Was there a Q&A afterwards?
And if so, was the first Q: "Mr President, do you have the *slightest* clue what the hell you are talking about???"
6803 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
And if so, was the first Q: "Mr President, do you have the *slightest* clue what the hell you are talking about???"
Excuse me, but I think you've mistaken this for the Daily Mail comments page...
Whilst this sounds like a good thing, it's probably going to be part of the Tories attempt to rip up all the Planning Laws such that their rich mates can build loads of houses and supermarkets and by-passes ("It's a by-pass, you've got to build by-passes!") on greenfield sites (or flood plains) without needing to go through all that tedious business of demonstrating that there's actually a need or a justification for them...
So, once every year, you have to check your rate and see if it's still competitive?
Damn, life is *SO* hard, isn't it...?
I was just thinking something very similar: Could this system be reversed to provide a modifiable fingerprint?
It would make a great James Bond gizmo...
'...for antispoofing techniques for fingerprint recognition systems”'
No, there's an urgent need to comprehend the fact that biometric IDs are *NOT* secure and are *NOT* substitutes for passwords or 2FA systems!
"... should help intelligence analysts crack crypto used by criminals."
Because the crypto used by criminals is *completely different* from every other sort of encryption, isn't it...???
... the People who brought you the F104
Flying Coffin Starfighter...
Ok, which El Reg Hack or Sub-Ed is posting as AC?
"...in the European Parliament have played games with this proposal from day one," Timothy Kirkhope, a Conservative MEP said, according to Reuters. Kirkhope said that the proposed law is a "critical counter-terrorism tool".
Ah, Monsieur Pot, je suis Monsieur Kettle...
... Do NOT download MAME until you have cleared a large space in your calendar!
Which is followed by "In this digital age, data stored on mobile devices has proven time and again to be critical in assisting law enforcement officers to do their jobs."
That may be the case, but it is *NOT* a justification for fishing expeditions, nor widespread surveillance, ID cards, snooping on everyone based on the principle of "if you have nothing to hide..."
And, of course, it doesn't mention all those many more other cases which have been solved *without* accessing such information with that thing called "old fashioned police work".
> society accepts that the people that break its rules and laws should not be able to rely on those same laws to prevent them from being punished.
Did this one come from the Daily Mail's pages or maybe David Cameron (who thinks that "as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone" is no longer acceptable)?
We have things called Human Rights Laws which say that *everyone* is entitled to the same liberties and protections, not just for people who believe the "right" things or come from the "right" places" or worship the "right" gods or have the "right" skin colour.
Clearly Sir William Blackstone's words: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer” are also no longer applicable.
> wait until you or your family are at the end of a crime and the person walks free because they were unable to prove their case. Thanks to that black-screened iPhone. Then you may not back Tim Cook quite so strongly
This is the same argument I've heard from the pro-gun lobby in the USA: "You may be anti-gun now, but wait until someone's pointing one at you or your family is killed by a criminal because they couldn't defend themselves, then let's see how strong your principles are!"
This is the sort of thing which tests those principles. Do we cave in to the "Terrorists and Paedophiles and Criminals Oh My" demands or do we stand up for what we believe in and say "No, we are not going to let you fool us into giving up our rights and liberties wholesale because you can't get your way in this case"?
PS I have to wonder whether this entire article was written as some sort of massive troll...
One online bank I use simply requires you to input a 5 digit code to access your account. Another is slightly more secure asking for eg characters 1, 3 and 5 from a memorable word.
Not the most secure ever...
If only there was a simple solution to this problem...
... the BBC allowed me to access their programmes wherever I am in the world, I'd have no problems with paying a bit extra.
Their content is still a hell of a lot better than most of the mass-market crap that's churned out around the world!
Oh come on, that should really be a "stronghold"!
> You seem to be confusing Civil Servants with the Daily Mail. They're not the same.
No, but the DM et al can be counted on to uncritically repeat press releases or stories from "sources" and add their own -ageddon spin to them...
Whilst I don't disagree with Bruce Schneier, when he says this and "People are fairly good at predicting where technology is going, but have a very poor record at predicting the knock-on social effects", surely the problem is that nobody knows (or *can* know) where this stuff is going.
History is littered with innumerable examples of a technology with one purpose having a completely unexpected effect on something which you'd have thought was totally unconnected, yet, because of that effect, the world has changed.
Yes, of course, we should design security and safety into such systems, but predicting what they may lead to is another matter entirely.
> exactly what 'panics' are you referring to?
The sort being engineered by the Sir Humphreys of this world.
Damnit, man, don't you know we're facing Padeo/Terror/Drug/Crime-ageddon and the only way to deal with them is to snoop on everyone's internet activity!
... and so are you!
- From the Cyberpunk RPG
"...know where their data was physically stored."
Well, it's in the Cloud, isn't it...?
I'd wonder whether the source was "wobbling" such that it's not always pointing right in our direction.
Still, it's always great to know that the universe has plenty more fascinating secrets to be discovered.
