Re: enforcement action
Perhaps it is just procrastination. The cynic in me, though, wonders whether it is a sign that the government wants a piece of the action.
1393 posts • joined 10 Mar 2010
Perhaps it is just procrastination. The cynic in me, though, wonders whether it is a sign that the government wants a piece of the action.
It was really good of him and his colleagues to reveal their opinion of the values of objectivity and truthfulness.
It shouldn't be about manipulation - it should be about establishing what is true (to a high degree of certainty) and explaining that to the public along with why the proposed solutions are necessary.
That those things haven't apparently been achieved is a problem, but manipulating public perceptions isn't the solution.
Being evil by definition implies some semblance of humanity. Google has become just a thing with the sole purpose of maintaining its existence and its growth.
You can't call something like that evil - but it is becoming destructive. Sort of like Smaug.
Sacking the twat that signed off on the concept of making patients' care dependent on them signing away their privacy?
It seems an odd idea to say that an intelligence agency should destroy data that it has collected - makes its existence rather pointless.
Perhaps a more sensible approach would be to seriously limit what they can collect in the absence of special (legal) permission and to limit how much they can subsequently feed out to other organizations - but to otherwise place no time limit on the data.
I bet he doesn't know anything about the Raspberry Pi either. I do: does that make me dangerous?
So very nice of them.
Or is it that Google couldn't bear the thought of losing a live feed from their livestock?
I don't blame the House of Lords for this attempt. Representatives of the four main parties (Conservative, Labour, LibDems and the Metropolitan Police) tried to circumvent proper scrutiny in the Commons and slip this crap in assuming the Lords would just acccept it (and the blame of history).
Their Lordships, smelling a rat, declined to agree. Good for them.
I'm sure it'll be back, though.
Corporations becoming government has been a long-standing theme, I think. I just thought it would always be fiction. Not so sure now.
The way Google is going I agree that it is heading towards government status. The thing is, though, it will be so powerful that it won't be NSA's (or any other spook organisation's) wet dream : it will be their nightmare, because they will be bit players compared to Google.
So - a future where even the rooms you walk into know immediately who you are and blow any sense of privacy you might have by personalising your experience, no matter who is watching?
And I'm supposed to look forward eagerly to this?
Fuck me, NO!
Overrated? Maybe, but it is a lot more than simply a Baronial power-grab. It goes to great detail on how people are to be treated fairly, down to levels well below 'Baron'.
The way I look at it, the Magna Carta primarily constrains the King's power and gives more power to the Barons, but they themselves have to abide by the thing, and that means their powers to abuse those below them are similarly constrained.
As a start I think it is pretty good.
800 years since Magna Carta.
750 years since the first Westminster Parliament.
0 years since they pissed it all away.
It's rather depressing how it has all come to naught. Snatched/given away by corrupt fools.
OK. Can I do it for you?
As a reminder of how quickly the surface veneer of civilization can wear off, I suggest Lord of the Flies.
Methinks you're right.
I'm not too picky when it comes to films - if I enjoy a film I don't care what others think of it. But Last Tango - that is one film I regret seeing.
I like Battlefield Earth, so there.
And anyway, why isn't Last Tango in Paris in the 'Most Dreadful' list?
I don't know about 'quite clear', since this confusion is evident elsewhere, even on the Win10 Insider forums.
But having searched for the original text of this I agree that the upgrade seems to be free. Can't wait for a proper set of legalese on this one.
A free upgrade to Win10 does two things for MS : (1) Gets rid of the embarrassment of Win8 and (2) Shifts significant numbers of users away from Win7. The latter one being the most important, I reckon - otherwise Win7 users will be hanging on for years like XP users have been.
But what does it mean for me as a Win7 user? From what I can tell at the moment, if I upgrade to Win10 then I get a shiny new OS for free, but for only one year. When that year is up, I will have to pay regularly to keep it going.
If I decline to pay, then I presume the OS dies and I'm left worse off than if I had stayed with Win7. And I will surely solve that problem by upgrading to something that is not subscription-based.
This move might backfire and result in a lot of ex-Win7 users shifting to Linux.
It then becomes an issue of ethics in Software Development.
You are joking, when you suggest that we techies can or should use devious deceitful means to influence the election, aren't you?
Leaving aside the unethical nature of your suggestion, I think the politicians have that particular game sown up - we are but children compared to them.
A well-written article, especially this bit:
"... we don't need to copy the methods of those we spent most of the 20th Century fighting against. You cannot save freedom by destroying it."
I also liked the subtlety of the URL for this article - "...theresa_may_david_cameron_stupid_surveillance_encryption_ideas"
If you're running Steam on Linux, it's probably best to make sure you have your files backed up and avoid moving your Steam directory, even if you symlink to the new location, for the time being.
Better advice might be to hold off on using Steam until the programmer responsible has been hunted down and re-educated.
a program that is installed by a telecommunications service provider solely to protect the security of its network from a current and identifiable threat to the availability, reliability, efficiency or optimal use of its network;
The non-specific nature of this text with respect to the computers affected leads to the conclusion that it could be used to justify intrusion (whosoever it can be achieved) into a customer's computer in order to protect the TSP's network.
a program that is installed to update or upgrade the network by the telecommunications service provider who owns or operates the network on the computer systems that constitute all or part of the network; and
This seems to justify remote upgrades of TSP-supplied computers (eg ISP modems/routers) whether the customer wants it or not.
a program that is necessary to correct a failure in the operation of the computer system or a program installed on it and is installed solely for that purpose
This seems to allow OS suppliers (eg Microsoft, Apple) to automatically fix bugs on anyone's computer without needing to inform the owner.
All in all, these sections seem consistent with the view that suppliers and operators of the network infrastructure can now legally poke into private computers without consent as long as they can claim that it is 'for the good of the network'. I'm sure security bods might applaud this, but it is a worrying step nevertheless.
