And of course nobody actually wants to use a gun for its intended purpose (say hunting) which requires you to be outdoors in the cold... and wearing gloves!

So where do they do their litgation?

If these companies claim their business is outside the UK then whenever they need the services of our courts (IP litigation etc) then perhaps they can take that to Bermuda and see how they get on...

and nobody's truly on the hook for the first mile

In my village we are a fair distance (2-4km) from the exchange, yet the actual speeds achieved vary significantly from house to house, and not in a way that correlates with distance. It also depends a lot on the weather (worse after extended periods of rain) so I suspect that the quality of the copper cables plays a big factor; it's not just contention upstream from the exchange and how your ISP shapes traffic onto the core backbones. I am one of the lucky ones with 5-6mbs but others (some of whom are closer) struggle to get to 2mbs.

But if you try and complain to your ISP that your service is sh*te you just get bounced around and nobody seems to be able to kick BT into actually going out and sorting out the copper so that we all get a consistent "up-to" speed. Even if BT is your ISP you get passed between the various departments and none will take accountability for it.

...anywhere within 24 hrs

Better hope it's not cloudy when they get there!

Lucky he's not in the UK

If he'd been in the UK, then under RIP he'd have had to disclose his passwords or go to jail anyway...

Anchor chain / warp scope

@SteveK - general practice is for the ratio of anchor chain / warp (rope to you landlubbers) should be 5:1 or higher. Hence for 1/8 mile depth you are indeed looking at over 1/2 mile as per @Anomalous Cowturd

And they have phones too

Don't forget that most kids eventually get phones and most have web browsers on them. You'll have to rely on their network providers to control what they see on those. Not all come with content control in place out of the box (although Vodafone does), I'm amazed how many parents have no idea what kids look at the the playground these days.

I've got a fairly well controlled home network so I know what they're looking at but I know that'll only last until my boys get their first phone... But I'm going to make sure they pay for their own data plans.

Who owns the "content"

Looking at Google's terms of service, I'm not surprised. It seems that you give away your rights for all content you put in (e.g. emails you write and send) but Google' recognise they have no rights over stuff inbound to you.

Can't use inbound (but if they do it's your problem to notice and act accordingly):

9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.

But you give away outbound:

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

So that's why I don't use it!

What's a 3rd party?

But you see, these guys aren't "passing your data to a 3rd party". They're using a fulfilment agent who aren't technically a 3rd party from a data protection perspective, they're just doing stuff on their behalf.

Now, if that "3rd party" were to do anything with the data that wasn't strictly on behalf of the requestor, well that _would_ be wrong. Like play.com and the firm that was sending out marketing emails on their behalf who had the list compromised.

So, it's up to you to satisfy yourself that not only the firm you give this data to can look after it themselves, but also that their agents do so as well. But of course it's not something you ask when you sign up is it? And they wouldn't tell you anyway.

Correct, for a week or two...

Fair point. Expecting residents of one country to guess at another country's summer time dates is unreasonable...

GMT/UTC are the only truly international time coordinates. Used by the aviation industry for a reason.

so Harold Camping is a few days out then...

Here is Harold Camping's response from a press conference on Monday 23 May, 2011 at Family Radio headquarters, Oakland, California:

"On May 21, this last weekend, this is where the spiritual aspect of it really comes through. God again brought judgment on the world. We didn't see any difference but God brought Judgment Day to bear upon the whole world. The whole world is under Judgment Day and it will continue right up until Oct. 21, 2011 and by that time the whole world will be destroyed,"

Cunning double-bluff?

Of course, if it becomes apparent that their IT security was near-useless, then any actions which migh appear to have been done by one of their personnel on their systems might have been done by someone else?

Sort of like a witness reducing their own credibility such that they can no longer reliably self-incriminate.

But what about the backups?

But, presumably, even if Officer Dibble comes in and seizes the shared servers, tapes etc, there's nothing to stop your hosting provider reinstating YOUR data and services from a backup.

