364 posts • joined Monday 3rd December 2012 14:58 GMT
Re: Same. Or Worse. @Gordon 10
In this instance Google is your friend. This from the first page of results.
Do try and use it next time before posting sarcastic comments.
From the article:
The government agency pays “hundreds of millions of dollars a year” to U.S. telecommunications companies for the equipment and service required to intercept telephone calls, emails and instant messages of potential interest, according to a story in Thursday’s Washington Post.
For the current fiscal year, the NSA will pay $278 million for such access, and had paid $394 million in fiscal 2011, according to the Post.
Re: Same. Or Worse.
It should also be noted that Google and all the others only started calling for more transparency when people knew what was going on. Before that they stayed conveniently - but unsurprisingly - silent.
It's also interesting to note the silence from the telecoms companies on this sort of matter, but then they appear to have made hundreds of millions of dollars profit by complying with requests and would presumably like nothing more than to be able to continue to do so.
I wonder how much Google has made by complying with requests?
The civic minded thing would have been to drop them in it.
Otherwise we end up with the situation where the same mistakes get made again and again, with no one individual ever having to face the consequences.
Re: Sorry! Won't happen again
Now those video ads seem to have stopped they seem to have been replaced with large adverts that frequently appear and seem to fill a large part of the screen, and once again push the right column contents almost past the bottom of the screen (you can just about see the 'most read / most commented' headers, but not any of the entries beneath them).
And once again these involve Microsoft adverts.
For the same CRM system being previously advertised in the video ads funnily enough.
Is there any chance of having a word with whoever keeps on coming up with this stuff and try and get them to think a bit more of the end user before they effectively destroy this site with their overbearing adverts?
I wonder what would happen to the levels of waste in government if we linked MP pay rises to it? The more waste there is, the less money there is for MPs...
Compare and contrast the police reaction to incidents where corporations are affected to those where hundreds of thousands of members of the public are affected by a mass invasion of privacy by the telecoms companies:
Incidentally, if intercepting communications really isn't a crime then perhaps somebody ought to have a word with Coulson?
Re: Steelie Neelie still not optional
Don't you think that the EU should be dealt with first? I would imagine that people are far more likely to travel to the continent - be it Spain, France, Italy or elsewhere - than the US.
...also note the lack of similar facilities for EU countries that are far closer. I regularly travel through France for example. No such luck there. The last time I went to the US was 10 years ago.
I wonder if this could be used here by kids seeking to evade the poorly thought through filters brought in by Dave 'ignore-the-fact-I-forgot-my-daughter-in-the-pub' Cameron?
@Its all just Numb3rs
PS when building new system of any sort you get the plumming right then fit the shinny taps, but i suppose you would do...?
In this case it's more a matter of all shiny taps but no bath. The OS itself looks lovely - I have a Nokia 1020 - but there are still too many gaps.
I think this is a better way of putting it: Microsoft have released a bath with two taps but only one of them works. But they'll get the other one working in 6 months as part of their soon-to-be-released luxury pack. Honest guv. Oh, and by the way the bath plug lets water leak out....
Re: Microsoft Dynamics advert
I have to agree.
More than a day later and the site still apparently has the auto-playing ad. How long does it take to remove auto play from an advert I wonder?
There seems to be a long string of problems too. This isn't the first time problems have arisen thanks to the adverts - from auto-resizing ads, to excessively large ads to ones that seem to slow PCs down to a crawl. These problem's aren't new, yet they seem to keep on periodically happening.
That suggests to me either an inability to stay on top of what actually gets shown on their own site or simply a lack of care towards the readers. Given the apparent desire to keep the auto-play in this case - even if it ends up being limited - I'm beginning to think it's the latter rather than the former.
AAAarrghhh!!! That f***ing advert is playing again when I previewed this post!!!!
PLEASE SORT THIS OUT!!!
Re: "must have" apps @cambsukguy
This would be the same Metrotube app that you have to pay for? As opposed to the free versions of an official app available elsewhere?
What is it with Nokia and exclusive deals?
Artificially limiting overall supply is one thing since the shops will still advertise things even if they have none of them to sell, but I really find it difficult to understand how artificially limiting where you can buy one will help increase sales. It'll just make it less visible in the shops surely?
Re: "must have" apps
... or are these must-have apps that are appearing then turning out to be rubbish?
Incidentally it's interesting that this article would appear just when the website is plastered with Nokia 1020 and Office 365 adverts. The adverts seem to be pretty Microsoft-heavy at the moment.
WP8 stills seems like a half baked OS with features commonly found elsewhere missing from WP8 (take VPN connectivity for example). It doesn't help either that MS seem to spend more time developing software such as RDP clients for their competitors than they do for their own phone OS.
