So in *this* case...
... encryption is ok?
6874 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... encryption is ok?
No, I ordered the Hawaiian, not the Pepperoni...
> Read the report and try and form your own opinion.
Certainly, Matt. And my first opinion is (unsurprisingly) that you've cherry-picked quotes that support your position whilst missing out other, very relevant, sections.
There is a further related issue – the level of vetting required for control room operators to access police Airwave or the ANPR system. It is currently, rightly, the decision of the Chief Constable on whether or not to give access to the Local Authority control room. This is important and my concern is the lack of consistency and the absence of a recommended standard. This is something I have raised with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) via the ANPR and CCTV policing leads.
It is now possible for UK police forces to interrogate in excess of 11 billion records per year lodged on the system. The main ways that the data can be exploited through data mining are outlined as:
• vehicle tracking: real time and retrospective;
• vehicle matching: identifying all vehicles that have taken a particular route during a particular time frame;
• geographical matching: identifying all vehicles present in a particular place at a particular time;
• network analysis: by identifying the drivers of vehicles and their network of associates, ANPR can be used to indicate vehicles that may be travelling in convoy;
Now whilst, of course, someone like you would argue that this is a good thing for finding paedophiles and drug dealers and terrorists, someone who has a slightly broader perspective would realise that this also contains a risk of abuse since it could be used to identify anyone whose vehicle was in the vicinity of an event which was not officially approved by the State.
In 2015 the Home Office has committed approximately £5 million to support the development of the National ANPR Service which includes cloud based storage.
Hmm, cloud based storage? I wonder if any of that is based in the USA or owned by US corporations who are, of course, required to hand over any and all such information to their Security Services on demand (and not tell anyone they've done so...)
And in the section titled "Legitimacy of ANPR system use by police" where the author of El Reg's gets the quote about the lack of "statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database, its creation was never agreed by parliament, and no report on its operation has even been laid before parliament" (so, clearly, Kat Hall *has* RTFR) it also says:
These issues fall into sharper focus given the desire within some quarters in the police to extend retention periods from the currently agreed two year period to a maximum of seven years. I have referred these concerns over the legality of ANPR to the Home Office.
(Perish the thought that the Home Office would disagree or retroactively change the rules...)
Then in the section "Compliance with Guiding Principles within the Surveillance Code of Practice" the report's author says:
I have openly called for greater transparency from the police relating to the numbers of ANPR cameras deployed and any evidence relating to their efficiency and effectiveness to also be published. It is not acceptable to have to rely on submitting Freedom of Information requests. Police forces should be willing to publish this information on websites and engage in debates around its usage.
So I think my opinion is that the report's author isn't quite as "supportive" of ANPR and the database it generates as you assert...
Yes, Matt is correct in *one* small detail, but, as I pointed out, that's only a tiny part of this. (Of course that won't stop him declaring victory...)
> one of the valid defences is to claim that someone other than the named driver was operating the vehicle at the time of the offence
It is not enough to *claim* that someone else was operating the vehicle, you have to *name* them as the law requires that you to know who is driving your vehicle at all times and fibbing about this tends to get you into trouble as a certain ex-MP found out...
"And it's Bryant, he's got the ball, he shoots... he moves the goalposts... HE SCORES!! And the crowd goes... meh."
Let's see what is *actually* being said:
There is no statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database;
such a move warrants a specific statutory basis and "clear mechanisms for accountability and governance". Privacy, data protection and human rights concerns must also be properly addressed,
No justification has ever been made for the change in the use of ANPR technology from a tool used to target suspected vehicles to the enormous national database
The lack of statutory oversight highlighted [...] should be urgently addressed [...] drivers are none the wiser as to what is happening to their data
the public must be made aware of how advancements in technology can alter the way they are monitored. There needs to be consultation and debate on matters that can severely impact on an individual’s right to privacy
So, whilst privacy is mentioned in there, it's only one *small* part of the overall picture and to claim that it's ok because the data on registration numbers themselves is not "personal" information is disingenuous at best and laughable at worst.
This is not about "the police using a specific record to convict someone of some crime", it is about *everyone* being considered a potential suspect and paedophile/ terrorist/ drug dealer (Oh my!) such that we must *all* be tracked and our journeys recorded just in case we may do something wrong.
We have a report from the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the guy who was appointed *by the Government* to look at these matters on one hand and, on the other, a Funding *Bid* which *recommends* "that the Commissioner approve the submission of a bid to the Police Innovation Fund that if successful would support the development of the National ANPR Service" and a page from Wikipedia that Matt has managed to dig up to support his usual argument that we should allow the State to snoop on all of us, because *he* thinks that's a good idea.
Which one do you consider the more reliable, boys and girls?
