464 posts • joined 18 Mar 2010
quote: "So you have the barbaric and totally unjustified beheading of a reporter by an Islamist, simply because the reporter was a Yank, in a propaganda video that the Islamists want to have distributed as widely as possible, and your immediate response is to criticise the government's efforts to block their propaganda? You are seriously in need of a reality check."
Show me where in law it is an actual offense to watch that video, and I shall immediately shut up.
Letting people know about propaganda is one thing (although Streisand Effect, right?) but an official statement implying that simply viewing it makes you a terrorist is incomprehendably stupid. Nobody that far divorced from either reality or common sense should be in such a position of power in the first place.
They may as well have said that "making a cheese sandwich may constitute an offense under Terrorism legislation". It's as patently ridiculous and just as unenforcable, IMO, whilst also being exactly as true (for any given value of "may"). It's also just as damning of both the apparent vagueness of the existing Terrorism legislation, and the Service's apparent (lack of) understanding of it.
I'm going to make myself some cheese sandwiches for lunch tomorrow as a deliberate act of sedition.
You'll note that at no point have I condoned the actions perpetrated in this video. I completely disagree with the act and with the message it apparently portrays, and idiots like that have my utmost contempt. What also has my contempt, though, is the way that at least some people in the Service think that anything they don't like the sound of is automatically illegal, without any reference to actual legislation (and a complete inability to quote legislation to back up their previous statements). That, sir, is a fucking diabolical state of affairs (pun intended).
quote: "A very slippery slope to go down. No government has any right whatsoever to decide on what is acceptable for an individual should watch."
That's how effective the "think of the children" argument is. I'm conflicted myself; I agree that the passive act of viewing something should not be, of itself, an offense, but I suspect I would still be comfortable agreeing with a guilty verdict for someone who was found simply watching child porn, as long as it was beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to watch that content.
I categorically cannot agree that watching a video is terrorism though. The act has to be violent to be terrorism, and watching a video is not a violent act.
quote: "It wasn't meant to be a cliché factory either....
New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."
Watching a video is not an act of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence directed against the state.
The word the Met officer wanted is sedition, which is an act of promoting or fostering discontent with the state in a non-violent manner (using violence makes it terrorism).
Watching a video is not sedition either though. You would need to promote or distribute the video for it to be an act of sedition.
For simply watching a video to be considered a crime under existing terrorism legislation, that legislation would have to be so very broad you could argue it was deliberately ignoring what terrorism actually is. What is the betting shouting "Allah won't like you doing that" at someone in the street "may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation" in the UK?
Re: Some suggestions
A lot of my recent purchases have (or will have) Linux ports, and the day is slowly approaching that I'll not need to factor a Windows license in to the cost of the next big upgrade.
Having said that, an awful lot of the Linux games on Steam are the indie devs (not necessarily a bad thing) and a lot less of the major publishers. I should probably fire up Steam on the Mint box again and see how much is now available, hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised :)
(Note: I've got no need of Civ5 because Destiny is due to be my next major time sink)
Re: Some suggestions
My main gripe is that of my 280+ title Steam library, maybe 35 are available on *nix. That's an even worse percentage than the 55->18 quoted in the article.
To be fair the 35 was a year or so back, when I only had 250ish games and installed Steam on my Mint miniPC just to try it out. But it shows that I am, currently, still stuck with needing at least one Windows box if I want to play the vast majority of titles I've already bought. :(
Re: That's nice.
quote: "Can one of it's siblings get me, the wife & a couple of whippets, towing a three-horse-slant trailer (empty on the way out, full on the way back), from Sonoma to Solvang California and back in under half a day?"
It also wouldn't be able to replace my network of freight locomotives, and I couldn't use it in place of my hovercraft fleet either. When will people realise that electric racecars just aren't useful outside of a racetrack?
quote: "My father taught me to never swerve for dogs because doing so you are likely to kill yourself or someone else in another vehicle."
In the UK you are required by law to stop and give details if you hit a dog, so I would need to stop anyway. May as well attempt avoidance if you believe you can do so safely.
I would however agree that there is no cause to unnecessarily endanger yourself or your passengers, if you do not believe you can perform an avoidance manoeuvre safely.
quote: "Try hitting one on a motorcycle, then... Not to be recommended."
I ducked behind the touring screen, so just got spattered with bits rather than taking one to the head. Front of the bike also held up fine, but it did take some time to clean the bits off though, given they had plenty of time to dry up on the remainder of the journey :(
Re: NAT is a kludge
quote: "On the privacy front, I can agree with you. Baking the device's MAC address into the IPv6 address isn't good for privacy."
