Re: I actually spy on my camera and mic
@gerdesj "SEWER VLAN" - Inspired.
112 posts • joined 27 Jun 2010
@gerdesj "SEWER VLAN" - Inspired.
I wonder whether this vote was as much a message to the political elite (UK and the EU, Brussels in particular), that lack of transparency, effectively showing contempt for the population that they serve, had reached the point where enough was enough.
A resounding clap of thunder/message has been delivered, if they were ever in any doubt.
The markets react to flatulence from any seismic event, and they get over it, eventually. Trump will be the next thing. They also react positively to good news, and good things. Let's create some. Those who continue to bray "we're doomed, it'll be misery forever" need to realise they are in a democracy, and democracy has spoken. Get onboard the train, and play the hand that democracy has dealt.
I am pro-EU, but utterly against Brussels' lack of transparency and accountability. I couldn't convince myself to remain complicit in the status quo political landscape. I helped send the message. Those who will remain in power, both sides of the channel, now have the responsibility of picking up the pieces and building something a lot better than the status quo up to 10pm on June 23rd. With great power comes great responsibility. I sincerely hope the politicians on the new project have an utterly different approach to their work than the lot that fought a bitter, negative referendum campaign on both sides. After many years of disappointment in our political leaders, we felt the need to send this message with the only weapon available to us - our vote.
Now lets get on with the work of building our governments and trading agreements far more openly and transparently than we did prior to yesterday. Opportunity knocks. Lets not be afraid of it.
... so that non-techies can comprehend how invasive and nasty this legislation is to our fundamental freedoms. Central to all this is the repeated failure of our government to manage the data they are able to retain about us (legally) already. Why should we trust them with more? In the absence of clear evidence of WHY they need it, with the onus on THEM to prove the need - not us to prove they do NOT need it, they should not be given the legal right to monitor us as this legislation demands.
And it will become clear that BT is treated "differently" because BT doesn't know how many Km of lit fibre it has, or won't admit how much it has ... this is differential taxation, creating an unfair market.
Some self-advertised "Architects" need to read the Ladybird Books before coming into work.
I weep for the abuse of the A word in job titles.
What's often worse, is when "the business" puts the E or A hat on and decides to design a system or outsource a technical service that they don't understand. Same faeces, different day.
You don't get it your way. You get it the SFDC way ... or you don't get the dang thing.
Why does our Gubbermint ignore their own figures on ROI and benefits for infrastructure projects?
HS2 is estimated by the DfT to deliver a benefit ratio of 2.3 to 1. For every £1 spent on HS2, it will return £2.30. The DfT paper is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/365065/S_A_1_Economic_case_0.pdf
Right. Providing FTTP to the entire country is estimated to deliver an ROI of approximately £20 for every £1 spent. DCMS commissioned the report here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257006/UK_Broadband_Impact_Study_-_Impact_Report_-_Nov_2013_-_Final.pdf
Which project would you do?
Is our gubbermint thick, or do they just ignore information they don't like, or doesn't fit their political agenda?
Reality is frequently inaccurate.
It is copper.
The exchanges that are FTTC enabled always had fibre. Taking fibre out to the street cabinets does not miraculously change the customer premises equipment from copper to fibre. The CPE is still copper bearer over POTS. I wish the ASA would wake up to this and stop this illusion that we're all getting fibre.
Curious. Who amongst them cryin' ... "risky" is able to understand the risk?
If they'd gone with "one throat to choke" and "greater performance penalties" and better defined "KPIs" then I'd leave them with Fujitsu but they arguably cocked that up. Why not try something new ... and stop bleatin' about risk.
Ignoring the discussion around the training test data ...
How important is that 15% of missed "events", and what is an "event"?