"... its creation was never agreed by parliament; and no report on its operation has even been laid before parliament."
"Well, yeah, but nobody told us we *couldn't* do it. (Of course we didn't actually bother to ask anyone...)"
... about walking plants...
If it was just because they'd "lost out", then there wouldn't be a case.
If, however, FB deliberately witheld relevant information from potential purchasers in order to encourage people to buy over-valued shares, that's another matter entirely...
Here's what the law says:
* * * * *
Sexual Offences Act 2003:
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
* * * * *
So unless he was waving it around and shouting "Get a load of this, darling!" no offence was committed.
(PS for pedants: Although it says "he", that's simply for convenience and brevity and it includes women too)
... not block anonymous calls?
When I do 1471 and get a message saying "We do not have the caller's number", THAT is as good a definition of "anonymous" as you can get, yet those calls *still* get through to my phone.
WHY? It is hardly rocket science to realise that if I can get that message *after* I do 1471, then my phone company can do it *before* they put the call through and, if it thinks "Oh, I would play the 'we do not have the caller's number' message if someone does 1471, then it does *NOT* put the fucking junk call through!
That started with the military, didn't it?
Now try asking Firefighters or Mountain Rescue teams or any other such group who may need to carry heavy equipment over rough terrain that is impassible to 4x4s and see what they think...
> What kind of nutcase would put something like that in the hands of a child?
The point is, even in the hands of an experienced pilot, things can go wrong. If some idiot decides to fly a drone near an airport or over a busy road or off the top of a block of flats and there's a problem, there is a risk to anyone below. And even a moped in the wrong place can cause an accident...
... In other words, it's ok when *we* do it...
Ah, that brings back memories!
Not only great graphics and gameplay, but also voice clips from the film: "Red Five standing by", "Look at the size of that thing!" and, of course, Obi Wan urging you to "Use the force Luke" when you did the Death Star trench run where, if you could complete it without firing your lasers, you got a bonus to your score!
A team of three once played the game for over 5 days, racking up a top score of one *billion* (and twelve) points before calling it quits! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_%281983_video_game%29#Records
"Every time Zuck is able to put the Internet's resources to work collecting people's information it's a win for him and his advertisers..."
Populating (or over-populating or even going for all-out nuclear war) won't destroy a planet. Sure, it'll majorly fuck up the ecosystem, but the big ball of rock will still be there.
Common sense *should be* designing an app with security *first* in mind, not 27th after all the bells and whistles and pretty bits...
> Even if I decide to call the MDs office?
Then you get the switchboard drone who is unlikely to put you through... :-(
I suggest you look at the "success" of such filtering systems like that of Australia where it wasn't just porn that was being blocked, but other sites which were considered to be "objectionable".
If you want your ISP to block stuff, feel free to ASK them to do it, but don't be so arrogant as to assume that everyone else wants the Nanny State to tell them what they can or cannot see, simply because you don't like it.
> I would be strongly tempted to call up customer services and make things as awkward for them as possible
Unfortunately, of course, this will just be awkward for some call centre drone who had nothing to do with Uncle Rupert and Nanny David's puritanical decision making... :-(
... I was thinking "Yeah, but how long before the first kitten pic was posted?"
(Followed by "I bet it was after the first porn appeared...!")
> I still like driving my BMW on a german highway.
But can you still use the indicators (unlike most British BMW drivers)...?
> other dvr< cars moving out of the way automatically.
Well at least they're more likely to move over when I'm filtering past them on my motorbike :-)
(Instead of being a cunt and deliberately moving to block me because "If I have to sit in this jam, then so should everyone else...)
... bit early for April 1st...
... What? You're *serious*???
... they don't go the British route where simply refusing to reveal your password becomes a criminal offence (supposedly it was to "protect" us from terrorism, but nobody bothered to include that stipulation in the law, so it's wide open for abuse...)
"...with people creating fake news stories in order to reflect their own hatred and prejudices."
Or even taking deliberate spoofs ( eg the fake video clip which intentionally took quotes from Obama and made it sound as if he was admitting that he wasn't an American citizen) and stripping out the bit at the beginning making it clear that it's not real, simply because it fits their political biases and they want others to believe that it's real.
Unfortunately too many people are willing to "like" and "share" such things without even bothering to apply the slightest critical thought to whether it is real or not :-(
... the droids you're looking for...
> human ones are cheaper and so much more fun to make.
And can be built by unskilled labour...
That's one of the politicians' classic Weasel Phrases. It doesn't mean "We won't", it just means "We won't *YET*, but we haven't ruled out doing it later..."
> my toaster demanding a certain brand of bread
... why they want backdoors into encryption methods...
... there's a surprise...!