As I understand it:
That is only true for link-local IPv6 (the equivalent of 169.254.0.0/16 in IPv4, not internet routable), and is merely a suggestion.
The MAC address is already broadcast by any device that sends a DHCP Discover packet.
The MAC address is already present in Layer 2 headers like the Ethernet frame.
Given the above, I'm not sure how having the MAC address as part of a link-local IPv6 address provides any information that other local devices would not already have trivial access to...
Storage costs aren't always commutable
quote from the article: "Decent 128GB cards can be had for under £80 these days, proving that Apple is really taking the proverbial with its storage costs."
In-device flash storage is normally vastly overprovisioned compared to removable memory cards, so I would not be comfortable saying that a 16GB MicroSD would be identical to the 16GB internal memory on the Tab, or that a 128GB MicroSD is identical to the internal memory on a top of the range iDevice.
Having said that, I'd always prefer to have removable (i.e. replaceable) storage for high churn data like storing music or video, because changing the MicroSD when it finally dies is both easy and cost-effective, and they are also easily transferable between devices. Nice to see Samsung keeping MicroSD support as a differentiator from their competitors (including the Nexus range, not just Apple).
Oh, and the way to tell Apple is taking the mickey with internal storage costs is by spotting that they have the same surcharge to double the memory, regardless of the actual increment; 16 to 32GB costs the same as 64 to 128GB (+£80 for the iPad), so the £160 it costs to go from 16 to 64GB (+48GB) doesn't add up to the £80 it costs to add another 64GB to it.
Re: Mac OS?
quote: "I can understand a device equipped with 2G/3G or 4G Phone interfaces but a laptop/desktop OS?"
Desktops are unlikely to be able to leverage it, unless someone is using a 3G dongle on one. Some laptops models have 3G hardware built-in, and are more likely to have a 3G dongle plugged in (or be tethered to a phone) for data access on the move.
Probably the plaintiffs just targeted everything that might infringe and are relying on Apple to prove that it actually doesn't, I believe that's SOP for patent trolling cases.
Given the amount of patent trolling Apple inflict on their mobile competitors (especially Samsung), I'm finding it hard to muster any sympathy for them in this case. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as it were; sometimes it comes back to bite you on the ass.
Re: Really tiring arm-chair lawyering here...
True, however if the courts can ask for $9250 per song from someone found guilty of violating the copyright of others, then I don't think asking £10k total off of multiple defendants is actually much of an ask :)
Not arguing the rights or wrongs, simply pointing out the precedents for (inflated) damages in copyright cases.
Re: Technically it is the monkeys
quote: "Oh, and even attempting to claim that mere ownership of the means implies automatic copyright in whatever they produce without one's significant creative involvement is simply so ludicrous it beggars belief - don't bother..." (emphasis mine)
For the 5th? time this thread, quoted from Mr. Slater himself:
"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."
Sounds like significant creative involvement to me.
quote: "There were two parties involved in producing this photograph:
1) The photographer, who created the situation, set up and adjusted the camera and allowed the ape to play with it, in full knowledge of the likely outcome.
2) The ape, who pressed the button without any concept of what it was doing other than copying the previously observed physical actions of the photographer."
As has also been said 5? times already this thread, the Macaque is not legally recognised as a party, the same way a snail would not be legally recognised as a party. Thus there was one party involved in producing this photograph, namely Mr. Slater. In cases where only one party is involved in creating a work, is that party not automatically accredited with copyright in that work?
I do not think Wikipedia's argument holds any legal water, at least not under UK or EU copyright legislation, and I suspect not under US legislation either (they tend to take quite a dim view of IP infringement over there as well).
Note: both these arguments are not mine, I have shamelessly ripped off people far more erudite than I. I am simply (re)presenting them in the hopes of elucidating others.
Re: Whatever the legal arguments
As has been mentioned by several people, the Macaque in question is not a legally recognised entity, therefore it cannot be recognised as the creator of the work. As was also mentioned by several people (and shamelessly stolen by me for repeating), the BBC article specifically mentions that Mr. Slater deliberately and with significant effort set the shot up.
"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."
He deliberately set up the camera, deliberately framed the shot, deliberately handed the Macaque the remote shutter release button, and then waited. As the only legally recognised entity involved in the creation of that photograph, he has taken it himself.
Whether you feel that intelligent species that aren't homo sapiens should be legally recognised is a completely different issue, but as the law stands it is
copyrightly patently obvious to me who owns the copyright in that specific photograph.
