This only applies to Germany though? What about the rest of the EU?
A month on and the best the ICO can do is regurgitate the same press release from back in August.
1222 posts • joined 3 Dec 2012
This only applies to Germany though? What about the rest of the EU?
A month on and the best the ICO can do is regurgitate the same press release from back in August.
Meanwhile over at Three they're apparently more concerned with their attempts to push targeted advertising and promoting it as ad-blocking, rather than provide anything really useful such as this...
Any word on when we'll actually be able to buy one of these in the UK?
Perhaps I should have phrased things more carefully. What I was intending to refer to was the part of the process that involves the transit of communications on systems outside the local network being used by the end user.
Such 'clueless users' would presumably be content to simply use the router provided by the ISP.
There is nothing to stop the ISP from setting up their equipment to stop adverts at the router level, and any information generated by the blocking need never leave the router or be sent back to the ISP (nor would there be any need for the ISP to either intercept or analyse traffic passing through their network).
In any case it might be worth noting this:
From the blog entry:
Our objective in working with Shine is not to eliminate mobile advertising, which is often interesting and beneficial to our customers, but to give customers more control, choice and greater transparency over what they receive.
To me personally that sounds very similar to the sorts of things Facebook have been coming out with recently.
Shine seems to be another type of Phorm, just dressed up differently.
it is absurd to suggest that publishers should have a veto over a citizen's choice to block ads
I don't think anybody is suggesting that.
What is being suggested however is that getting the network operator involved in the process is a bad idea, and one that will be unnecessarily invasive and inefficient given the alternatives available.
The likes of ad-block plus is presumably run locally without the involvement of 3rd parties and without the need for any company having direct knowledge of where you've been or what you're currently doing.
Why then should the prerequisite for the network operator to see your traffic be changed to fit the need for blocking anything? Would blocking at the router not be a better alternative, since like the ad-block plus solution this would prevent the need to make your communications viewable to 3rd parties?
Knowing that it's happening makes zero difference to the legality - or the ethical situation surrounding the activities (IMO at any rate).
Interception is interception.
Basically, ISPs aren't allowed to manage their networks with these rules
Clauses b & c in the paragraph quoted in the article would seem to contradict your conclusion.
ISPs are not always stopped from doing this, they're just stopped when it doesn't fit into one of the categories they specify (and the first one relating to national legislation would seem to allow for even further wiggle room depending on how far national governments want to take things).
"It makes far more sense from a privacy and security perspective to be able to manage all these devices from a single point and an ISP service is a sensible approach because it blocks these risks before they ever reach the customer's home network," added Hanff.
And if the device is used on another connection that isn't filtered?
Managing each device might be more of a hassle but it's still better than merely securing the connection that the device is uses most frequently if we're talking about devices that won't always be using the same connection.
Why has Hanff changed his tune from 2008 after the Phorm trials when he was busy proclaiming that consent from both sender and recipient was needed to make any interception legal?
Toshiba also tried something similar in 2010
If I understand the new Yoga laptop correctly you're supposed to be able to use the space used by the keyboard as a graphics tablet with the input being shown on the screen?
But why would anybody want that when they can draw directly on the screen itself with something like an ipad pro or surface pro?
As for this:
Another twist is that the pen includes actual ink, allowing you to write or draw on a paper notepad clipped to the device. Your input is automatically transferred to the tablet.
Wacom already tried this concept with the Bamboo Spark. Reviews weren't that good if memory serves. Why would this pen be any better?
'Preparing to leave is probably' the best way of putting it.
And we'll probably never get past the 'preparing' stage...
they said no to Europe
Given the arguments in the cabinet it seems that they can't even decide what saying 'no to Europe' even means, let alone how to go about implementing it.
The furore around ministers getting upset with civil servants not acting on Brexit would be funny if the implications weren't so serious, and ignores the fact that they haven't even given the civil servants a policy to start implementing.
It seems odd that those that complained the most loudly about unelected bureaucrats before the referendum now expect those same unelected bureaucrats to do the job of government ministers.
It must be OK though - at least they're OUR unelected bureaucrats...
Maybe the 2013 change enabled this:
If that's the case then if anything it strengthens the case against Apple IMO. The majority of the complaint seems to be around behaviour in 2014. If the change was introduced in 2013 and Apple had competent accountants working for them at the time then they should have been aware the deal wasn't tenable and was likely to be challenged.
I don't recall the definitions of what constitutes illegal state aid changing very much over recent years, so to me it would seem likely that whatever arrangement they had was just as unacceptable then as it is now.
Personally I fail to understand how this is a retrospective tax when the rules seem to have remained pretty much unchanged, and the only difference between now and then is the willingness to enforce them.
