Re: Some of these are collector items
Shortly after the Playboy issue she must have realised that there was a market for nerd fullfillment cos she started her own website called Babylon Babes. It didn't last long.
432 posts • joined 30 Dec 2011
Shortly after the Playboy issue she must have realised that there was a market for nerd fullfillment cos she started her own website called Babylon Babes. It didn't last long.
"but we can read every email."
They are running it with unrestricted uploads and downloads from pre-authenticated trusted devices which are susceptible to data theft. Is that enough to get your imagination going thinking about how to exploit it, or shall I get the crayons out?
In fact I'll go one step further and suggest that AWS and Azure should be in the ICOs crosshairs. If they too were aware of this security flaw many months ago, then they have equally exposed data held on their cloud. They have probably no way of knowing if miscreants were firing up AWS and Azure virtual machines then trawling the servers memory using this flaw for anything that could be phished. If they knew about it, kept quiet about it, and didn't have the technical means to monitor that the flaw was not being used, then they have failed in their duty of care to ensure that data is kept separate between instances and have potentially exposed data.
Specifically, from the article "Apple withheld information on the flaws from customers for months, selling products it knew to be vulnerable to data-theft attacks.".
The GDPR makes it a data controllers responsibility to ensure that data is held securely. Apple hold lots of personal data in the cloud that they suck up from iPhones. This suckage is enabled by default, so Apple is now the de-facto data controller. Apple products are now vulnerable to data-theft attacks, in other words there is a backdoor into Apples cloud, in other other words, data is now exposed.
The ICO doesn't think much of the corporate excuse "we have no evidence that data was stolen", the act of simply exposing data whether it is stolen, viewed or not is considered a data breach.
This is the kind of thing likely to attract a big fine from the ICO if it happened in a few months time. 4% of Apple’s billions is going to hurt.
I'm sorry... actually I'm not, I'll come out and say sir that you are talking absolute bollocks.
The NHOS logo on your websites homepage is 75% the NHS logo. You have taken an existing logo and tweaked it. It's the equivalent of taking the Coke logo and changing the text to Cokee, whilst keeping the same font and colours.
On your home page you have a video. The image even before I click it shows the 100% NHS logo, with the letters "b u n t u" appended after it. This would be no different to me taking the Disney logo, not changing the font or colours, but putting "buntu" after it and then trying to claim it's an entirely new logo with no disney logo or branding present.
It's not often I call someone a complete liar, but sir, you are lying completely. You know it, I know it, the NHS know it and anyone that visits your website having looked at the following link knows it.
TLDR: Marcus Baw is talking bollocks.
So far 3 of the 4 core members have down voted me. Just waiting on number 4. Just remember guys, down voting doesn't make it any less true.
I look at the website and see the words "NHSbuntu" and "NHSMail2". They have the NHOS logo at the top left, which is clearly the NHS logo cut at 2/3 with a dotted O inserted into the middle. They also have a video on the homepage that has the NHS logo with the letters "buntu" added after it.
This is straight forward passing off.
I actually agree with the government on this (having read their letter). To say your product is for use in the NHS is quite acceptable. To use the NHS branding and logo is simply passing-off unless you get written authorisation to use them beforehand (they did get written authorisation didn't they???). It's basic licensing 101. The volunteer aspect of it is here nor there.
There is a huge difference between offering a product for use in the NHS, and claiming that something is an NHS product. That was the distinction the government pointed out in their letter.
In the old original X wing PC game, you could come to a complete stop, divert all power to engines, fire a laser then go full throttle and catch it up. After 30 seconds or so the laser bolt just disappeared. I assume the game is based on real physics!
Please tell me how you feel about For your inconvenience?
Who got murdered? You seem to be over exaggerating a tad equating being asked out to someone being killed. Are you a feminist of the men hating variety?
I find that statement confusing. A helicopter has only one lifting point, and has been used for generations for shuttling passengers back and forth between points A and B. The failure of just the one rotor or engine in this instance is pretty much going to have the same effect isn't it? But somehow it's less acceptable if it's a drone?
In 5 years, surely he could have dug a tunnel to freedom with a tablespoon by now.
She’s also very likely a fat balding bearded man who lives in his mother’s basement.
Just remember, this is the internet where men are men. Women are men. Teenage girls are men and children are probably FBI agents!
He managed to get the data by misusing his position, Director of "Accident Claims Handlers Ltd". The kind of company people use when making insurance claims.
I think the DVLA should be reported to the ICO for failing to have stringent checks in place. It looks like they give out info without any kind of due dilligence.