Re: Slater doesn't "Own" the photo, because he doesn't and the monkey doesn't
quote: "Exactly. The EC copyright directive (2001/29/EG) does not define who the creator is. But in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the preamble, it says the the protection is granted in order to allow authors or performers to continue their creative and artistic work (not quoted verbatim). I read this to be a requirement that the creation is the result of a wilful and intentional act (or ommission) to create a result."
And since the simian cannot be the author or performer (it is not recognised legally) then the only recognised actor in the creation of the work is Mr. Slater. Who, according to the BBC article, actually expended quite a bit of specific effort to get the picture:
"I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me... so I thought they could take their own photograph.
"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture." (emphasis mine)
The only legally recognised entity that put specific work in to take that photograph is Mr. Slater, who gets copyright automatically attributed under EU/UK copyright legislation.
All the talk about the monkey is a red herring ;)
Re: Google copying
quote: "Yes because Microsoft were absolutely the first people in all the world to do continuous scroll and that proves Google copied them.
Or, you know, maybe, fashion?"
Or, you know, maybe fashion? Oh wait, Samsung were found guilty of copying in a court of law. Shit, maybe that does mean Google are also guilty... ^^;
Re: Dunno what you can say except...
quote: "What more are they supposed to do?"
Ensure there is no feature creep. It is all too easy to argue that if you are comfortable with automated scanning to catch <vile criminal behaviour X>, then you should be ok with automated scanning to catch <criminal behaviour Y>.
You've already seen the feature creep of "anti-terrorist" surveillance legislation over the last few years being extended "because paedo", don't be too surprised to see it extended again because <insert less vile but still criminal act here, like drunk driving>, and then again ad nauseum. The endpoint is never going to be anything less than automated surveillance to catch all criminal behaviours, "because criminal".
I side with Thomas Jefferson:
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
It seems worrying that the country he was a president of seems more in love with surveillance than the (constitutional) Monarchy I live in...
Re: this will end computing as we know it
quote: "How about the army of bedroom coders who release their software for free, but don't want to make it open source? There's quite a few of them around, and applying the same legal liabilities for something given away for free would most likely make them think "sod it", especially if they don't feel (for whatever reason) that they want to make the source available."
If those bedroom coders have performed rigorous security testing, and write code taking basic security principles into account, then there is no issue. If they are unaware or unwilling to, then I think I'd rather they do say "sod it I won't bother", as it cleans up the install base for those functions to software that is either open source (and vetted) or proprietary and properly tested.
Just as some bedroom coders are exceedingly skilled and conscientious, some are writing their first Hello World app and then vanity publishing it, without even considering input validation, ASLR or other techniques that help mitigate potential exploits. Discouraging insecure development is a pre-requisite of making computing a more secure place, and any bedroom coder worth the name won't begrudge putting the extra effort in to learn how to do it properly, IMO ;)
Re: Nice One, Dan's the Man. Filthy Lucre doing what it does best and is ignorantly designed for
Fancy inferring that the CIA might have an ulterior motive for suggesting that the US government run a global bug bounty offering huge money for information on product flaws.
Honestly, Dan Greer is obviously just thinking of the children / out to punish terrorists and paedos / <insert boogeyman of the day here>, and this information most emphatically would not be used for (industrial) espionage purposes.
Pfft, perish the thought...
Re: It's completely PANTS
quote: "Pixhawk Avoidance of Nearby Tree System"
This is LOHAN, so I'd suggest
Navigationally Obligatory: Pixhawk Avoidance of Nearby Tree System
You're confusing the skills of techies (i.e. us) vs. the skills of the average layperson in that age group. The average person that actually takes the time to fill out an Ofcom survey, instead of ignoring it because there's a server to rebuild and I want to get home some time tonight, thanks.
My cousin's kids do appear to be slightly more technologically capable than my cousin, in my experience, so this finding is not outside the bounds of possibility. It's unlikely to be true for most reader of the Reg though ;)
Re: Members of the Emu team posted Wednesday...
There was a post on Wednesday, by members of the Emu team, containing the information that "they had been gobbled".
Not the best way of putting it, but certainly capable of parsing.
Type Ia, type Ia, Cthulu fhtagn.
quote: "It's always been possible to steal many cars relatively easily, and while a nuisance, it doesn't affect public safety."
I'm guessing you're not familiar with the phrase "drive it like you stole it" then?
Cars stolen for resale are generally driven carefully so as not to damage them and reduce the value. Cars stolen for joyrides may injure or kill one or more people prior to becoming a burnt out wreck, and definitely do affect public safety.
The responsibility is on the idiot behind the wheel, but making it more difficult to steal in the first place helps reduce the number of idiots that manage to get behind the wheel.