I can see why other commenters think this legislation may be futile, but it is pleasing that they're at least acknowledging the need for regulation. Also nice to see that they use an example of dodgy behaviour clearly based on the Sony rootkit affair.
Some of it seems a bit iffy, though. eg, if I read it right, ISPs won't need to seek permission to install software to "protect the security of all or part of (their) network from a current and identifiable threat".
Is that you, Kryten?
Silly, silly, silly Boris.
We were on our way before you finished depressing "Submit".
You should have realised that we are always watching. We always will be watching.
Be seeing you :)
The secret services and special forces can deal with threats without taking away freedoms, you take those away and the terrorists have won. Just let MI5 MI6 SAS ect do their job.
Cameron is not a fool, but someone has persuaded him that in order for MI5 etc to do their jobs we must all be exposed online to criminals and those who want to be able to poke into and control the lives of us peasants.
It's that exposure that is so harmful.
A small bright side, perhaps. You are, of course, assuming that such mockery would even be allowable once this and the blanket surveillance that depends on it have bedded in.
I can't think of a past leader, right back to the middle ages, who did anything as bad to this country as this one is aiming to do, so I was thinking of a harsher judgement on him.
Oh, and I should add that if this madness goes into law, the whole of the parliament at the time (excepting any MP who has the balls to get thrown out for standing up and saying No!) should also carry the blame.
And I mean that sincerely.
Whether or not it is practicable, the PM has clearly stated that the government intends to outlaw the use of encryption by British citizens.
That is such a monumental attack on our liberties that I think this speech and the name Cameron might live on in infamy.
(Oops - looks like the down-voter has arrived.)
Anyway, it would be nice to think that TM has dropped herself in it, but I doubt it. We have had a consistent approach in this area from Blair through Brown to Cameron, and from all the Home Secs that have been put up to front these measures.
TM is just the latest spokesdroid - do voters really care? I don't think so and, besides, if they did care, who could they vote for outside of the top 3 parties (who are all singing from the same sheet)?
It's a steamroller, and it won't stop.
(And maybe the last time before some low-level functionary can just type in a query to find out who that disrespectful fucker JustaKOS is)
Predictably, they use a convenient set of deaths to push an agenda which will only add to the haystacks they already can't sift for the really dangerous people.
Some text missing there, surely?
What happen to "and we're fucking fuming that the parties involved are treating the EU and its citizens with such contempt"?
Or slightly earlier - Holly in Red Dwarf?
I'm keeping out of the argument, but +1 for this :
The player in a game is the centre of the universe, not an outside observer.
I too do not see any problem in holding the 4E11 star systems local to the client. Given that we know virtually nothing about any of the star systems in this galaxy, it would be quite safe to generate them procedurally in the client as needed (that is, in a single-player mode).
I wonder if the real reason for requiring a server connection is that their idea of a constantly changing galaxy requires some quite sophisticated AI that they just do not have yet (or is not amenable to being supported on a single client machine)? In this early phase of the game they are then forced to rely on real human intelligences tweaking things behind the scenes.
Maybe there's an old ex-government bunker in the south of England which is now home to a server, a live galactic feed and a band of Elite Gnomes toiling away to provide intelligent changes to the galactic environment.
And so have the management team at Frontier. So much disappointment from what should have been a glorious experience - neither the game nor the support infrastructure seem to be mature anough for full-blown release.
The ICO should drag them over the coals backwards
Agreed, though I think forwards would be more effective - more delicate bits to roast.
Why do I have a feeling that the only people prosecuted...
Ah, you've seen through their ruse
they're just as vulnerable as they've always been
I don't know about that - the tool didn't exist until he created it and published it, thereby providing a new means for attacks to be launched.
why should only the "bad guys" have these tools
Good point, but it seems to me that creating and publishing the tool has just given a leg-up to a whole host of bad guys who would otherwise not have had the skill to create it. I don't think the benefit from good guys having it really makes up for that.
On the last point about non-technical people running insecure kit - my understanding of this particular tool is that it attacks properly configured access points and then spoofs innocent people, regardless of the level of security of their kit.
I'm all for increasing awareness, but publicly releasing a tool goes a bit beyond this.
As you say, 'We can now educate our users'. But what about the vast majority of people who wouldn't even understand this topic and who don't have a helpful tech bod to guide them? They are now even more vulnerable.
I may be getting confused in my old age, but the mention of 'security testers' seems just a fig leaf covering the fact that this tool is almost 100% for nefarious purposes. Perhaps the bloke should be having his collar felt.
For some reason, "nearly Putinian" comes to mind.
I fully agree with your approach.
However, anonymity will not save you if the PHB is eventually required to downsize and chooses to keep the
willing slaves team players.
But then, sanity and health are ultimately more important.
I said 'interesting', not 'desirable' :)
Yep, I take the point that you can't trust MS not to try to screw with the Linux experience and to lure people away.
Though given a choice between 'Free' and 'Costly with impossible to understand licensing terms', I don't think they'd be too successful at luring Linux users away.
It would be interesting to see what MS do for a new browser distinct from IE.
Even more interesting if they made it available for Linux.
@breakfast - Seems to me a lot of people would only be happy if they could load ED off a 5 1/4" disk on their BBC
Actually, I was rather hoping for a cassette tape version.
Reeling from the loss of advertising revenue due to the poorly-received site re-design, ElReg management met to decide how to cut costs.
It was decided that Regina was really rather egspensive and was only re-hatching news that had already been published. So it was decided to let her go.
Unfortunately, one of the less bright Reg staff took that literally, and 'let her go' from 4ft.
Unless, of course, she was behind it.
Please tell me it isn't so!