@1980s_coder Which planet are you on, and which Three are you referring to? Not the one I've been with for 3 years. Best of a dismal bunch, based primarily on price. The "service" is universally poor.
government missing the point. I travel from Tunbridge Wells to London on the South Eastern railway service mainline. There are 5 locations "not spots" with ZERO signal (all mobile operators), forcing all data and voice comms to be dropped. This is a principal mainline route into London. Do you think this is counted in the 90%?
... charging so little the bean counter can't resist. I have only had disappointing experiences with Wipro. I've gone back a couple of times, and met the same service levels. They only exist because bean counters look at price before service quality, and aren't held accountable when it all falls down. If we were better at measuring service levels, companies like Wipro would have a much harder time in a free market.
Right now, they're doing very well ... that's down to us repeatedly giving them work, which they do badly, but hey ... it's CHEAP!.
Not everything is about money and power. Oh wait ...
Someone had to press "F1"
@msknight and ummm ... did they try:
"Remember to reinstall Windows as we can't help you diagnose why your internet isn't working until you've done that. My call plan says you have to. You might be using your computer for things we're not aware of, so you have to reinstall it. Really you do."
@Cynical Observer .... 99.9999% uptime as measured over the last 300 seconds. They made 100%, as no outages in the last 300 seconds.
Spin, without the detail. Lies, damn lies ...
the phrase "former monopoly"? Their carrier network will backhaul the beeb traffic and we'll all struggle with unreliable FTTC, except for the last 5% of rural folk who will never be offered FTTC from Openreach, cough, BT.
This is a monopoly. There is no other word for it.
@AC "So, you actually agree with the post that says the situation is the Quango's own making and not Openreach then?"
Yes. Absolutely. Openreach are doing what any self respecting private sector company with a monopoly position would do - maximise profit and retain market dominance.
@AC - "deliver faster broadband to as many people as possible for as little money as possible".
If you subscribe to "one chunk of chocolate today, rather than a whole bar tomorrow" then BDUK is what you want. Short sighted. I would have the government think strategically, beyond the next general election, in order to avoid wasting billions on dead end technology. OR owns and operates the network BDUK is funding - we are paying the BT shareholders to build their infrastructure. It has limitations no different to where we came from before FTTC. The fundamental limits of copper bearers have not been removed. FTTC has no future - it is a tactical option, with short term benefit. The technology deployed will not be reusable when inevitably we end up deploying FTTH in the future. Our government and BDUK is in denial by not realising this and thinking far enough ahead.
Scrapping HS2 and using that money to fund FTTH would do it.
@AC But you skipped over the essential point that the FTTC technology is DEAD END. It cannot be made to deliver what a fibre optic cable can, and will not provide internet to rural areas too far from cabinets. That was one of the primary goals of the BDUK fiasco. The BDUK framework was designed to make FTTC technology be the "only" realistic solution to the problem as formulated by the quango. This made Open Reach the only viable contender, with anyone else not owning last mile copper a competitor in name only.
The only sensible stuff to be rolling out is a fibre optic cable to every household - FTTH not FTTC- but that would decimate the BT Group pension fund, leased line business and PSTN line rental business. There ... I said it out loud. The elephant on the table is flatulent.
@Terry 6 - indeed. A FoI request should produce the business case, showing the savings over the other 2, 3 4, whatever options that were costed. It rarely does, as I experienced with the "commercial confidentiality" screen last time I FoI'd them regarding BT and the BDUK broadband money.
Seeing a good deal of the business case detail would help, as government IT hasn't got a great track record. It's our money after all, and I'm sure there are private sector clever cloggs's out there with time on their hands that could very well donate their knowledge to pointing out the holes in the contracts and saving us from a outsource pong fest. What does KCC have to lose by publicising business case detail? Unless there is something to hide? They should stop treating the public as idiots. Sure there are some, and equally there are clever clogs amongst them that can help.
@JimmyPage and when somebody else drops in some "extra bits" into the hoovered data they have on you, what do you do then?
You have precisely no proof you didn't go there, and they have the logs.
