* Posts by h4rm0ny

4617 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Ahmed's clock wasn't a bomb, but it blew up the 'net and Zuckerberg, Obama want to meet him


Re: Why he weas arrested?

His real crime, whatever they euphemistically call it, was embarrassing authority. Authority must at all times appear superior in wisdom to those it holds power over, or else the smarter one appears as a potential rival. At each stage, the escalation was a result of Authority trying to squash the appearance of having been made a fool of. A teacher is outsmarted by a schoolchild? Bad! The child must be punished and made an example of so that everyone knows it was the child that was wrong. Sent to the principle's office? The principle must re-establish the chain of authority - make the child sign something so that everybody knows they have admitted they were wrong and Authority was right. The child refuses to sign? The child is embarrassing Authority even more now, Authority must up the stakes. Suspend the child. Authority needs what the child has done to be Serious to justify punishing the child. Get the police! The police will scare the child. Wave an arrest at him. If the police are involved we know that this is Serious and Authority is in control. The child's father gets a lawyer, the child gets the public on their side? This has gotten far out of hand. Higher authority must now intervene to show it is in control. Inaction makes people doubt. As Julius Ceasar remarked in HBO's Rome: "I cannot punish you so I must reward you." Obama calls, says that the child has pleased him, that the lesser than Obama Authorities are wrong and back down. Thus Authority is preserved, order restored. We know that there is still ultimate authority and it was lessers in the hierarchy who acted without approval and now they are to be punished. The child is in favour of Authority and that's okay, so long as Authority at the top is still the one handing out rewards and punishments.

Authority must preserve itself lest Anarchy and Merit rule.


Re: The name Mohamed has earned its Terrorist Rep

At the risk of wrestling with a pig, have you done a comparison with how many people named Mohammed or Ahmed haven't "blown themselves up" ? There are two billion muslims on the planet and most of the male ones have some variation of Mohammed somewhere in their name. So, given your obvious belief that names determine behaviour, what you're telling me is that the chance of someone called Mohammed building a bomb is something like 2,000,000 to 1? Great, sounds pretty safe to me.


Re: Why he weas arrested?

And fifteen of the nineteen investigated were from Saudi Arabia and all were backed by Saudi funding. But America still managed to invade the wrong country over it (twice). So... your point? Are you some believer in Nominative Determinism?


Re: My friend did take a bomb to (primary) school.

People seem mostly raised to avoid all personal responsibility these days and abdicate everything to authority. Which is the goal of many in authority these days - cogs in a machine not co-operating independent actors. It's as much this as it is idiocy and lack of education. We haven't evolved a difference in our brains in fifty years. The smarts are still there in most cases, it's just people have been taught to turn them off.

Bible apps are EVIL says John McAfee as he phishes legal sysadmins in real time


Re: Paranoid?

Who the Hell said anything about cheques?

Black Helicopters


Seems a little harsh. I mean he's right, after all. Another interesting one from his blog that didn't make it into the article above is a conversation he had with a US bank about their app for customers. He asked a spokesperson for the bank why such an app needed permissions to use the microphone and camera and the spokesperson replied quite openly that they get a lot of claims that a money transfer wasn't really done by the account holder when the account holder later regrets what they've done. The bank spokesperson said "if we have a picture of the person using their phone at the time of the transfer or a recording of them joking with friends about how much they're about to spend, then we've got them".

McAfee is an interesting guy. He'd make a better president than any other current candidate. I wonder how many of the disaffected it's not worth voting crowd could actually get up and vote for him if they wanted to upset things.

Masses of Brit IT bods embroiled in leak riddle


Don't think it's Kapersky.

It could be a partial list of course, but I've been a customer of Kapersky Labs for sometime and the relevant accounts are not on the list.

Seems a little harsh for Kapersky's name to be emblazoned in the headline just for being the first to get back to El Reg with confirmation they aren't the source.