Some years ago at my grandmother's funeral, someone commented how much myself, my cousins, my uncle and my late father and grandfather all looked like each other. Subsequently, looking back through some family photos, it was the same for my great-grandfather and his brothers.
All of us went grey at an early age (my hair started greying at about 21) but none of us have lost it or even showed signs of thinning.
I can live with that :-)
... in the Observation Dome.
This is me working on the remote arm.
This is me space walking.
This is that lovely couple from Alpha Centauri.
This is the side of the ISS
This is the front of the ISS
This is the front of the ISS but you can see a bit of the side.
This is the Spanish Inquisition...
"...which has profited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to fees that it set by itself, warned that it has to reduce its budget expectations in the face of poor sales."
> Ofcom is just another empire building scheme,
Ah, but then it would be "independent" (well, under different control) and would provide an excuse to start cutting BBC services and selling them off to the highest bidder such that eventually we'd have *no* broadcaster which isn't sucking the Corporate Tit*
* Mentioning no names as to *who* the Corporate Tit may be...
"It is difficult for users to understand and assess the scope of the agreement accepted by them. There is considerable doubt as to the admissibility of this procedure, in particular under applicable national data protection law."
"But they agreed to it! And they can always stop using Facebook if they want! And anyway, we're not based in your country so you can't touch us!"
(Just setting up a few squares for a new game of Bull$hit Bingo!)
Of course if you're just stopping for a couple of minutes, the correct technique is to approximately park your car in a space, but about two feet out from the kerb and then put on your hazard warning lights so it looks to everyone else as if you're trying to pull out...
It's not as far as I'm concerned.
When I was (much) younger, the road outside our house was due to be resurfaced, so there were big No Parking signs and cones all along one side, but this didn't stop some idiot from parking their car in the way.
I watched the workmen "bounce" the car across the road, do their resurfacing and then, later on, bounce it back, but they turned it so it was facing the opposite direction!
The confusion on the driver's face when he came back was most amusing...
Please, my professional ethics mean I will not reveal whether someone is or is not a customer.
PS your Macho Big-Boy Bondage Harness will be in the post on Monday...
But I dilligently shared that message that said he was giving it all away with all my friends...
Concorde had the famous "Droop snoot" which allowed the nose to hinge downwards to enable the pilots to see to land. Unless this has cameras in the nose, that snoot would have to be *very* droopy to let this happen.
PS Concorde: The only operational civilian passenger aeroplane with afterburners!
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
Because there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Monty Python - The Universe Song.
(Thumb icon because there's no Foot one ;-) )
> how many of Trend Micro's obviously highly skilled multilingual analysts took the opportunity for a slight change of career path
If you can't be a good example, you can always be a terrible warning!
Mostly these hearings are about those asking the questions making sure they look good for the cameras and, if possible, getting a good soundbite on the news so they can say to their voters "Look, see, I'm doing stuff for you!"
Often it seems they spend so much time making speeches that they have bugger all time left to ask questions at all!
Very very rarely I will switch off my ad blocker if there's a site I *need* to use and can't access it without, but more often I switch to another browser that doesn't block, but which clears history, cache, cookies and so on as soon as I exit.
You mean what *we've* wanted for years because of their annoying/ intrusive/ loud/ slow/ malware laden adverts which force us to use uBlock etc to allow us to browse in peace?
See icon for details...
Well they couldn't call it DROW because they'd be sued by Wizards of the Coast...
"...for local authorities and government departments to share citizen data without breaching the Data Protection Act"
And the easiest way to do that is to weaken the protections the plebs already have! Trebles all round!
> perhaps you missed the proposals to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights
Ironically, Cameron is campaigning to stay In, even though this would actually make it *more* difficult for him to dump the ECHR and introduce his "You have the Rights we *say* you can have, provided they're not too inconvenient for us" British Bill of Rights.
*Provided* the ads aren't irritating and intrusive, I would generally agree.
However when it's flashing "You have ONE new message!" or "Your Phone May Be Infected, Scan Now!" in an extremely annoying manner, you'll find that this user prefers to uninstall that app and find one that doesn't piss him off!
Just as long as you've got plenty of cute yellow Minions ;-)
... the design was based on a '60s psychadelic poster!
... basically none of the things that our politicians are using to scare us into accepting that they should have the ability to snoop on everything we do and every website we visit and everyone we talk to and...
(Need a Big Brother slapping forehead icon!)
If you are doing something which is visible from the public highway then there is *nothing* that says that someone cannot take a photograph of you.
If they are on private land, then you are entitled to ask them to stop taking photographs and leave, but if you are not taking reasonable steps to preserve your privacy (cf the aforementioned "curtains") then you can complain all you like, but they are not breaking the law.
Yes, photographers should be reasonable in their actions, personally I dislike the Papparazzi using mega long lenses to take photos of "celebrities" on boats or from boats to the beach etc, but they are not committing an offence.
In any case, this is well away from the point, unless you think that the photographer was invading the privacy of the PoT!
Trouble is, Slander (defamation by speech) is a civil offence, not criminal and you have to prove that you suffered loss or damage because of it, something which is difficult to do without expensive Barristers.