You did buy the DR service didn'y you? And made sure they tested it? Of course, if you didn't then...

Block ICO cookies and the baner goes away

OK, so I try out paranoia settings: tell my browser to delete all cookies and not to accept any more from anyone.

Then visit the ico.gov.uk site. Lo: the banner asking me about cookies has gone, and neither is there any indication that parts of the site won't work any more... Does that mean it now _does_ work?

Only had the engergy to read the first dozen pages of the judgement but...

It feels that the bank have a fairly slippery terms of service but Patco did agree to it after all. As an analogy with old-fashioned banking: if someone looks over your shoulder while you're writing a cheque and then forges your signature that's your problem for letting them do so. Ditto keyloggers.

Moral of the tale: choose your bank carefully, check what security they offer, and who's accountable for what if it goes wrong.

Have to register

EddieD: "..and Skype required me to register for access...yep, it still does - name, email, date of birth, gender, birthday..."

Yes, but none of it has to be true - apart from email and even that can be a one-shot freemail which you only use for Skype. They only know stuff about you if you tell them...

J

So who leaked it then?

Why not tell us who this "3rd party company" is - then we can all be careful not to do business with them. And any other retailers who use them can kick them off their supplier list.

But he didn't dream it up...

Surely his parents have first shout on copyrighting/trademarking or whatever his name.

They thought of it!

DR/BCP isn't a one-way exercise either - even if you have got it

Some years ago I worked in a UK govt department. We had what was considered a "mission critical" system with a DR / BCP setup that had a duplicate IT environment across town, dual fibres, switches etc and all transactions on the live database constantly replicated to the backup.

Problem was, although we could (in theory) cut across to the backup system within a matter of minutes (just re-point the clients at network level) there was no effective way to resume normal working on the live system afterwards.

So, whenever there was a problem with the live system I'd ask if my team of data inputters and analysts could flip over to the backup. The answer was invariably "no, because we'd then have to have >1/2 day downtime while the backup is then restored to the live system afterwards" Regardless of whether it was a 30 minute or 30 hour problem, we'd just twiddle our thumbs and wait for the problem to be fixed on the live system.

It's not just PRC that they need to defend

What with the Chinese investments in various raw material sources around the world they'd benefit from the ability to get some sharp stuff onto the ground without necessarily having to advertise the fact first.

I can foresee these J-20s turning up for "proving flights" on random African airfields and perhaps leaning on neighbours whenever mineral or mining negotiations are going on...

No SCADA I hope?

I do hope they're not using Siemens SCADA systems on board. We all know what happens when you use them to control turbines' speed...

Duty Free?

Last time I flew, liquids bought in Duty Free were the _only_ ones you could take on board (since they were bought _after_ you went through security.

And you've got no choice but to take them in your carry-on hand luggage as you've already checked in your hold baggage before you get to the Duty Free shops.

Definition of Identifiable..

Having just re-read the ICO's guidance notes (here: tiny.cc/6ofea, page 7 in particular) they imply that knowing information about an unidentified someone as well as their address does permit you to easily identify them.

Quote: "The starting point might be to look at what means are available to identify an individual and the extent to which such means are readily available. For example, if searching a public register or reverse directory would enable the individual to be identified from an address or telephone number, and this resource is likely to be used for this purpose, the address or telephone number data should be considered to be capable of identifying an individual."

It's my guess that Google do have access to suitable "registers or reverse directories", but they'll no doubt wriggle on the "...and this rsource is likely to be used for this purpose..." It strikes me that the weakness in the DPA is that it requires to show that a nefarious purpose was intended from the beginning, rather than that it might be possible later.

But have they patented it yet?

If previous form is anything to go by, you'd expect them to lodge a patent for "a means for using the Human Hand to modify radio wave propagation" or some such like.

Then, when another manufacturer's handset suffers the same problem (sorry, "copies their technology") they can sue for all it's worth.