think the article confuse the issues, I think the issue is with the packaging of the apps themselves and have nothing to do with Android directly. Mentioning Android in the article just confuse the issue.

The issue is that someone could argue that by not allowing manufacturers to choose which apps they install you could argue they are using their effective monopolies or certainly dominance in online video or Search to push Maps and or Google Play and make them more popular than otherwise would be.

The question is, is Google actually enforcing these provisions to the letter, for example Samsung Fascinate came integrated with Bing and Android Market, which would violate these terms.

0
0

Break out the scatter cushions: Google rents out NASA blimp hangar

David 164

Let hope they don't mix up the fuel pumps this time around.

0
0

Chrome lets websites secretly record you?! Google says no, but...

David 164

Except in this case they weren't playing down the problem, the patch was still going through there system and a discussion was underway about whether this patch was compatible with standard specifications, and whether it would provide an experience consumers and businesses want. To release it before this discussion was complete is unfair in my book. Now applying political pressure to make those discussion go your way is completely fair and I can see how briefing the media and showing off the flaw and even bring in fellow security professionals on board to do that, but they didn't need to release the full exploit to do that.

0
1
David 164

Anyone else think it irresponsible to publish the code the flaw, sure publicise the flaw to the press, even demonstrate it to them, even provide the code to fellow research but he didn't have to publish the code on GitHub.

0
0

Google gearing up for 4K video frenzy at CES

David 164

Re: 4k

Of cause it an attempt to get everyone buy a new TV again.

An we are only getting this big push on 4K TVs because Smart TVs failed to take off and before that 3D screens failed to take off. 4K is the last roll of the dice for the television industry as 8K is no where near ready and anything above that is a 10 years away at least.

I believe we wouldn't be talking about 4K Televisions if the above two technologies had been commercially successful.

0
0

Google poised to become world's first TREEELLION DOLLAR company?

David 164

Re: Penny stocks

Only if you are caught, most don't.

0
0
David 164

Re: A quick look

Google announce they bought Schaft before it won any awards. An we don't know when Shaft was bought, the company only been around for 2 years and Google been buying up robotic companies for the past year in secret, for all we know Schaft spent half of their life under the ownership of Google.

2
0

Euro satellite to count a BEELLLION stars, find origin of Milky Way

David 164

Re: Long term planning

It the first time I read anything that says whether this craft has the potential to continue its missions beyond 5 years.

Lets hope the powers at be keep up funding for it.

0
0

SHOCK! US House swats trolls, passes patent 'extortion' bill

David 164

Re: Did the Patent "Industry"...

perhaps other groups just out bribed them.

0
0

Google: YouTube fights off HUGE ASCII PHALLUS MENACE

David 164

Re: Get rid of crappy google+

Google Reader got a few million users a month, Youtube gets billions of unique users a month.That why reader was scrapped.

0
0
David 164

Bob's army seem to have been crushed on the videos I have watch and read the comments sections on. Seem to get a lot less my sister makes a 7000 dollars a month spam as well.

0
0

London: Hey Amazon, wanna slip your speedy packages down our tubes?

David 164

Re: Reliable IT.

Paris seem to survive just fine with driverless trains, so do the Danish and their driverless copenhagen trains, Gatwick Innovia APM 100, Milan, Toulouse Metro, Nuremberg U-Bahn and many others. An Britain will have driverless cars in Milton Keynes by 2015, getting cars driving on a road is much harder than getting a train to drive itself.

An I am sure our IT will be more reliable than drivers all deciding to take a holiday (strike) for a working week because they don't like the changes.

0
2

Google WILL wriggle away from Euro probe... but THEN what?

David 164

Re: Monopoly

It is a monopoly but monopoly are legal unless they are abuse. So far no one been able to prove Google are abusing theirs in a court of law, in fact Google won every case ever brought against it in the US on the ground that it was abusing its monopoly.

1
0

Google SO CAN scan ALL BOOKS onto its sites - judge

David 164

Re: Absolute power corrupts absolutely

In this case Google had the balls to take on the authors and publishers and deserve the power and the head start it gives them by winning the case. Microsoft was going to launched a similar project but lack the balls to take on the publishers and authors in the court rooms.

A case of He Who Dares, Wins.

Once all the appeals go through and presuming Google win them, they will have open up the way for Microsoft and anyone else with a few hundred million dollars spare to build themselves an electronic library.

2
3
David 164

Of cause they can appeal, but each level it get less and less likely they will win

0
0
David 164

The publishers can, they made an agreement with Google.

The authors can't because hey they didn't make an agreement with Google and loss. Once all the appeals have been process and presuming Google keeps winning then it likely the authors and Google will be able to come to some sort of arrangement.

0
0

SPACE, the FINAL FRONTIER: These are the images of the star probe Cassini

David 164

Re: priorities

It was balance when this mission was launched, thanks to Bill Clinton presidency.

1
0

'F-CK YOU GOOGLE+' ukelele missy scoops BIG WAD of $$ - for Google

David 164

woooo, 80,000 petition.

The video that earning Google money got more views than that, and Youtube get hundreds of millions of visitors each month. The petition demonstrates how much people really care about Google+ integration and it says they don't care that much about it.

The girl in the video is cute though, which is probably why most people viewed the video.

0
1

Page:

Forums