"The Bill restates the government’s position...
"...and unilaterally asserts UK jurisdiction overseas"
Ah, I see they're learning from the Yanks...
6882 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"...and unilaterally asserts UK jurisdiction overseas"
Ah, I see they're learning from the Yanks...
... for a comment from amanfrommars1...
But why should journalists bother with all that tedious investigation and researching of facts when they can just get ill-informed, ignorant or bigotted Joe and Josephine Public to rabbit on for a while about something they really don't understand?
"Doesn't matter which party is in power, you're going to be screwed either way, so bend over and smile..."
"...to substantial reforms to respect human rights and international law,"
And on that day, Satan will be seen ice-skating to work.
I've downvoted you because you miss the entire point about Human Rights and Civil Liberties and trotting out a variant on the "I have nothing to hide" nonsense we hear so often.
These protections are there for *everyone's* benefit, including yours (whether you want them or not). More importantly, YOU do not have the right to decide that OUR Rights should be treated with such disdain simply because you don't understand how important they are.
> I fear we will lose some of our liberties in the name of safety.
Do I really need to quote Ben Franklin again...?
If they haven't listened to the feedback already, why should we believe that they're going to listen to it now?
"MOPAC is also minded to pursue a claim against Northrop Grumman for costs and damages arising from the supplier's failure to deliver a command and control solution in accordance with the contract"
But if they do, will they have a good chance of getting their (our!) money back or will we end up with an even bigger bill as their lawyers' fees are added on top?
it will be prohibited from carrying out such misrepresentations in the future and will require people it has paid to display its goods to clearly disclose the fact. [...]
The FTC did not impose a fine
This is barely a stern telling off, it's just a finger-wagging.
There was a film "Cat's Eye" based on a Stephen King story which had a similar idea...
Good job I never started then.
(There's an advantage to being the geeky kid at school, you don't tend get into the sort of peer group that thinks smoking is cool)
Is that the new Onesie?
... there should be Dilbert Cartoon from this lot with the Elbonians running their "cloud" server which is a bunch of guys in a building with *lots* of filing cabinets and keyboards...
The problem is not with the ad blockers, it is with the adverts that get pushed out by the people who they *allow* to put their adverts on their sites.
What they *should* be doing is telling the advertisers to stop producing all the bandwidth hogging, malware laden, irrititating, noisy and intrusive adverts which make people HAVE to use ad blockers in order to have a less frustrating browsing experience on their sites!
Until then they are just shooting themselves in the foot with this idiotic stunt.
> are you still not over the thrashing you Lefties took in the General Election?
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the election, it has, as I said, to do with the Government forcing laws through Parliament to retroactively make legal something that was illegal when it was done.
Which part of that didn't you understand?
And "Lessons have been learned"
(The "Lesson" being "Don't get caught next time...!)
It wouldn't matter, Treasonous May and her merry band would just rush a quick law-change through Parliament, retroactively making it legal.
Is that Neuromancer or Wintermute...?
As far as many (from Parliament and the ACPO downwards) are concerned, laws are for the Little People, to keep the plebs in line, but it's perfectly acceptable for those who have the power to ignore them or interpret them creatively "for the greater good".
... the people who wanted to introduce ID Cards, ANPR cameras at every junction so they could track our journeys and issue automatic speeding tickets if you got from A to B too fast, who wanted to monitor the development of every child *just in case* they might turn out to be a potential juvenile delinquent...
They *think* they're exempted - see the Wilson Doctrine for details...
> She is either stupid or has some other, hidden, purpose.
I don't see that as an either/ or question...
> I've stopped taking Windows Updates on my Windows 7 boxes.
I haven't, because some of the updates *are* actually beneficial.
However each "Important" update is checked out carefully to see if there's nagware included or, worse, that a previously rejected (and hidden!) update has suddenly reappeared in another guise.
No? Then sod off!
... had the right idea: Don't interface all your systems as it leaves you vulnerable!
Yes, of course Security has to be given due prominence, especially in these days of the IoT etc, but it should not be so incredibly frustrating when you have to create a password with an upper case letter, a lower case letter, a number, a punctuation symbol, a Norse rune, a colour, a Haiku and a DNA sample and then get told three months later that it needs updating but you can't use *any* of the aforementioned in the new one...
PS "ask yourself whether you'd break down the door of your secure data store to rescue the guy inside in the event of a fire"
Or ask the BofH...
There's a privately owned Fire Appliance parked in Goldsmith Avenue in Portsmouth which has been there for the last year or so.
It occasionally changes position, so presumably it gets driven around once in a while, but by whom, I don't know.
> If someone was to hack in to a system in order to delete a database of illegally held information, would it be a crime?
Unfortunately, yes. It's what you do, not *why* you do it that tends to count.
Of course that doesn't apply if your the Police/ Security Services/ Government/ whoever because it's one law for us and another one for them (or, at least, one that they can ignore...)
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...
... 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.