Vanished global warming may not return – UK Met Office


Re: Proposal

Problem with that is people who profess that we don't know either way, almost universally get labelled as "deniers" by AGW-proponents. So that's a lot of people being drowned just for daring to hold off on judgement.

Sign of the telly times: HDR shines, UHD Blu-ray slides at IFA


Re: UHD Blu-ray is already sunk

>>"Is it a case of continued arguments about intrusive DRM schemes? Ones that demand an internet link to spy on you reporting every disk you play, etc?"

Probably. The Sony leak exposed details of the DRM on UHD disc format. It requires your device to be approved and the first time you insert a new disc it must be connected to the Internet so that it can contact the distributor's servers and request a decryption key. That alone gives them all sorts of monitoring and control options I'm not happy with. To say nothing of what happens when those servers aren't there any more.

I'm actually one of the people who would have bought a UHD player and 4K tv (when prices on the players became sane, anyway). Now I am not.

It's still 2015, and your Windows PC can still be pwned by a webpage


Re: Yawn

>>"Isn't the point of UEFI to make it extremely hard for the end user to do something like patching it?"

Really? I've found sticking a firmware file on any old USB drive and reading it off from inside the UEFI interface easier than the hassles I used to have updating BIOS. I also like the way it lets me back itself up and easily revert if there's a problem.

What part of updating it precisely are you having trouble with?

Heigh ho, oh no! Politically correct panto dumps Snow White’s dwarfs


Re: Bloody Fools

The thing with an actual term like dwarf, black, gay or whatever else some bigots have a problem with, is that it's not term that is the problem, it is that someone thinks the thing it describes is bad. So presumably well-meaning people decide to try and prevent the use of the term as a solution to that. But it doesn't solve it, it just cedes ground to the bigots and says "yes, there really is something wrong with being X, let's try to hide the fact that someone is by finding a polite way of putting it". In pretty much the same way you'd find a polite way of putting it when someone's boyfriend was an irritating moron or other social situation where you need to be delicate. But there's no good reason to attack someone for being any black, short, gay, straight, whatever. You can't just endlessly kowtow to bigots.

Yes, sometimes a word eventually gets so tarnished, so used as a term of abuse, that it becomes effectively unrecoverable. But that's a thing we should strive to avoid, not pander to. If someone uses the term dwarf as a term of abuse, they get the ostracism, not the English language.


Re: Political Correctness Lunacy

>>"Schrödinger's cat experiment is not to be repeated at home"

Until you look in their bedroom, it is both tidy and untidy at the same time.

Right, opt out everybody! Hated Care.data paused again


Re: Is it time to put down this terminally ill scheme?

>>"All staff with access need to attend privacy training and be aware it's a sackable offense to breach data protection."

In practice, I do not believe this is sufficient for a couple of reasons. I was involved during CfH (Connecting for Health) as it was and was an active part of the pushback from Primary Care community on privacy issues. Apparently I can be extremely annoying so I try to use that power for good. Anyway, on questioning about what would stop someone looking up deeply personal information they weren't supposed to we got the following response (paraphrased):

"Only approved people who have committed to our strict privacy policy will have access to the data".

Sounded great until you realized that "approved people" meant every receptionist at every GP practice in the country, let alone all the other people above and beyond. Oh, and that "strict privacy policy" meant one more page in the pile of barely read documentation you hurriedly sign on your first day and then forget about. In practice, staff turnover can be pretty high and there's a constant churn of low-paid (underpaid, usually) people in and out of hospitals, GP practices, NHS walk-in centres and PCTs (Primary Care Trusts) and contractors... all of which need access to the very poorly segregated data sets of the system. You can say "make it a sackable offense" but I can say burglary is a criminal one, it doesn't mean that taking all the locks off all the houses isn't a very bad idea.

Which brings us on to audit trails. When we pushed the CfH people on this we were told that access history was auditable. This seemed odd to me because I'd been poking at the system and had come across no audit system. For note, I had been able to access my own medical data at my registered practice (I tested with my own for ethical reasons, but this doesn't make a difference - there was no special permission granted because the name on the account I was using happened to match the name of a patient on a different system). Up came my records. So I pushed on how their audit system worked - what did it log, how could access history be viewed, what events raised alarms and who did they reach? That sort of thing.