If Microsoft can't even get their own developers more interested in developing for WP8 then they still have real problems.
Re: Stupid Stupid Stupid or what
In the case of Microsoft when buying a Technet subscription, unless you can provide a VAT number then it would appear that it goes to Ireland. Even if you're a UK based customer and have provided a UK address and a debit card registered to a UK based account.
Re: Why is nobody talking about accountants?
No, the root is HMRC and government allowing the laws to get so convoluted that they need such experts in the first place.
I've never had to read it myself as I work in a different area within the company, but I still recall seeing a copy of Tolley's tax reference on the book shelves in the office. You know you're in trouble when you get a large book inches thick with pages so fine you can almost see through them, as well as text small enough to almost need a magnifying glass.
Oh, and by the way on the spine it had the title 'Volume 1c'.
This at a time when parliament is looking to store everything in 'the cloud'.
Including sensitive documents. On servers run by Microsoft of all people.
You really couldn't make this sort of stuff up.
Must be a slow news day at the newspaper. Obviously a journalist somewhere thought that they had to do something to justify their continued existence.
Re: Creeping scope...
I seem to recall a spectator in one of the Labour conferences being arrested under anti-terrorist legislation.
His heinous crime? Daring to boo Jack Straw.
You can imagine the fun that the authorities will have with this...
There are still alternatives out there - at the moment at any rate - that actively go out of their way to avoid filtering...
Take this one for example:
The DCMS claimed that kids fondling slabs would now be better protected about the supposed evils of sex and violence lurking online.
...unless they use their slabs on networks with the filters switched off.
Which is why securing the device will always be better than securing the network (and don't fool yourself into thinking that there aren't ways around the filter either - it's already been done).
It feels sometimes like some parents would rather offload the effort onto others. Scared of of technology? Then get the ISP to sort it out. Can't/won't talk to your children about sex? Then get the school to do it (and then complain when they get it wrong). The list goes on...
Re: Sorry! Won't happen again
Any chance of not displaying adverts that include twitter feeds as part of said advert? Last time the feed filled up a large chunk of the right hand part of the screen and pushed anything of any real use off the bottom of the screen. (It seemed to be Microsoft's Technet twitter feed in this case from the looks of things)
I realise that advertising is important for you and that you depend upon it, but is it really a good idea to give it such prominence that it starts to interfere with how people use this site?
Incidentally: will there every be a paid for 'no advertising' option on this site?
Funny you should say that...
From the entry (my emphasis):
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures?
The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.
I wonder who gets to decide what constitutes 'extremist'?
Re: Why do these idiots insist on trying to tackle the wrong end of the problem? @Crisp
Strictly speaking he said that blocks could be implemented, not necessarily that they should be implemented. A small point I know, but worth mentioning maybe especially since he was asked about this in regards to the legality, not as to whether they were a good idea.
Jeremy Hunt has been in charge of the DoH for much of this.
It would seem that he's not content getting too close to the likes of Murdoch and other parts of the media in his guise as culture secretary. Now he seems to be too close to the pharmaceutical industry if the apparent lack of action taken over issues with overcharging the NHS is concerned, not to mention the throwing of patients under the bus where their privacy is concerned.
To use an old phrase, IMO he just isn't 'fit for purpose' when it comes to being secretary of state of *ANY* department.
I believe that the exemptions that this system relies upon are contained within the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Presumably parliament would have had a say at that point when passing the act.
Don't expect your MP to actually pay attention to what he or she is voting for however.
I'm curious, if we assume 10 customers would normally buy something like 10 datasets a year then this would have presumably brought in somewhere between £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 annually for the NHS (previously £20,000 to 30,000 per request according to the article that was linked to from within this piece). Now that will be a maximum of £100.
Making access cheaper might make good business sense from the point of view of the private sector, but what will replace this lost funding?
And this was just using figures plucked from thin air for the purpose of giving an example. I would not be surprised if the drop in funding is far bigger given that it would seem likely that there would be more requests made each year.
Couple that with the ~£1.7 million spent on leaflets and the other no doubt extensive costs of actually running the system and I end up asking myself how much this is going to cost?
And why are we being asked to help fund the profits being made by the pharmaceutical industry? We already have problems with the pharmaceutical industry being in cahoots with pharmacies so that the NHS can be overcharged, sometimes resulting in the cost of medication being pushed up 2,000%.
I for one certainly do not trust them to stick to any rules.
Re: So it's the NHS "National Identity Register." What is it with f**king burocrats?
