Re: Time for rent-a-perve
I always use a leather bag. My webcam friends love it.
6112 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
The 'seller' isn't required to accept the 'buyer's' conditions. Websites can tell if you're using an ad-blocker and they are free to refuse to deliver content, if they want to. Nowadays, some websites show a polite notice saying that they can tell that you're using an ad-blocker and ask you to consider whitelisting their site.
P.S. I'd turn off the ad-blocker on the driver website.
Something I remember reading about this was a statement that the ISP retained data was 'simply' a record of which website you had visited, not any details of what you looked at.
However, in the past there have been court cases where it's been stated in evidence that (as an example) the accused had performed Google searches about how to kill someone with paraquat. The search terms do appear as part of the address string and I assume they are stored by the ISP in totality. So, we are immediately lied to.
(It's possible that the police went to the trouble of contacting Google and asked them to search their server records for requests from a particular IP address. I doubt that however.)
So, your local police will know that you've been searching for haemorrhoid cream and the clerks at the tax office will know that you need snug fit condoms.
As I've asked (rhetorically) before; what are the penalties for unauthorised searching of ISP records and for misuse or abuse of the information in them? I suspect there are none.
Even if the AHRC find in his favour, any monetary award would probably not last him for a long time. If they force an employer to keep him on then his time there would probably not be pleasant. In any future job search, his name will ring alarm bells because of this action.
I'd suggest that he should have quietly accepted that he had no written proof of the interviewer's statment about not needing to pass a criminal record check and then make sure that in the future he got a formal assurance about this from any potential employer.
It's not 'right' and it's not 'fair' but it does seem sensible, to me. Having said that, he is brave to stand up to this so good luck to him.
About two years ago, I started getting an extra tab opening in my browser. It was apparently from Virgin Media (my ISP) telling me my account filters were set to 'family safety is on' and I had to visit the website and sign in if I wanted the 'family safety' filter turned off. I thought this was strange because about two years before that, I'd told them over the phone to turn all filters off when I took out a new contract. So, I closed the tab after swearing a bit at the interruption.
After a week of this, every time I started the browser, I phoned their technical support to ask what was happening. Some new law regarding 'protecting children' had been enacted and my verbal statement of two years previously was now no longer enough. I had to make a definite recorded choice to allow dangerous filth into my home. So I did.
They could have explained this on the injected tab but no; it was, "this is how it is, you have to do something."
Prunier: "the easiest solution .... is for Mr Battistelli to lift the confidentiality he imposes on me ......."
If he's been fired, how can his ex-boss impose confidentiality on him? If he signed a legally binding confidentiality agreement then a) why did he sign it; b) if his ex-boss is lying then surely the agreement is void.
"Eisenach called net neutrality "crony capitalism" ... "
Can anyone explain the logic behind that sound bite? I mean technical and linguistic logic, not political logic.
"... and claimed it would cause terrible damage; ..."
Since we have (more or less, almost) net neutrality at the moment then I don't see how potential net neutrality rules could cause damage; unless the ISPs and telcos are planning to make lots of money in the future by breaking the principles of net neutrality in a big way. Would an economist who worked at the FTC and now does work for the ISPs and telcos know anything about that?
Damage to what and to who?
"...if the smart light bulb Telstra sells me has a flaw that turns it into a data-sucking monster, will that count against download quotas?"
If it downloads music from a torrent site to play, because its bored when you're out of the house, will you be liable for any legal action? If it stores the .mp3 files in your IoT fridge and they get played by your networked music player, who is to blame?
"Both primary and secondary power suppliers to Memset's facility failed."
Were they laid in the same trench? It does save installation costs.
[Many years ago, a certain organisation had dual redundant internet connections from two separate suppliers (very sensible) that arrived from opposite sides of the site and went into sensibly designed network switches, etc. They both failed one day.
The ISP suppliers had both contracted the same cable laying outfit who put the cables through the same conduit, when the route went over a bridge, and a large truck crashed into the conduit. Trust no one.]
Has anyone actually suffered a loss or damage as a result of their actions in falsely ontaining these tokens (which is what they really are)? I can't see how EA Sports has had to spend any more money or do any more work as a result of this. Have they suffered a loss of reputation resulting in damage, etc? As long as the tokens worked, the people who bought them were getting what they wanted at a price they were willing to pay.
I'm not saying that what they did was 'right' but surely this should be a civil case, not a criminal case?
Thank you for that explanation Geoff. I don't know much about casinos either.
If the authorities tracked the money to the casino then it probably got there by a series of bank transfers. I assume the intention was to take it out in casino chips from a casino based client account and then convert these to cash in various ways. (A casino with honest management would be very suspicious of this behaviour.) I'd have thought that buying gold bullion would be a better method because gold can have its 'identity' changed with only a small loss in value depending on who you can persuade to buy it from you.
"One theory is that protons fired around the nozzle are providing thrust, ..."
Where do the protons come from? This represents a loss of mass so how long will the motor last?
(If you're throwing protons out, you'd need to throw electrons out to balance the net charge. This is quite easy in a vacuum so not a big problem.)
It's still available on cnet if you want to try it.
Short version: It's a sort of indicator that tells you the trustiness of a website that you're visiting. The trustiness is somehow determined by a form of selective crowdsourcing.
Coming soon: A browser addon that tells you the trustiness of other addons.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019