After a lot of pressing them, we were told that there wasn't an audit system, they didn't know exactly what data would be kept when there was, there were no current plans for triggering alerts (particularly hard to get response on that one as they kept saying there were but kept refusing to divulge them, which we took to mean that their "plans" were a line on a document somewhere saying 'we should do this'). And yet we had been told that there was an audit trail in place. They lied. And were nowhere close to being able to turn it intro truth, either.

So whilst it may sound all well and good to say "staff need to be aware that its a sackable offense", what that really means in practice, is millions of low-paid, frequently temp'ing staff having full access to your medical history and personal information. And that of those close to you, as well. No-one ever called me up to ask why I was looking up the information of that patient (who happened to be me but could be anyone else) and nor ever would they. And if I had been someone wanting to know who the father of a child was, where my ex-partner was living, why my daughter or son had been to see a GP, if my boss had any interesting items on their medical history or any of a hundred other abuses of that information, nobody would ever know that I knew that from having sat at my NHS computer one day and looked. And they want to throw that open to innumerable people who have no reason to have access.

Data security is not provided by a HR document mass-given to an ever-revolving tide of clerical staff and others. It begins with data segregation and you take it from there.


Re: Look...

Missed my edit window, but of course I forgot - there are all those medical insurance and pharmaceutical companies drooling for the amount of data this can provide them, so I guess there really would be a loser if this got cancelled after all.

Not a loser I care about personally, mind you.



The public do not want it because they dislike its goal. The clinicians don't want it because it's an implementation disaster. And the outsourced consultants and companies have made most of the money disappear into an unrecoverable void by now and so it's objective achieved as far as they're concerned. So as far as they're concerned the only ones who have anything to lose by this point are the politicians who have their name attached to it and nobody cares about them.

So yes, kill it dead and strew its grave with garlic, crucifixes and a ten-foot block of concrete.

So Quantitative Easing in the eurozone is working, then?


Re: Blind spots...

>>"Er no. The simple reason is that Keynes advocating saving in the good times to be able to spend in the bad, thus evening out the economic cycle a bit. No western government ever does the saving bit."

The economy requires a lot of study just to understand the fundamentals and the theory of the common models. Ergo, most people don't understand the economy in more than a superficial way and are dependent on experts to set their expectations. Given that no government ever wants to argue to the populace why we can't have something important (more teachers, repair a hospital, whatever), the populace never receives any advice to the contrary of spend what we have (or more commonly this past two decades, what we don't have).

Though of course that doesn't mean we can't criticize some of what the money is spent on (Giant US Defence Budget, I'm looking at you).


I'm really starting to wonder what strings Worstall had to pull in order to get his polemics regularly featured on a tech news site. They always follow the same pattern - Worstall apparently reads something of a political or economic viewpoint he doesn't like (typically this is any economist more famous than himself that puts forward any view remotely more nuanced than remove all trade barriers and the market will solve everything). He then uses El Reg as a private platform to show everyone what is wrong with the article he has just read and most of us haven't. It makes me wonder if this is what I sound like when I start lecturing people on how a KB should 1024 bytes, not 1000.

Is Worstall part-owner of El Reg or something? Is there some reason a tech news site becomes his private platform everytime he reads something he doesn't like? Most of us make do with the letters page of the Economist.

Wikipedia’s biggest scandal: Industrial-scale blackmail


Re: It's OK to say wanker, it was on El Reg

For Pity's sake, it's bad enough when people self-censor stronger words, given all it does is send a message that the author thinks the word is offensive even if the reader would not. But censoring "wanker"? This is a British tech site. I think we'll survive the word.


>>"I avoid them as much as I can, but I accidentally clicked on a link one or two months ago. Huge banner: GIVE US MONEY!"