Add to the mix the fact that large corporations often have access to well funded and competent legal & accounting teams. When you take that into account it ends up being rather difficult to believe that somebody in one of those teams didn't raise the questionable nature of the arrangements *before* the investigation even started.
Their HQ in Cork apparently has 4,000 people working there.
The technology giant’s Cork base now employs 4,000 people with a further 2,500 people employed indirectly “in the local area”, according to Apple. Only the UK has more Apple employees than Ireland, although this is due to its 37 Apple retail stores, which employ an average of 100 retail staff per store.
The Cork office, which has been open since 1980 and was once primarily a manufacturing site, is Apple’s only global corporate headquarters outside the US. The majority working there are now engaged in non-manufacturing roles such as finance, supply chain management and customer support.
I wonder how the Irish government will explain to it's own people that it doesn't need that extra €13bln when austerity has already caused so much damage and is continuing to do so?
And if this sort of ruling applies to the whole of Europe, will large corporations really bother moving when the advantage in doing so is likely slim to non-existent? The process of moving people and facilities represents a big cost in itself and one they'd have to justify to their own shareholders.
Given the lack of action from the ICO in the past I'm not hopeful.
There's a hell a lot of inertia there against taking action that she'll have to confront within her own organisation before she gets anywhere with this.
Why are they allowed to continue to provide services to the NHS at all?
Maybe your old colleague had your phone number in his phone too and did use Facebook themself?
they make bullying and spreading lies too easy.
Isn't that a large part of what the 'old' media do anyway, with or without social media?
I've already sent an email to the ICO asking about this.
If anybody here needs to write to them for whatever reason they can be contacted using this email address:
casework [at] ico.org.uk
You do realise don't you that Facebook puts a lot of effort these days into tracking non-users as well as users?
You don't have to have an account for Facebook to have information on you.
That won't stop the sharing of data, just limit how it's used?
From the article:
Users are not able to opt out of this data sharing, although you can choose not to allow to be shared for the purpose of improving their experience with advertisements and product experiences on Facebook.
And the 2nd data protection principle? How does this comply with that?
Facebook is not needed in any way to run the service offered by WhatsApp (the spam argument IMO is a red herring) so presumably informed and *FREELY GIVEN* consent would be required for this data sharing.
I'd say $300M for all the visitors coming to the US is high, but not so bad.
For what benefit though?
Terrorists are just as likely to give out the accounts with all the nasty stuff as spies were likely to say 'yes actually, I *am* working for my government!' when presented with the old style green visa waiver forms. Or for that matter communists ticking the wrong box on said form.
This will have zero benefit whilst at the same time costing huge amounts of money.
It took me something of the region of one and a half to two hours to get through immigration at San Francisco last time. Add on the extra minutes for each person in front of me to deal with this and I'd probably have had to wait at least another hour.
And that doesn't even begin to cover old people who barely speak English and have trouble understanding what Twitter is, much less whether they have any account details to hand over.
Personally the only problem I've ever had with immigration when entering the US was the way in which they didn't filter out the non-ESTA travellers from the ESTA flights and travellers. If they're going to make things even worse then they really ought to look into changing that first
(there was a separate queue for ESTA visitors, but there was one rather big limitation: it was only for those that had their passports stamped within the last year - most hadn't been it seemed).
This meant when I got off the flight last year I was stuck behind a plane full of what I'm guessing were Chinese nationals (and the language issues many of the older people passing through seemed to have didn't help either). It seemed to take forever to get through, made even more annoying by how quickly me and those like me passed through when we finally got to the front of the queue.
1.) create dummy social media accounts
2.) leave the accounts empty
3.) hand these over to DHS
...with an option of leaving a single post in each account telling the DHS in no uncertain terms to go f*ck itself (and/or goatse related images if you want to make them seriously regret going anywhere near your profile)
Mediocrity breeds more mediocrity. When it comes to that sort of thing the situation tends to move in an ever downward spiral.
In that respect Cameron wasn't the first and - god help us - he won't be the last.
How else could you explain the likes of Boris Johnson getting as far as being appointed Foreign Secretary?
Vaizey may or may not be right with regards to the need for a new digital ministry, but if one ever does come into being then he's certainly not the man to lead it.
He voted *for* the Digital Economy Act, and then subsequently feigned confusion when the ISPs dared to object to it.
How about a £5 ukp a month levy on ALL domestic broad band connections (including mobile data) and pro rata on business data connections to directly fund fibre to the wilderness? Spread the pain for national gain?
If you could guarantee the money would be all spent on infrastructure, of course.
You could do that by re-nationalising it?
Has-been looking for directorship at BT talks bollocks.
I wonder if he's after a non-executive directorship, much like Patricia Hewitt before him? Or maybe his view has been shaped by Trade Ministers like Ian Livingston (who themselves used to head BT)?
On a note entirely related note, it's funny how there seems to be revolving doors between big business and government.