Any mention of 'customers' is a fairly blatant way of them telling us what they intend: the monetisation of our personal and private information. As a transplant patient myself I thought that my doctor would have said something about this by now since I see them on a regular basis. I haven't heard a word. Not a single poster in the clinic either.
Does this even comply with EU directives regarding privacy? You know: the ones this government are legally obliged to implement at the national level?
I'm thinking specifically of 95/46/EC - the closest thing that the EU has to a Data Protection Act.
Article 8 section 1 reads:
Member States shall prohibit the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, and the processing of data concerning health or sex life.
There are exceptions listed of course but 'we need the money' strangely doesn't seem to be listed.
BT selling our NHS records to US companies and government
...but it's all 'de-identified'. So that's OK then. Never mind the previous instances where anonymisation has shown to be lacking. Never mind that these records can never be truly anonymous if the aim is for them to serve any useful purpose. Nope. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Re: The first option should ......
I see where you are coming from and yes I hope it does not go this far and that yes this can be a dangerous line to cross. I suppose a compromise would be that if these filters came in, they are opt in not opt out (including this current one). This would have the effect of having the filters easily available for those that want them but leaving those without the need unaffected.
There's one addition I would suggest: The monitoring only starts when the filtering is switched on and ends when the filtering is switched off.
As things stand ISPs are free to intercept private communications as part of the filtering system even if the filtering isn't being used on that particular connection. Personally I think the idea of filtering won't work as well as people think it will and will end up being little more than a placebo.
However if people insist on using it then it should have zero impact on those of us that don't choose to use it. As long as that can be achieved then personally I think people should be free to do what they want with their internet connection - as long as it doesn't affect everybody else in any shape or form. This includes having to take any form of action when signing up to an ISP.
Re: The first option should ...... @Ragarath
Incidentally, you're assuming that the filter will always work as advertised. A dangerous mistake to make...
Re: The first option should ...... @Ragarath
And the parent that says "no porn sites" to the child using the Internet that is not listened to?
Simple. Filter their devices. No need to filter the entire connection and the connections of any adults present. And you have the added benefit of making sure that your decisions are respected even when your children use their devices on networks that you have no control over.
Because a large chunk of important (for learning and other things) stuff that is NOT inappropriate material is being generated by them.
There is no need for them to have mobiles with either a camera and internet access beyond the desire of phone companies to make more money out of the little ones. Regardless of where the material comes from large parts of the internet are unsuitable for children and unless we can demonstrate a need for technology we ought to be questioning why we're allowing access to minors in the first place IMO. At present these seems to be the one question that nobody - and certainly no politician - wants to ask. But then both current and previous governments have had strong links to the telecoms industry. Just look at Ian Livingston.
I think you will find that most don't until the child is deemed responsible enough.
If they're responsible enough then why filter the connection?
It does not take much time and effort, but the time and effort is easily circumvented.
Do you honestly think that the same doesn't apply to network level filtering? Seriously? Even TalkTalk had to remove references to secure websites since it knew it couldn't realistically stop them, and I would not be surprised if there were other mechanisms available for evading this sort of thing.
Re: The first option should ......
On that note I also assume you had at least one parent hovering over your shoulder until you were at least 16, never letting you out of sight for any reason what-so-ever and controlling everything you did?
No, but they were probably smart enough to ask questions before letting me have access to anything that might have unpleasant consequences. No BB guns for example.
As an aside why should children even be allowed access to smartphones at all if such a large chunk of the inappropriate material is being generated by them? Ditto laptops with webcams.
Every single report on child safety I've seen on the TV shows the child with the PC in their bedroom. It's amazing quite frankly that parents continue to do this and then feign confusion when something terrible happens to their kid.
Some parents seem to continue having problems understanding that whilst they can't watch their kids all the time this does not mean they should abandon any effort to watch them at all. This is not an 'either/or' situation. You don't have to choose between one extreme or the other, and there's a good chance that overall simply using a little common sense will have better results in the longer term that using blunt instruments like this.
I hear you say. Well many ISPs do not let their users change hardware let alone DNS and changing that on every individual device that can / might enter your home is very disingenuous.
Actually device level protection is probably better if the aim is to protect the child in question. Imagine your child taking their laptop to somewhere where the connection isn't filtered for example. Of course setting up each device might take a few minutes each time, but unless you're a gadget junkie I find it difficult to believe that it will really take that much time or effort.
Still no mention of any rights that the website owners have.
I wonder if Sky's policy amounts to the same sort of one being used by TalkTalk? i.e. 'Tough shit if you're blocked and we decide you should stay on the list - and we won't respond to any complaints'
If you're using something like blogspot then I would assume that the shared nature of the service will mean that only one certificate will probably be needed.