I actually used to give them a fair bit of money (in non-millionaire private individual terms, anyway). I stopped after that debacle with the "monkey selfie". If you want an essay in smugness, read their own page on the criticism. This was when they declared that the photo couldn't be copyrighted because the monkey had pressed the button.

Because it is just chance that the professional nature photographer had travelled half-way around the world specifically to photograph these monkeys, spent days carefully approaching the troupe and getting accepted by them (not easy, I would guess), set up the equipment deliberately for this purpose, transferred the resulting images to their computer, did the work of going through them all to select suitable ones, did the appropriate cropping to frame it artistically, performed who knows how much post work on the thing (because I guarantee that photo didn't look like that in its raw state) and did all this as part of their professional job. No, a monkey was involved so Wikimedia declare the photo is free for them now. I bet the same people are quick to condemn any lawyer in court who tried to pull some technicality trick, but it's okay for them to do it.

That sort of small-minded, self-righteousness I do not wish to fund. Lost a LOT of respect for them after that.

Websites aimed at kids are slurping too much info, finds report


Three solid reasons why this is bad.

Provided because there are always some who like to feel smart by contesting popular opinion.

1) Building cradle to grave information profiles gives a lot of power to those who have it. The inability to truly leave behind elements in your past is an unprecedented liability. If you respond to this with either 'you have nothing to hide' variants or that you shouldn't care what others think, then you're seriously underestimating society's willingness to not judge other people or the harm it can do. I invite critics of this one to look through the best selling magazines, TV shows and websites to show just how much most of human society loves to judge and the degree to which society's opinion of you can affect your life whether you agree with it or not. It's all very well to say you're not ashamed of something, doesn't stop and employer or partner or government or neighbourhood acting on it.

2) Children do not have the defences accumulated that adults do. When you respond that intensive profiling doesn't matter because 'you ignore ads' or 'you research your own facts' or whatever, these are defences that children do not have. To be honest, most adults don't have these defences to the extent they think they do.

3) It normalizes surveillance and intensive tracking of individuals by those with power. Society is a delicate balance of power between the government and the individual. We see daily what happens when the government no longer fears the people. Profiling and tracking individuals gives very real power to those with the information. We are at risk of raising a generation that has never not known this and accepts that free handing over of power as normal.

"Think of the children" is a cliché. But that doesn't make children not worth protecting.

Microsoft backports data slurp to Windows 7 and 8 via patches


Re: Linux for me now

I can, if I wish, not use SELinux, unlike with Windows 10 where it will continue to keystroke monitor even if I have that turned off or potentially even send memory dumps to Microsoft. Anyway, the "NSA effect" of SELinux was more political than anything. It stymied some development of better security approaches but with the latest point release we seem to be breaking away from that,

Anyway, I'm not someone discovering GNU/Linux as a result of this, I'm someone going back to it. I've out off Windows 10 because of privacy concerns and out of distaste at the way they have tried to force me into it with deeply irritating and very hard to remove ads inserted without my permission into my Windows 8 Pro install. If they backport things I'm not happy with into Windows 8, changing what I regard as the terms of the arrangement I'll go back to Gentoo, or try Mint that everyone's talking about. I still have all the skills, they're just dusty. I transitioned from GNU/Linux at somepoint around Windows 7 when it turned out to be actually good and I've defended MS on these forums many times against their less rational critics. But if MS are now telling me that my money isn't good enough for them and they demand my data too, then they lose my support.

And this isn't some irrational jump - the number of things I have to do to preserve my personal and professional privacy from them is getting longer and longer. I don't have time for that and if MS's business interests are now no longer "Please me to get my money" but rather "Find ways to get her data", then I don't trust it to be a fight I can win. They can just keep making it harder and harder to stop them until one slip and there it all goes. What it comes down to is that MS are telling me their aims no longer coincide with my own.

And as someone who prefers to pay for things with money, I'm starting to get quite angry about that.