Re: Inefficiency is irrelevant
quote: "If you really want to pay £150 for a keyboard and mouse then yes.
People aren't prepared to spend money on such things."
I'm sure you'll find that actually, for many Apple customers, they ARE prepared to do so
Not just Apple customers. Have a look at some of the keyboards and mice promoted as "high-end gaming" equipment, and you can spend £150 on the keyboard and another ton on the mouse.
And they don't currently feature wireless charging for that price, either :)
I'll take the 5th regarding how I am aware of such costly equipment aimed at gamers... ^^;
Re: Let's make it a little more advanced
What's the penalty for being convicted of nautical piracy in Nigeria? Amputation of the sealegs?
Re: Acronym wanted: must be inscrutable
Unashamedly Stating America is Reimagining Agency Processes Expected to Fix Allied Concerns Eventually
Expect the USA RAPEFACE Act to partner FREEDOM in the coming months :)
Re: kmpl? WTF?
quote: "Since it's volume/distance - the sensible way to measure fuel consumption would be in mm^2 or sq. in."
But mpg is distance over volume, making it a square root of distance. Neither is a directly useful measure even if they are both mathematically correct; is 0.01cm2 better or worse than 228.39in-2?
quote: "To be fair, if I'd spent close on 7 years training, I'd expect a decent salary."
The ongoing training required to stay abreast of hardware and software changes over time, means I've been "training" for this job for over 2 decades and I'm still learning now. How much should I be asking for? ;)
quote: "But on a 4k set it glistens more realistically, and you can see every hair on the flies' legs."
HDTV channels like Sky are broadcast at 720p, so unless you actually have a 4k source you really won't see a difference between a 1080p set and a 4k set. That's why nobody is buying 4k sets, there is literally no need because none of the source tech (Sky boxes, BluRays etc.) is set up for more than 1080p.
I'd consider buying a 4k display for my computer (games would look good in 2160p, although I'd probably need to go SLI to keep a decent framerate), but as a TV set it just isn't necessary yet.
Re: Not just people
Or directors who just had to have a company phone, plus 3G tablet, plus 3G card for the laptop, not counting any personal devices. I guess though that at those heady heights there is no need seen to spend your own money on devices, when you can just bully the IT department into purchasing them for you at company expense. So maybe 3 SIMs per person is probably a fair maximum ^^;
Bitter, me? Perish the thought.
quote: "If they weren't so f*****g stupid the goons that (pay to) send it wouldn't make any money."
Ah, blaming the victim, the past-time of champions.
Re: Good to know
quote: "Read much? It would still apply if the US company had operations in your country.
Is this concept really that hard to understand?"
Actually, this ruling is restricted purely to claims filed in the US, it being based upon US patent legislation. It categorically would not apply if someone filed a claim against a US company in France or the UK; the French (or British) legislation would apply instead, and that may or may not require a business presence of company A to assert the validity of patent claims by company A, as the country sees fit.
There is a lot of overlap (and specific treaties) which cover IP law between nations, including the recognition of patents and copyright in one which was registered in another, but it is still the case that the only valid legislation in country X is that enacted by country X.
(It does make a mockery of claiming you are entitled to invade another country because their laws allow them to do something you don't like, of course, but cognitive dissonance and doublethink are quite prevalent in political circles)
HMRC charge a buttload of duty if you import things through all the proper channels, yes (20% VAT plus at least 5% extras, IIRC). If however you just set off on a 1 week "vacation" and buy some stuff while you're there (like, say, a Macbook or iPhone), then bring it back unboxed and obviously used, you pay approximately nothing extra. At least that has been the experience of several friends of mine, anyway.
The fun part comes if you try to take defective US kit to a UK retailer for repair... :/
quote: "It looks like a good time for more encryption and anonymisation - if you haven't done that already.
If we all did it, they'd never be able to handle their surveillance case-load."
GCHQ will just lean on the local police to force you to disclose under RIPA Section 49; refusal is a criminal offense in the UK.
US citizens at least have the 5th Amendment, although I'm not sure for how much longer.
quote: "Just encrypt it. If your whole dropbox is a giant TrueCrypt vob, then any security deficiency on their part will have limited impact."
As a UK citizen, encrypting data on Dropbox simply means that I just get forced to unencrypt it so the police can check it isn't terror-paedo-tax-evasion files. Failure to do so is a crime.
Note that we also apply this law indiscriminately to anyone "of interest" who ends up on UK soil, so don't plan a trip here if you have anything to hide ^^;
Destiny beta only went live for the PS4 yesterday; the XBox (both One and 360) beta does not start until the 23rd (i.e. next week). There was no need to remind me though :'(
Re: Paper shortages
quote: "I would hope that El Reg readers have discovered better systems than D&D by now. The Traveller you mentioned is one such. I personally prefer Alternity; the rules system is far better."