Even within government itself there are moves that seem a bit doogy. Take IoCCO and the more secretive Intelligence Services Commissoner for example: Jo Cavan used to head IoCCO, now she's moving to NTAC at the same time that both IoCCO and the Intelligence Services Commissoner are merging. NTAC is run by GCHQ. GCHQ is supposedly overseen in part by the Intelligence Services Commissoner.
So at the same time that IoCCO is merging with the government regulator overseeing GCHQ, the head of IoCCO effectively moves to GCHQ.
regulations based on preventing ex ante anti competitive behavior should become LESS relevant not more.
This has absolutely nothing to do with competition, unless you see privacy as something that should only be enforced when particular types of services are being used.
described earlier this year as “the Daily Mail of the Europhile elite”
In any case what exactly is wrong in extending rules that cover telcos to other organisations?
Those other organisations provide much the same service as the telcos, and the only real difference is the manner in which the service is provided.
Is this even legal?
Given the timing involved things could get even more interesting
Resorting to the use of article 50 has already dropped from 'immediately' to 'before September' and now both main tory candidates are saying it won't be before the end of the year. All within a week.
Is anybody else seeing a pattern here?
He wanted all schools to be 'above average'. That ought to tell you everything you need to know about him.
(see Q98 onwards)
We already had an equivalent of DARPA. It was called DERA. It should hardly come as a surprise though that the government of the time thought it best to flog it to the highest bidder (a large chunk of DERA is now QinetiQ).
If I recall correctly I was connected to a VPN server in France when I signed, despite being physically located in the restaurant at my local health club in Bracknell at the time. No doubt my signature would be on this list as a result.
Should that make my signature any less valid?
We're still fully paid up members of the EU until article 50 is invoked. Nothing has changed until that happens, nor does it seem likely now that it will ever happen, at least in the short term. For one thing it looks like the tories need to sort out a new PM first.
We're still full members of the EU until article 50 of the Lisbon treaty is used, so strictly speaking there is nothing currently stopping the new system from going ahead since it hasn't been invoked nor does it seem likely to be invoked in the near future?
In any case the referendum itself was purely advisory and has no laws behind it that compel us to follow the result. IANAL but where the laws are concerned there would appear to be nothing to stop the government from simply ignoring the result entirely. Of course that would probably never happen & would also have other ramifications but that's a different matter: the only impact it has on how we proceed is whatever the government decides it should be.
Probably not, and maybe I shouldn't have been feeding the troll, but there is something morally repugnant about how the RMT have reacted to this, especially when it seems to include unofficial strike action.
(I don't go anywhere near Southern trains either incidentally, at least not in over ten years now).
Re: the second link:
- The first lie is an argument over semantics and arguments over who will be called what and the responsibilities they will have, rather than whether they'll be on the train or not.
- The second appears to be over training that would be of little use anyway ('if the driver is incapacitated'? Seriously? Given that they are nowhere near the driver most if not all of the time they wouldn't have a hope in hell in 'avoiding a collision'). I've only heard of one accident in recent years where the train crew made any difference, and it wasn't the guard that stood out - it was the driver.
- The third seems to assume we'll accept the RMT at their word. I see no reason to do this given the previous games they have played.
- The fourth one regarding doors: just why exactly is it about the driver doing this that makes it less safe? Getting disabled people on and off? Then how can they seem to do that on the metro services on the rare occasions I've seen it?
- The fifth one ('GTR are the ones refusing to talk') could easily be rewritten as 'RMT refuse to accept any changes'.
As for that letter: when it comes to people who can't be bothered to pay before they get on then they get what they deserve IMO. Being busy or stuck in a queue is no excuse.
Incidentally, going back to the original point, why should anybody believe RMT rather than Southern Rail when it comes to illness levels?
This is the same Switzerland that still has it's own Safe Harbour agreement in force. It was originally meant to reflect the situation at the EU level, but nothing has changed since the Schrems court ruling and it's still on the books.
And the ICO refuse to do anything about UK data exported to the US without any legal basis with regards to UK/EU law if it's first exported to Switzerland first.
Just look at the games Deep Mind have already played with access to NHS patient data (without consent of the patients)
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides for general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every five years.
Interesting you should mention Switzerland: you recall that referendum they had a while back on limiting immigration? The EU refused to so much as discuss it after those wanting more stringent limits won, and made it clear to the Swiss that any such curb would result in loss of access to the single market.
That's essentially where we would end up: passing meaningless votes that have zero impact on the end result. Our parliament would be 'sovereign' of course but in reality it would mean next to nothing.
I'm surprised somebody who appears to have had so many problems with UK bureaucracy would actually want to give them more influence not less.
Not to mention that the UK itself with or without the EU hasn't been the best place to come up with new ideas over recent years.