AMD rattles Nvidia's cage with hardware-based GPU virtualization


Re: Mainframe, we've missed you!

>>"Funny my Core i7 built in 2010 is still going strong, however now I want to take advantage of USB 3and PCIe 3 and the Skylake chips finally look to be a decent leap ahead for me to upgrade."

It's a modest upgrade only in terms of power. IPC increases have been on the order of around 4-6% with each generation change which is a far cry from the old days. It's really a pittance. Where improvements have been pretty big is in terms of power-efficiency. That has been Intel's focus (insofar as they actually care now that they've all but buried AMD at the medium to high-end). Which is what I've been saying - their focus has switched to mobile devices. Offload the heavy computing and focus on something most people prefer which is convenience. The fact that your 2010 i7 is still adequate for most people's use illustrates my point. If home desktops were a healthy market, you wouldn't see performance improvements sitting in the doldrums for the last half-decade and the manufacturers obsess over reductions in TDP.

>>"See now that software bloat isn't killing CPU's since the Core series came out, people haven't been upgrading as often."

I'm not sure exactly how that addresses my point but a big part of the reason they haven't been upgrading so much is because there's little to upgrade to. If you have a 4870K then what do you actually get out of going to a 5830? Not much. To Skylake? Not much. It's stagnated in every area except IGPs (which brings us back to the focus on non-desktop) and power consumption (again, a non-desktop priority). Intel are many terrible things, but stupid they ain't. They chase the money.

>>"Also I don't know about you bu I find it much easier working off my two 24" LCD's than a piddly notebook screen and keyboard, especially with some of the keyboard layouts you get with your supposedly superior notebook type keyboards. "

Where the Hell did you get 'supposedly superior notebook type keyboards' from? You seem to have missed what I actually wrote which was that you can connect your mobile device up to monitors and keyboards. You can run those two 24" monitors fairly comfortably from a Surface Pro.


Mainframe, we've missed you!

You store your data in the "Cloud" (aka racks of disks in some datacentre), domestic computing is moving further and further away from a bulky box and toward sleek little tablets and laptops with greater need for form-factor and low energy-usage over processing power. We're now at the point where you can connect your phone into a monitor and keyboard and use it as a computer. Just, like William Gibson said, the future is not widely distributed yet. MS claim they have a way of you encrypting remote processes in a secure way (we will see). Oh, and really fast Internet connections are becoming more common.

So if you have the bandwidth and low-latency, you can get the basics (hooking up the peripherals and providing an OS) with a small, light device and your data is non-local anyway... What's left that needs to be done locally? Well, graphics I guess... What's that you say, AMD?

Queue angry objections by those who love their big fat desktop. Loud and a diminishing minority.

Ashley Madison hacked potential competitor, leaked emails suggest


Re: Pen test

One of the other emails (given by Krebs' site) has the CEO emailing their CTO before a meeting with Nerve's executives asking "should I tell them about their security problems"? That may or may not be part of an approved pentest (doesn't rule it out, doesn't prove it), but it very strongly suggests that the CEO was regarding it as something other than a exploitative hack attempt of a competitor. Either it was an approved pen test as AM claim and their CEO was just wondering if the stuff was something that should be raised at that level (not being their area, they probably didn't have a good handle on seriousness / appropriateness of raising this stuff at that level); or else the CTO had just taken it upon themselves to go and have a poke around at a potential acquisitions IT sites to get a feel for their quality and the CEO was asking if that was a legitimate thing to bring up with them.

I have to say that if your company might be entering into an association with another, I am not surprised if technical people within the company go over to the other site and have a look at the front door. Isn't the general attitude on this site historically that hackers who had a look at a site or software and found some flaws and then let the vendor know about it, good guys (white hats)? Has that suddenly changed for Ashley Madison? Seems so. Though as the OP writes, this is just from two emails, there could well be others that support what AM said that it was an approved pentest.