(See icon for details)
("If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Motto of Lord Vetinari)
A fundamental principle of engineering is that function defines form, so if you have a design that works, why mess around with it? (Certain software producers could take better note of this!)
Not only that, but, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the amount of money spent on building not just one, but *two* Death Stars, could have been crippling to Imperial Finances, so when the Alliance took over, they'd not have a lot of dosh to play around with (but hopefully they had more sense than to go on a programme of Austerity!)
So widespread, centralised development probably stalled and it was only the Elon Musks of the galaxy who would actually be engaged in bringing new equipment and technologies to the market.
Time (again) for one of my favourite quotes, from Isaac Asimov:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in physics, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
ADDENDUM: Bugger, just read further down the comments and noticed that Joseph Eoff beat me to it... :-/
> Please, do point us at the phone that was identical to the first iPhone, including its user experience
Please do try to get it into your head that that is *NOT* what is being appealed in this case!
Quoting from the Documents linked in the original article:
The court allowed the jury to find infringement based merely on similarities in “overall appearance” and indeed, based on “any perceived similarities or differences” whatsoever.
Compounding this problem, the Federal Circuit allowed the jury to award Samsung’s entire profits from the sale of smartphones found to contain the patented designs—here totaling $399 million. It held that Apple was “entitled to” those entire profits no matter how little the patented design features contributed to the value of Samsung’s phones. In other words, even if the patented features contributed 1% of the value of Samsung’s phones, Apple gets 100% of Samsung’s profits.
The Federal Circuit did not dispute that such a result is ridiculous, but said it was compelled by Section 289 of the Patent Act.
The argument is that the Federal Circuit was *not* "complled by Section 289 of the Patent Act" and the awarding of 100% of the profits is completely disproportionate.
I also have to wonder what would happen if they were found to have infringed *two* such "patents". Would they have to pay out *twice* the profits...?
Homophobia is not exclusive to any particular national group or religion!
And I, too, fear an open and liberal society is being eroded, but generally that's by our short-sighted "we must be seen to be doing something" politicians who can't (or won't) consider the long-term results of their actions because they're not going to appear until after the next election. Again, though, this isn't down to the actions or demands of one particular group.
> I think the real worry is that there are sufficient of these idiots around, and it is not significant if there are 50 or 200.
Are you familar with the concept of "Risk Perception"? Put simply, you are *much* more likely to die in a car accident or be knocked down whilst crossing the street or any of the common-place everyday activities which we all engage in without a second thought, because, unless such things are spectaculare in some way, they simply don't make it into the mainstream media.
Of course Daesh love people with attitudes like this, because every time they should "Boo!" these people jump and demand even more restrictions of our freedoms and liberties and push for more attacks in the Middle East which will only result in the radicalisation of more moderates.
As for the story about the school (which is actually from a blog, I note written back in 2009, and from someone who has strong views about alleged "political correctness"), it was your "argumentation" which was dubious since you claimed it without citing a source initially, hence my scepticism.
In any case, it sounds to me like a mixture of a militant minority of parents and a group of spineless administrators who were so desperate to avoid offence that they were willing to agree to the parents' demands, neither of which behaviours impresses me.
In response to your final comment, I'd point out that *you* were the one objecting to the way "they live in our societies and are infringing on our beliefs and freedoms, by by pushing their medieval beliefs on us", I just pointed out that *we* were doing the same in their countries. If we don't want them to do it over here, it is hypocritical of us to do it over there.
> while a light saber's a very cool weapon, it's hardly "the deadliest in the universe".
"The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force,,,"
... Please, let's look at this from an "in universe" viewpoint, where you have directed energy weapons (blasters) and deflector shields meaning that you already have a way of containing and manipulating energy.
So you create your plasma from the same sort of "batteries" you have in a blaster then use a force-field of a similar sort that you use on your shields to contain it, giving you a) the cutting ability and b) the method of blocking other light sabre blades or blaster bolts.
Therefore all we need to do is to massively increase the energy density of our batteries and create some force-field technology.
How? Not my department, that's a hardware problem...
Who we pay for *anyway*.
All this means is that we'll be paying ISPs etc to do it through our bills, rather than Gideon having to raise taxes which gives him (sort of) plausible deniability.
... will that inconvenience? (Quoting Deep Thought from HHGTTG)
"... to make sure that users have confidence in the security of the networks that are being offered"
Minister: "Yes, we can confidently assure the public that we have been given the best advice on how to ensure that our systems are not hacked and that patients' data is secure. (Sotto voce) And we've ignored all of it because that sort of thing is expensive and by the time it all goes tits-up, someone else will be in this job and some poor sap three levels down will be blamed and any fines levied will just transfer money from one balance sheet to another..."