If you weren't monitored "by default" in the first place, this scenario can't happen. Privacy is an individual's right, not a right the government is required to grant, or authorised to take away.
... this is a Liberty vs Control debate. By foregoing a grown up discussion of the benefits of monitoring, we neither validate or reject the business case. We are wasting time considering implementation options with judicial oversight. Hearing those that request these invasive powers repeatedly provide hyperbole such as "we can't tell you, it's national security" is utter nonsense. In the absence of such public proof, and the associated business case our government should not be asking us to give up our privacy to them in this way. Through repeated data security blunders, our government has demonstrated an inability to manage our data safely. They have not earned our trust. Snowdon has provided evidence of how our government has indeed undermined our trust.
Why has Ms May not been held to account for her use of the draconian "because I say so" loopholes in the Telecommunication Act? She is a politician, not a member of the judiciary. Hold her to account.
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
... it will have O(n!) different licensing mechanisms. I mean seriously ... Priva-what? I'm keen to understand how this will be disseminated and whether profit or control will be evident, and exercised by a select few individuals. It has a name that stinks of commercialism.
Chaum has an impressive cryptography pedigree, with an equally impressive list of patents. Popcorn out, projector on ...
Let the 4% good times roll ... they are all guilty of negligence in maintaining their database, and are not being held to account. They should not be able to sell their database which we clean for them, at our intense discomfort when they cock up. A 100% fail for us when they get it wrong, is a 0.000001% fail for them.
... to assess risk. The Annualised Loss Expectancy calculation, although rough cut, would have prevented the acceptance of this risk. https://www.langtonblue.com/2015/03/information-security-budget-planning-donkey-tail/
The donkey was not harmed in that article, I am assured.
I'm sorry, but why should we listen to anything Osborne says about information systems security?
It's as if getting voted in suddenly endows politicians with years of experience and knowledge that they didn't have before they won an election.
Get some experts involved, not mouth puppets.
Any day now Theresa May will slam home the Snoopers Charter RIPA legislation, without a single shred of additional information on how the data helps track terrorists down. She will use the Paris horror and people's reactions to take away our freedom.
ISIS will be winning the battle if that happens.
"Anybody would think they didn't want to provide this service."
@AC - they don't. I called up and asked for FTTP at "any price" and they said "nope - never happening at your exchange". My exchange has had FTTC for 9 months now, so they have the bandwidth, just not the "will" or "desire" for reasons they are not telling anyone.
We need to wait and see what ridiculous proposition Osborne will propose in the statement.
HOWEVER, in one of my little Ltd companies I spend between £10K and £15K per year on IT equipment and services to build proof of concept infrastructure and educate myself. My clients reap the benefit of this, and pay for it in my day rate/fees. Would this be possible in the new world? Who knows.
Penalising my Ltd company by compelling it to pay PAYE and NI contributions on my client rate makes my investment in my knowledge unaffordable.
If Osborne's intention is to stop small companies from this kind of exercise, the rumours just need to be partially correct. But let's wait and see. There will be time to lobby and scream afterwards. I can't see myself voting Conservative after the debacle with the Snoopers Charter and now this. That means an abstention at the next election as there is nothing worth voting for. I'm a senior Security Consultant and Enterprise Architect. None of my engagements are below 6 months when changing the culture and approach of an organisation. Once changed, I hand the reigns to the guys who keep the lights on. My role changes the lights, once, hopefully.
I have already written to my MP (Greg Clark) warning of the decimation of the IT contracting industry if even some of the rumours are correct.
Only FTTP will catch us up with the APAC countries rolling out fibre. Anything else is folly. Peter Cochrane (ex. BT CTO) told our government this repeatedly before leaving BT, and they ignore all similar advice from "experts", preferring to fill BTs coffers and support dead end copper connectivity.
Scrap HS2, and replace it with a FTTP project the length and breadth of the UK. Done.