Scrapheap challenge: How Amazon and Google are dumbing down the gogglebox


Re: Its not smart to buy a smart TV

It may not be smart to buy a smart TV, but is there any choice anymore? I might like to buy a better TV (4K is now affordable and content is slowly starting to appear), but I don't know of any where they're not loaded with crapware. The problem with that? Well apart from disliking paying extra for things I don't want, there's an issue which I'm surprised wasn't a core part of the article - security. I can keep my computers up to date, I can keep my router up to date and anything else that sits on my home network. But "smart" Blu-ray players or TVs? No I can't because even if I take the time to update them, I don't trust the manufacturer to do their part. Not in the short term, certainly not in the long-term. I don't trust them at all in fact. And it's not like Windows or Linux or OSX where I can have a reasonable expectation of fixes, and such. I fully expect a Smart TV to be a deep irritation to the manufacturer once it's actually sold, grudgingly updated on rare occasions if at all. In return for which I have what is essentially a low-powered and unmaintained computer on my home network that I can't review, patch or really do anything much with at all.

I suppose I can isolate it on the network or leave it disconnected entirely, but then I can't do even basic things like stream content to it via DLNA. The more "smart" a TV gets, the more of a risk it is, and you can no longer buy any decent TV that isn't.

Krebs: I know who hacked Ashley Madison


Re: salted duplicate check

>>"So you have to read every row in the table and do some computation on it, before inserting your single new row? Nice DDOS opportunity."

That would indeed be a consequence of what they wrote. Happily, despite some people cheerfully upvoting them, they got it wrong. However as I've been downvoted for correcting them, I like your method of actually proving why it's unworkable. Good catch.


Re: salted duplicate check

>>"In any case, you need to store each user's salt value in plaintext so that you can use it when the user logs in."

This is correct, but the original statement was not. You do store your salt in the database - certainly not in the one that contains your password hashes. So for example, the webserver might have the salt, and it will use that to send only the hash to the database. That way if your database is compromised, the salt may not be. If people are going to use the Boffin icon and correct others, they should get their facts right. It is not necessary to have your salt in the database and is actually a bad thing to do.


>>"12345 that's the kind of password an idiot has on his travel luggage

And coincidentally the number of times I have heard that joke on El Reg forums..


Re: salted duplicate check

>>"If salted hash is used, the salt values for all existing passwords are necessarily stored in the authentication database along with the hashes"

No, that is NOT correct. In fact, storing your salt in the database alongside the passwords would be bad practice. You store it elsewhere and just query the database for the salted hash, not do it all on / within the database. All the database needs is the hash, not the salt.



Reading this I have to conclude one of three things. Either this Twitter account is a dead-end, well protected and untraceable back to any physical body, someone has set them up to be a patsy or, option three, the hacker is an idiot.

EDIT: I suppose a couple of other possibilities having just had a look at their Twitter feed. Deuszu could just be a fan, playing at being a red-herring. If they and Krebs have a common source for that link then that is viable. Alternately they could be the hacker and are so confident in their concealing of evidence they actually want to "taunt" people with visibility. That would be rather nuts, though. Finding someone who hacked you can be very hard. Finding if a specific someone hacked you, is a lot easier because you can start from the answer and work backwards, as it were.

Vote now: Who can solve a problem like Ashley Madison?

Thumb Up

Re: JMcA obviously!

Well the thing is, normally I would pick Bruce Schneier as he's undoubtedly brilliant and one of the most respected security professionals in the business. But at this point it's gone beyond a security problem and become the sort of PR debacle that no inside-the-box thinking and seriousness can fix.

Meaning the only person on the list who I think would have a hope in Hell of pulling something out of this fire is McAfee who would shrug, make some jokes and handle the unprecedented amount of criticism and hate without at any point appearing ruffled.

(Rumpled maybe, however)

Nano – meet her: AMD's Radeon R9 4K graphics card for non-totally bonkers gamers, people


Re: Having a giraffe..

Better at DX12 though, based on evidence so far.