"Better" is such a subjective term when talking about gaming systems. Some players prefer simplicity, some players prefer complexity (or a related preference for an exhaustive ruleset, which are complex by nature), some players only like sci-fi settings, some low fantasy, some prefer roleplay heavy campaigns, some prefer action oriented campaigns.
I've played 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 4th ed DnD and enjoyed them. I've also played 4th ed Shadowrun, Runequest, Call of Cthulu, GURPS, Pathfinder (although that's just a reskinned DnD 3.5 with some tweaks) and Feng Shui, and enjoyed them too. If the object of playing them is to have fun, and I have had fun using all of those systems, then I can only surmise that they are all good ^^;
quote: "well, that's just plain stealing. doesn't matter if you're on the ground or in space, whether you're american or more sophisticated. you'd have to intercept, board, probably overcome-if-not-kill the crew, make off with the booty."
None of which is technically illegal, as it has happened in a location where there are (literally) no laws that apply, thanks to there being no jurisdiction or sovereignty over anywhere outside Earth's gravity well. "International waters" is not the same thing as "interplanetary space".
All the US are saying is that they will honour any claims of ownership over extraterrestrial material brought onto US soil.
Re: Sound advice for a scary mission
Courtesy of online translators ^^;
Si non faciat, cum malleo percute.
Re: Cruelest Ending!
quote: "Of all the awful things that the BOFH and his PFY sidekick have ever done, this has to be the worst! Introducing someone to Access!?!?!?"
In fairness, they are introducing Access to someone who has been using Excel as a pseudo-database. Impossible as it sounds, Access may actually be slightly less of a headache once they get the concepts...
(I have a friend who once told me, completely straight faced, that he loved using Access "because I can use Excel spreadsheets directly as a table". Some things are their own reward)
The main difference is that holding a camera (or phone) up makes it obvious to bystanders that you are actively trying to do something to record the input. Wearing a Google Glass style device gives no such visible feedback that you are actively attempting to capture or record anything, meaning that people have to assume whether you are or are not. In other words, you get plausible deniability and a defense of "it's not even turned on" when questioned by the person behind you in the ATM queue, even if you are engaged in nefarious tasks.
Since it is trivial to bypass any indicator LEDs on a device, the only secure assumption you can make for someone wearing a Glass like device is that it is recording. Much like someone waving a toy gun at a SWAT team, you shouldn't be surprised if people automatically make the worst assumption and act accordingly, even if that assumption turns out to be factually inaccurate.
Re: "we are notifying those whose personal information could have been on the server"
"To err is human. To completely screw things up requires a computer."
Re: not password protected?
quote: "Do you seriously log into your home computer with a username and password each time you use it?
Must be something on it you don't want your mother to see...;-)"
I'd make the analogy to your front door in the house, or possibly your car door(s). I'm guessing that you lock those regularly, rather than just leave them unlocked for convenience? Why would you also not lock your computer?
I type a password in to my PC every time, and it takes approximately the same amount of time as fishing my house (or car) keys out of my pocket. It is secured with a password for exactly the same reasons my house and car are secured with keys; namely to keep out unauthorised users (aka burglars or joyriders).
Please tell me you also have "remember my password" ticked for your personal email / online banking logins on this PC that does not have a password set? That would be pretty classic if it were the case :D
In this case, given that phishing is blamed, a more accurate analogy might be
You can make the most complicated locking mechanism in the world useless by simply asking someone inside if they could possibly let you in.
quote: "What's more plausible? That NASA spent all this money for this crap or they did it on the cheap in a studio like Capricorn One?"
What is more plausible, that fire turning wood to ash is due to some invisible gas combining with the wood after somehow flowing through the flame, or simply that wood contains the element of fire and that burning is the release of this element, leaving the earth element (ash) behind?
Occam's razor is a fine tool, but there are some truths that it has difficulty cutting :)
I think we're all expecting them to have stolen a copy rather than the only extant originals, to be honest ;)
quote: "So what exactly does this "existing data protection law" do?"
Possibly the UK Data Protection Act 1998 is the one being referred to. In that respect, you already have the right (as a data subject) to request that the data controller cease processing any personal data of yours held by them that (upon being processed) could cause "damage or distress" (Section 10 of the DPA)
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Game Theory The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?
- Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
- Worstall on Wednesday Wall Street woes: Oh noes, tech titans aren't using bankers
- Kate Bush: Don't make me HAVE CONTACT with your iPHONE