It is about time that civil servants and security experts who are spewing out these figures and business cases were named, to make them more accountable for the immense cockup that looms ahead. Their track record is abysmal and unlikely to improve. Why should we give them another bite at the cherry? Get experts who know what they are doing, and can build business cases based on facts, or STOP with the trying.
25% of production apps are CURRENTLY in the cloud.
30% of software testing is CURRENTLY in the cloud.
Where did you conjure up those statistics from? Your claims are as baseless as your statistics. Utter nonsense.
Name drop goulash. Middle Age crisis Chris? ;-)
"There's no indications of great wealth" ... with a dash of apostrophe horror.
If Dido hadn't gone on camera claiming that trusting the SMTP "From:" address was "ok", then perhaps the TalkTalk media engine would have a chance. But they let her do that, and deserve what they get as a consequence.
Geez - media really need to get their facts right, so that non-techies and techies alike are all happy to consume the goo they spew. As it seems to be right now, it all stinks.
Without actual facts, I ignore the headlines and media, as most of us probably should. Let them get fined, according to the seriousness of their cockup, decided by experts who have access to the facts. Mooing and bleating about it based upon media reports is putting us all back into the medieval ages.
... utterly pointless, guaranteeing the UK will end up as a 3rd world connected internet country within a decade. It's like aiming for failure, and achieving it.
Only FTTP has a future. I don't see Openreach ever aiming for that unless it is split out of BT.
It pains me to see individuals in government wield such power over matters utterly foreign to their experience in the real world. We should name the civil servants that advise the ministers, so we know where the commentary comes from, or the minister should state clearly that neither they nor the civil servants know diddly squat about the matter in hand and are "taking a punt" based on lobbyist incentives.
Right. That's going to happen. Almost makes me appreciate Mr Corbyn who might just say he knows nothing about something when that is indeed true. Almost.
There's nothing to spend it on. By giving BT the BDUK money, maintaining their monopoly, anything that isn't FTTC remains esoteric or too expensive. None of the Kent County Council ISPs could offer me FTTP when I called them up and asked them. FTTP is the only solution with a future, and far too expensive or just not available.
The fact that Ed Vaisey calls this voucher campaign a success underpins why people are disillusioned by politics in general. Utter nonsense, tantamount to lipstick on the pig that is BDUK support of FTTC as our future.
If you pay peanuts, you attract a certain kind of primate. Not usually the capable white hat sort.
... and this is the same Home Secretary recommending we build a backdoor to PKI encryption for their use, "to save the children" and "catch more terrorists".
No. Just no.
@NeilPost If you recall the entire debacle that is BDUK, you would realise that nobody has the commercial capability to compete with BT/OpenReach because of the way the funding framework is designed. Only the incumbent with the last mile copper had ANY hope of winning our tax money. The BDUK participants went from 10 down to 2, with Fujitsu fading into insignificance in the light of DCMS sucking up the "homes passed" rubbish, and endless definitions of "Super Fast" to ensure that VDSL2 qualified irrespective of distance from the cabinet or copper/aluminium line quality.
There really isn't any choice, so long as OpenReach owns the last mile. A vague glimmer of hope in B4RN up in Lancashire is being largely ignored by our government, where communities have demonstrated how to fund, deploy and manage *REAL* FTTP - dedicated fibre to every household. Utterly future proof. Not a G.PON in sight.
As for asking BT for FTTP, I did. My village switch was upgraded recently to FTTC, so I called up and said "money is no object, can you quote me for FTTP please". They said, "no, never ... we have no plans for your exchange". I guess rural areas remain "commercially unviable" for BT ... until they get more of our tax money and they decide when that time comes, not our government.
... and STOP with the ridiculous "homes passed" statistic.
Taking fibre from the exchange to the cabinet does not provide fibre optic broadband to everyone with a telephone line on the cabinet. You still have copper and you need to have an available port on the DSLAM. BT aren't putting enough DSLAM ports in the cabinets to cater for all the lines, especially in rural areas. They are taking BDUK funding (£1.2b) and telling MPs that a "home passed" has "access to fibre optic broadband" without explaining the lack of capacity and reachability of the VDSL technology (~1.2Km), and the oft discussed G.Fast technology which has less than 500m of useful range.