FBI probed SciFi author Ray Bradbury for plot to glum-down America


>>"A psychiatrist once said that optimists are people who should be certified as clinically insane. Whereas those defined as clinically depressed actually have a fairly good grip on reality"

And a non-psychiatrist once described psychiatry as "the study of people who don't need help by those who do".

I'll leave it up to El Reg readers to decide which view they trust.


Re: Corrupting America?

To be fair, he does seem to have some success at "corrupting the youth". :D

High-heeled hacker builds pen-test kit into her skyscraper shoes

Thumb Up

Re: Silicon Valley

>>"It might come as a shock. But it's not about you. Sometimes we do things for ourselves. Crazy, I know."

Hey. Welcome to The Register! I found your article fun. Building your own hacking kit into high-heels is pretty cool. Please ignore the troll - I think some people just enjoy feeling superior by looking down on what others like / choose. If your looks make some people underestimate your technical skills because they are stuck on some "geek" image of programmer, that's an advantage to you! :)

I like that your shoes will pass under many metal detectors at doorways, btw.


>>"however that LED-illuminated dress looks a fun idea for a girlfriend who likes to go commando"

Or actually an effective defence against perverts trying to take up-skirt photographs.


>>"I quite like that idea, but does it recurse? I.e. if OP had included a picture of himself in heels and a tight dress, and I wanted to criticise his appearance would I need to go wardrobe raiding too?"

Yes, it's turtlesblack mini-dresses all the way down.

Paris Hilton

>>Is that her in the picture? She looks deformed

I think there should be a rule that anyone posting physical criticisms of people in an article should be required to accompany it with a recent photo of themself. Similarly dressed, for fairness.


Re: Given the size of a small mobile

>>I've never been sure if that was meant as a blessing or a curse

Generally meant as a curse. It is alleged to be the reply Confucious gave to a student who moaned about finding themselves living in a peaceful society instead of the interesting times they read about in history. But that is probably a later invention. All we really know is that it was supposed to be a Chinese curse by the British.

Brit hydro fuel cell maker: our tech charges iPhone 6 for a week


Re: Bah, humbug

>>"Streaming spotify will empty most phones in under 8 hours"

Yeah, of their personal data you mean.

Even 'super hackers' leave entries in logs, so prepare to drown in data


Re: Teeth grating

And invidious.

Ashley Madison spam starts, as leak linked to first suicide


Stealing a rival company's customer list and then spamming all of them with sales pitches is not, imho, "something positive".

Anyway, whilst I'm posting I might as well add my own voice to the Trustify are scum crowd. Troy Hunt (in the article) set up a system whereby you could search for your details but it would only confirm by sending the results to the registered email address. THAT is responsible. Trustify are not.

Windows 10 market share growth slows to just ten per cent


Re: not cause for celebration

"Pushed" is one word for it. 'Rammed' might be a better one. It took me three goes to finally get rid of ads for Windows 10 popping up in my 8.1. installation. Tried uninstalling the update - it just comes back. Tried uninstalling and blocking the update - no way to block them on the Pro version. Well there is, but this one is excluded from the ones you can block. Tried a registry edit I found online - no effect. Found the GWX service buried in a list of services, disabled that AND applied a different registry edit I found, finally seems to have stop shoving ads in my face.

Very unimpressed.

Ashley Madison hack – Tory MP Green denies registering account



I love our politicians being judged on the basis of their sex lives. It's such an important part of their jobs, you see. That's how we got rid of Clinton and kept Bush, for example.

Spotify now officially even worse than the NSA


Yeah, a bit like airport security 'ask you' to "step this way".

Spotify climbs down on new terms and conditions


Re: peer-to-peer

Wow. That one needs a little more publicizing - I had no idea it did that. That could be especially bad in a work context but either way is not in. Maybe they should be paying their users instead of the other way around, given all we're finding out about them.


Re: but I don't *want* to

>>I don't know if Deezer is any better, but I am going to give it a go.


Hard to say whether they're actually good in practice without trying the software, but they at least appear to allow a choice in the matter.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019