> The physical security of the meter is strong
What? It's on the outside of the house in a non-locking enclosure. There is NO physical security!
3071 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
"Sky (still) get your money, you get (I assume) a better mix of programming for you."
Company sells package A in country 1 for X. Company also sells package A in country 2 for Y. X is 2Y. The company wants to sell as many at price X as possible because there is more profit.
Geo-locks are one tool that lets them do this. So the company will get upset if that is removed. Under TTIP they would probably sue the countries involved (and win).
It seems that "free trade" only applies to the seller, not the purchaser.
"There is also the competition aspect, why should you pay more when the content is available elsewhere for cheaper."
That's true of everything, but the companies want one-way free trade. i.e. they can sell everywhere, but you can only buy where the company decides.
Which isn't free trade at all.
"But surely every police force has a sufficiently trained and funded CSI team who can analyse DNA from the slightest speck and match it within minutes through a national database which is so fast and efficient it even flashes up the mug shots of each sample it's matching against."
Almost, which is why the smart crooks poison the scene by dropping items they have collect from random places. In the TV show the evil-doers had a "DNA-bomb" device to poison the evidence; how long before we see that in the real world?
Yes. Well, it certainly shouldn't be taken as proof of identity - instead part of some greater whole. The general mantra is "something you have, something you know".
Biometrics are pretty simple for people and, as with many things in security, ease of use is inverse to strength of security.
Just look at the state of things in the USA. We don't want such a small number of operators, we need true competition.
We need legislation to ensure that the networks are open to all comers and that it remains possible to a new player to enter should incumbents try to gouge customers.
The sale isn't the issue, the day is.
I also have the quaint idea that retail stores should open 1200-2000, rather than 0900-1700. This woyld give them better overlap with their customers. Also, it would partially alleviate rush hour.
I did look at a few black slaes after work, but anything of interest was either not on sales, or only a couple of pounds off; no mega-deals.
"No self-respecting terrorist (well: one who hopes or expects to walk away from an "incident") would give up the goods that easily and therefore the only data they will collect will be from harmless individuals and private citizens with no nefarious intent."
AIUI, the terrorists who flow into the WTC made no effort to hide the identifies. So these measures would have been ineffective anyway as no one joined the dots.
Or maybe they did, and let it happen. /tin-foil-hat
"Most useful remedy might be to simply provide more information to the public on call quality."
You could probably use an FoI to OfCom to get that, whole will then refuse under "Commercial Confidentiality".
The one thing a Tory government does not want is more openness and the possibility of being scrutinised by the public. Not that Labour would be any better. Both cut from the same cloth.
People moan about the fractured nature of the mobile space in the UK, this upper-crust, Etonian old-boy doesn't give two damns.
He has a problem with one or two calls and all hell lets lose.
Maybe if his pension funds collapse or his back mis-sells him some insurance he'll begin to give a crap about regulating the financial sector.
Until then, it'll be the usual "Piss off, prole" attitude from the Tories.
"but steadfastly refuses to produce a stable API that would allow connected device manufacturers (and everyone else) to build and maintain their own clients at their own expense."
Because the BBC is run by technology ignorant middle managers who are only interested in expanding their fiefdoms than providing an actual service to the public.
iPlayer could become a reference implementation and the community could pick up the slack. This would allow any OS, any device to be supported that the community saw fit.
As to unflashable TVs...that's a matter for OEMs. Consumers can help by simply not buying a TV that they can't upgrade or install new software on. Which is all of them at the moment!
I would like to posit that tools such as "get_iplayer" actually reduced piracy. People simply used the community tool to connect to the legitimate service.
Now what is the easiest option for the dedicated BBC viewer going to be?
Fart around in a browser or with the specific desktop application (no available for all OSs)....or use a plug-in for their current media front-end that pulls content from other sources?
...I am an avid user of XBMC (now "Kodi") as it is *the best* media front-end bar none. Why don't I use a browser? Because a browser on the TV is feckin' crap, that's why!
Why don't I use the "Smart" features of my TV? I don't have a "Smart" TV, but even if I did I would still use XBMC as it link to the other content on my network.
Why don't I use iPlayer on the set-top box? Because for some STUPID reason, it doesn't allow me to watch films.
Do I download videos via the iPlayer plug-in? No, I just watch 'em and move one.
If you are upset with "get_iplayer" etc, why not take some of the energies you just wasted in going and write something better for XBMC et al.
edit: There are workarounds it seems. Hopefully the community will deliver what the BBC refuses to (despite the BBC being paid millions to provide a service).
I wonder when the BBC will start trying to detect VPN usage....
Indeed, just like banking. Can't interrupt criminals at work.
Why there isn't a flat fee per individual I don't know.
Non-identifying info - £1 per record
Communication info [cyber] - £2 per address
Communication info [real] - £5 per number
Identifying info [minor] - £10 per record (e.g. name and city - probably not enough to be truly unique)
Identifying info [reversible] - £50 per record (e.g. when combined with another readily available dataset, it become trivial to uniquely identify a person; name, postcode, d.o.b)
Identifying info [full] - £100 per record (without reference to any other dataset, it is possible to uniquely identify someone)
Add in some other entries for financial etc and you can simply calculate a fine, which could well be ruinous even for a small breach (e.g. "Racing Post" could have been on to a £6.7million pound fine). AND THAT'S A GOOD THING!
Well, it will make companies seriously consider if they need to collect that information at all; rather than just doing the data-rape land-grab they do now.
> If the agreement you have committed to with a supplier includes limitations
Which is an argument for Free Software, no limitations can be imposed.
In fact the only "limitation" (if you want to call it that) is to preserve the freedom of any subsequent derivatives you release.
> for example, some "free" software disallows its use for military purposes.
Then, by definition, it's not free software.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019