lack of throttling meant they consumed "the majority of the computer's CPU cycles
and the symantic software consumed the rest..
303 posts • joined 7 Aug 2009
The individual is not (necessarily) a user of Facebook so there is no way that the data is collected as an essential part of any service provided to the individual.
The 'service' is not being provided to the individual, it's being provided to advertisers.
Additionally at least one has detection of repeated transactions per ip address. Causes problems if people in an office are on one shared external ip, and many of those people try to buy something at the same time.
IIRC this protection (and others like disallow a card issued in one country from being used from an IP apparently in a different country) can be turned of by request of the website owner.
I think what he meant is that for the import side, we can charge whatever tarriff we want, so if we have no tarrifs then we have no processing of imports to do. Exports are really the responsibility of the receiving country so again no need for the UK to do anything.
This would be to ignore export controls we might enforce on weapons etc, that would still need handling, although there might not need to be much or any chnage here. It would also suggest that people can bring in rabid animals, nuclear material, drugs and so....
It involves existing treaties which exist for this purpose and which require TPTB to get a warrant from an Irish court. In order to do that they have to put together a convincing case as to why they think they should get the data.
You may wonder why they haven't done this.
I'd guess that if they (the DOJ) win, for future investigations they will know that they won't need to go through the international hassles and can just force a cloud provider to provide the data under US law. If they win they have set a precedent for the future.
When they pester users to "just upload your contacts - it'll make things easier" without spelling out in big clear print and simple words that this is a criminal activity in the EU unless you get consent from every person who's details you upload.
Is this true? I've read some stuff about data protection, but it's all been approached from the point of view of a "company" and their handling of inidividual's personal data. I can see that uploading your contacts/phonebook might be a questionable thing to do, but is it actually illegal?
It's in Manchester.
I think the industry sector is also relevant. You see a lot of very well paid jobs in London, the best paid are in banking/finance, and many of them require finance experience as well as tech skills (also degrees but that's a different article).
I'd say it's inevitable that if you say you live in London, and you don't work in finance, the salary calculator will suggest you're massively underpaid. At least it did for me......
If only there was some correlation on being PCI-DSS compliant and actually being secure....at least it forces you to patch.
It also forces you to think, for instance about your network architecture. Apparently there are rules covering taking payments by phone, and using an ip-based phone system, along with networked computers, which wouldn't have occured to me. Mind you this isn't my job area.
How many companies do you suppose are under contract to keep their data encrypted to protect their customers?
While not quite 'under contract', the new data protection regulations in Europe are certainly pushing companies towards encrypting all customer data. While this alone won't protect you from data theft, in the event this happens it will be important to show that you considered data security, and encrypting it would be an obvious thing to do. Pretty soon I'd expect encrypted data to be the default, and it's not a particular leap to suggest that this might include communications, as well as databases and the like.
This is where we need a telecommunications operator to stand up and say ok fine we will develop a service that is encrypted in such a manner that we do not have the technical cabability even under duress to decrypt.
The whole point of this paper is make doing that illegal. You (as the telco) will be required to able to decrypt anything that you encrypt, if you can't do that you would be in breach of this proposed law.
the last page of the document on ORG specifically excludes those operators who are providing telecomms for financial services, including banking.
As far as the e-commerce stuff is concerned, this only covers encryption services provided by the telco or isp. It might, for example, be a nice selling point for a telecom/isp to offer me a fully encrypted service. This paper would make that ineffective as that provider is required to be able to decrypt my communications on demand, if they are the ones providing the encryption. If I take the standard service offered today, and choose to encrypt the data I send over it (using https for example), that has nothing to do with this paper.
I think they're trying to prevent fraudsters from misusing credit cards.
One of the checks done to spot fraudulent use involves comparing the country of the card issued with the country identified from the current ip address of the person using it. If they don't match the transaction is flagged as potentially fraudulent. Depending o the processor's rules, it can be denied. Using a VPN would make this less effective, not to mention you don't get an ip address for the possible fraudster.
When I clicked the Start button, "Restart" and "Shutdown" had been replaced by "Update and Restart" and "Update and Shutdown". Is that new, or have I just missed it in the past?
It just means that there are updates to be installed. When they have been installed, the legends will return to what they were before. Until next time...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019