Utter poppycock. I might as well say I have access to teleportation - it just remains for me to invent it and create the portal.
Unfortunately, DCMS believes all that BT lay before them. They need to smarten up.
I've been contracting for more than 20 years. The nominal increase in dividend tax isn't so bad. However, the IR35 nonsense is pure stupidity. The troglodytes at HMRC that bang this drum need to stop banging it, as much as the Conservative MPs that listen to them. Nobody wants this tax. It doesn't make money.
If the Civil Service and public services were more efficient, and played by the private sector rules, then 50% of them would be unnecessary in months. My jaw hits the ground everytime I see a public service contract for IT services, or hear of the latest gross negligence on a multi-billion pound project with zero consequences for the civil servants at the heart of it. There are savings to be made there. Go get them.
@DrM I have to agree. The interface is poor, leaving you to forage through the convoluted logfiles. Errors messages are proprietary and misleading. Without support, you are dead in the water.
But wait, there's more ... even if you fork out for the full commercial version of True image 2015, you get 30 days support, then NOTHING. If you pay £15/incident, you get to call and speak to them, otherwise it's the forums and no guarantees.
Not what you want from a backup/recovery vendor taking your money.
Where is the justification, from places like Iran (ho ho ho), that such powers IMPROVE the situation?
Asking for a human rights/democracy bashing piece of legislation without saying WHY or presenting a compelling business case doesn't make GCHQ or Theresa look very good. I suspect she may not understand the implications of putting backdoors into open source PKI encryption, or have had the consequences explained to her competently by an authority without a vested interest. Legislation supporting such (impossible I might add) activities needs to be justified by those asking for it, with more than a "trust us" punchline. "Think of the children" is tired and old. Society as a whole thankfully doesn't appear to trust those using such futile propaganda - so that argument fails.
Perhaps there is no justification after all ... ergo .... stop this "anti-British" erosion of basic freedom. Nothing to see here ... move along please. PLEASE!
... so why would they share their mobile network infrastructure? By controlling access to the wholesale infrastructure, they control the market.
Last time I looked at anything "complex", doing it "quickly" was a sub-optimal approach, cough.
BT (Group) need to try harder and up their end consumer service standards, before getting bigger.I applaud the competition watchdog for taking their time, turning all the rocks over. Let the whack-a-mole games begin.
... feel the width! With the race to market for the "next app", developers drop quality like a stinky poo. Speed to market is all that matters. The complexity of modern applications, with the number of API layers bewildering, understanding security and performance is very, very difficult. Google and Microsoft are having a simply wonderful time right now arguing about it.
It's no surprise that so many organisations jump on the "cloud" bandwagon, as all evil is apparently removed from your plate of responsibility, handed to the folk that live in that "cloudy place" over there. Do the problems move? Do they go away? Do the cloudy folk do a better job than you were doing before you moved your primary data assets into their "cloudy place"? How would you know?
This obsession by IBM with the cloud thing is very dangerous, as they haven't defined the thing. There was a time when IBM might have been the company to call it for what it is ... a move back to conceptually centralised data processing using shared compute and storage resources. I'm not going to say it out loud :-)
If Mr Cameron maintains this position, I will do my utmost to explain to all my non-techy friends, relatives and anyone else who will listen why the Conservatives must NOT be elected, irrespective of their other policies or the unsavoury flavour of other idiots on parade. He just weaponised the competent security community against the Conservatives.
This is naive beyond comprehension. Mr Cameron - PLEASE ask a subject matter expert on security about encryption and privacy before you next get carried away in public. That does not mean Theresa, sorry. Without any cold, hard evidence of the benefits of further snooping, you do NOT need any further snooping capability, nor should you get any.