Disaster
Authoritarian politically appointed security services managers hooking up with micro tripping libertarian technocrats.
This will not end well.
377 publicly visible posts • joined 29 Nov 2011
@ Gordon 10 - unless of course you assume - given the apparent continuity between this and the Labour snoopers charter - that is those same civil servants in Whitehall or more likely Cheltenham driving this.
Ironic since GCHQ already has most of this anyway - so its probably just an attempt to get the storage costs off their books and onto the ISP's.
----
Well...firstly the previous Labour gov was Blairite. This kind of thing was/is literally right up their ally, given the enjoyment they seemed to have with their fear mongering. So for there to have been a continuation was quite natural as the Tories also enjoy rule through fear. These things will have the hand of the civil service in the game of course. However the lead is always from the politicians.
Having said all that I do think you are spot on with your last sentence
@ Voland's right hand
Despite my loathing of politicians I do think that there are some who are not batshit insane. My fear is that we eventually end up having a political milieu like that in the US where the insanity is quite evident.
This kind of thing (topic) tends to engender, or perhaps empower the insanity.
I bet JF is glad all these armchair statisticians / electrical supply / datacentre experts are here to give him the benefit of their wisdom after the fact and tell him what he did wrong.
I thought my post was quite clearly aimed at management, not the poster.
I am a manager. That his manager was not capable of dealing with this issue is not the fault of JF. If I were JF's manager I would be mortified to have taken the attitude of his manager.
It's not just for programmers.
This is just a massive catalog of errors and really there should be some rolling of heads. Mainly management. As usual. I am speaking as a manager.
It has already been mentioned in the comments that there were a number of issues not dealt with, which are the responsibility of management. IT management that. One of the golden rules of IT is that any activity in the machine room must absolutely be regulated. To that end I removed our company President off the mag lock door ACL. The guy has no reason to be there. If he does then he'll be escorted.
Any power works within a DC is not minor. I have to ask where the work orders were from the sparkies. Had they been dry runned? Amazing what you remember when you go through each step.
No roll back scheme either?
I am pretty speechless but not at all surprised that this happened. Too many utterly incompetent people in IT these days.
This here is a prime example why security not just something to do with encryption and access control lists.
One might wonder how this could be a security issue if it is a matter of someone leaving the organisation, willingly or unwillingly. If your company does not have a defined leavers policy then I would be hard pushed to say that it was a professional organisation. That leavers policy includes the process for immediate termination. In that process there has to be a section that ensures handover of work or an equitable agreement to provide a handover. That this was a redundancy means that this action was planned to happen. Why is it security? Well...the company just spunked its yearly budget on one item. A hundred grand loss can sink some companies, impact harshly on others. If that is not a security issue...(yes I am one of those that believes security cannot be segmented by operation. Security must cover any scenario that has a negative impact on the business).
If neither the IT Manager or Director (or deputy) did not ask for project or work updates, well that is inexcusable.
@Ivan 4
Irrelevant to my post which was in reply to a scenario stating that MP's would need to post all their emails etc. A massive and damaging intrusion on what is left of the democratic process. Whether or not an ISP is hacked is really not something covered by the Wilson Doctrine.
Not that this doctrine has prevented the security services from getting their hands dirty.
@king_tut - Indeed they do...if the Home Sec is of the mind that these processes should be made public or kept secret 'due to the operational nature of these processes, giving details of operational matters has the capability of compromising our intelligence services'.
Of course if this was indeed a piece of legislation intended to protect 'us' there would not be a need for any political input. I do not see any circumstance where there is any need of a political decision. Either a request meets the criteria for intercept or it does not.
The Home Sec handled something like 1400 requests last year. How is that good for democracy when there is no oversight of the politician?
@ codejunkey
In this there is no maybe. Either he did or he did not.
To me it is a rebuttal. Direct or otherwise. It is still a rebuttal. If Mr Worstall has given Mr Morozov a link to his article (and stating in the article that he had given Morozov a link) so Morozov has an opportunity to reply fair enough. But that is also not the case.
The point is not a discussion with a "2 right wing people and the entirety of the green party support/a few labour" but rather with Morozov.
As for the level of intelligence of people who read the Guardian I have no idea as I don't read that paper/comments section on even an irregular basis.
In terms of an intro, well at least we agree on something! ;)
In terms of other opinion I would point out that if that was the case then this article would be an embarrassment to any real journalist. Because what has been written is in essence a hatchet job.
Really the reg ought to stay away from surious op-eds and concentrate on the stuff that the Reg is good at.
How is this different from pretty much every other gov sponsored IT programme?
For the vendors its all just money for old rope.
I was in a meeting with that gov czar guy a while back and asked about quality in projects...answer was shoulder sloped with "cheapest wins".
Utter cock.
@Alan Brown
Yes. And Travelodge also have some 6,000 employees, generated something something like 300 million squids in revenue (2010 figures according to wiki)...unlike this little pokey hotel.
Cheap one hotel operations charging low cost rooms are not going to match places like Travelodge...
Cry me a river. You don't want bad reviews? Don't go online to flog your wares. Or you know...reply to the bad review and explain why it had gone wrong, what you had done to fix it or plan to or to highlight unreasonable behaviour.
This is a perfect respose for example -
http://uproxx.com/webculture/2014/10/a-negative-yelp-review-led-to-this-hilarious-take-down-from-the-restaurants-owner/