Something similar could apply to shared hosting in general. In either case the cost would probably be minimal to any individual user and would only be noticeable to anybody running their own site with it's own domain name that requires its own certificate. Even then the cost would not I think be too onerous.
...ISPs use to help manage their traffic...
...and use it for their own commercial benefit too.
Just look at TalkTalk's homesafe and how the likes of Bluecoat and other 'content categorisation' services (a polite way of referring to content scrapers IMO) can't work when SSL is being used. TalkTalk had to abandon it's reference to checking 'secure' websites - and in all likelihood probably did so because somebody at the company knew enough about how the web works to know that they simply could not do this.
If the new version of HTTP makes it more difficult for the parasites like Huawei, Phorm, Bluecoat and others to exploit personal and private communications - often without the knowledge of those involved - then this can only be a good thing IMO.
It's bad enough that government can get so easily into our private lives. At the very least we ought to be limiting invasions of privacy from the private sector - whose primary motivation in everything is profit.
They can change pages entirely, but even that won't stop things being stored elsewhere. Take this for example:
TalkTalk chose to remove the following sentence from their HomeSafe related page:
'Kids Safe will also block secure versions of sites like Facebook and Twitter ( those that show https:// in the web address) although in these cases you will see an error message from your internet browser instead of the normal HomeSafe blocking page.'
An implicit admission perhaps that content filtering will never work - especially if SSL is used - and is just as much an exercise in futility as trying to remove anything from the internet?
Re: Spilling the beans @John Smith 19
Family Guy's own 'John McCain Experience'... :)
Re: Well, they're right about the flying pigs. @Vociferous
but the person who authorised the illegal actions!
That would be the foreign secretary with his blanket warrants authorising this sort of thing.
Personally I'm not holding my breath though: Cameron has appalling judgement when it comes to choosing who he surrounds himself with. First it was Coulson, now he has Ian Livingston as an unelected trade minister.
This is the same Livingston that had a hand in BT's activities when they were trialling Phorm, and violating the privacy of hundreds of thousands of their own customers in the process.
But then that's par for the course I guess: violate the privacy of a few hundred and get taken to court. Do the same to the entire country and get given a position in government...
'How dare those damned democrats used legislation "we* introduced to spy on people! That's *OUR* job!!!!' whines failed republican presidential wannabe...
One guess as to how the likes of McCain voted on the PATRIOT act, FISAA and other nastiness that in many respects forms the legal foundations for much of the invasive practices that we're currently seeing.
Re: I expect to get a zillion downvotes but...
If you don't want them doing what they do then don't use their services.
But then what happens to my privacy when I have to interact online with somebody that does?
My emails to them or emails sent by them to me still get scanned and *my* privacy is invaded despite never having gone near the services offered by Google.
Dutch telecoms firms abused data retention law for marketing purposes
Some Dutch telecommunications and Internet providers have exploited European Union laws mandating the retention of communications data to fight crime, using the retained data for unauthorised marketing purposes.
That is the verdict of a report by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs' Radiocommunications Agency, made public on Monday by Dutch digital rights organization Bits of Freedom following a freedom of information request. The study was completed in April 2012, but carriers and ISPs were not prosecuted for the breaches reported.
Bits of Freedom and other digital rights groups called on the European Commission to prevent further abuse of the European Data Retention Directive, which requires ISPs and telecommunications operators across the EU to retain connection data for a period between six months and two years, mainly for the purposes of investigating, detecting and prosecuting serious crime and terrorism.
Re: Another service bought to you by the Marketing Department ®
As always, there's a dilbert strip for that... :)
This already seems to be in the roadmap - partially at any rate - but is there any chance of adding wysiwyg functionality when formatting posts rather than just adding HTML tags around selected text? If it's already on the list is there any sort of estimate as to when it will be available?
Incidentally whilst it has also been mentioned that you used to use beehive forums in the past - or something similar to it anyway (can't locate the message at the moment) would it not be more appropriate to move back to something like that if you want to grow these forums past the point of just being a way of commenting on individual articles?
This might benefit your website as well as it's users: at the moment you just have wasted whitespace on the right hand side after the thread reaches a certain length - if you use a layout that includes a static menu bar at the top - a la beehive - then this guarantees that any advert placed within it will always be visible for example (believe it or not I'm not against advertising per se, just the sorts of excessive displays that I've seen from time to time on this site).
No, no, no... he's probably guilty of war crimes, not web crimes...
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs
- Microsoft: Don't listen to 4chan ... especially the bit about bricking Xbox Ones