Certainly within the UK Nvidia cannot retrospectively remove these cards from data center use by changing the EULA at a later date. Whilst they can stop you from using subsequent driver releases after the EULA has changed, the doctrine of first sale protects anyone that already has the GPUs in place and the earlier version of the driver installed. In fact I believe there would be no legal recourse for Nvidia if someone was to continue to purchase and use the cards in a data center as long as they only used the driver release from before the EULA change.
I also believe that Nvidia could be opening themselves up to legal action if they refused to allow continued driver updates for those people that already have them in place prior to the change. Any driver update with “bug fixes” is an admission the previous version of the driver contains faults, and as such brings concepts such as “not fit for purpose” into play allowing for claims under warranty.
In the US however YMVV.
If you are a UK based consumer (not business) you have up to 6 years to make a claim against the business that sold you the CPU (not Intel) because of the wonderful Consumer Rights Act. If the manufacturer admits the fault, then all the relevant criteria have been met. A 30% performance loss would be considered unreasonable without compensation.
The "First 6 months" and "since months or more" paragraphs on the Which website explain it best here https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act
The simple answer is no. The company cannot insist that criminal assaults go to arbitration, despite the article clumsily suggesting the opposite. What it can insist on is arbitration of civil cases. This is perfectly legal and above board.
"sexual harassment...it will now go straight to the cops..."
Um, no it wont. Sexual harassment is not a crime and will not be investigated by the police. The article is referring to taking court action i.e.compensation.
I think the author is clumsily trying to make out that sexual harassment in the workplace is on par with rape, and because of this is confusing the 2 issues, along with a few other commentards on this thread. His reasoning seems to be
1) A rape is investigated but not prosecuted.
2) 5 years later the author pens an article about how the accused got a job and his accuser was not happy.
3) Microsoft implement an employee friendly sexual harassment disciplinary process and the author here seems to believe it's because of his story.
In reality, if a crime is committed, no employee contract can forbid you from reporting it to the police, in fact you are a de-facto accomplice if you don't. The author, here seems to have a bee in his bonnet about something. It's a pity there is no "Hide all articles from this author" button, because I would have pressed it by now.
“The accused should have been transferred; he, after all, was the alleged wrongdoer, not she.”
So regardless of guilt, he should be punished and be forced to change his job because allegations?
It also means that the new Star Wars films can have the 21st Century Fox fanfare at the beginning of the films again. It hasn’t felt the same without that in the past couple of films.
Um, I do believe that in this case, the court said it was!
A decade ago it was considered fair game if a PI went through your rubbish and got their sticky mitts on your bank statement and passed it on to someone else. It was considered your own fault for not shredding it. The law has not changed since then but now they are prosecuting the PIs for the same thing.
This madness will not be allowed to continue, it’s only a matter of time before the government decides that personal protections are getting in the way of dodgy business.
So many people are incapable of comprehending that actions have consequences, or even that an effect had a cause they were responsible for. They just go through life one minute at a time dealing with the moment.
Reminds me of my teenaged uncle who has always considered himself a bit of an inventor. He had the bright idea of building a submarine out of 5 oil drums. He was in the middle one, and the 4 outer ones would be flooded to submerge him in the pond. His solution to surfacing was to have hose pipes going from the outer ones, to the inner one, and he simply would blow into each pipe until the water was pumped out of the outer drums.
He did live to tell the tale. His next great idea was a pedal copter, but that's a whole different story.
While they’re at it they can sort out the black box that is google search. Something is fishy when thousands of companies offering the same products are under the impression that their unique SEO practices have got them first page on google.
El Reg didn't conclude that, the researchers did. Re-read the second to last paragraph.
Mine was the other rejected. Seems like a right royal dick move to me.
Bugger it, i'll repeat what I put below.
"Judging by the amount of similar mistakes I'm reading in Reg articles nowadays, I'm wondering if the articles are being auto corrected by the authors portable devices of choice at the time."
If only someone would work on a version of Linux that could run Windows programs natively. They could even put the 2 words together and call it something like Lindows!
Or even better pull the English Electric Lightning out of mothballs. These things didn't need a runway, they could be launched vertically like a rocket. You could literally push it off the edge of the carrier, throttle up and it would be flying of into the distance before it would have a chance to splash into the ocean below.
I remember reading that when it went ballistic, it was the only plane that caught up with the US's SR71 blackbird and got a missile lock.
They don't make em like this anymore!
Funny thing is, if they've gone into administration, then they must have been a Ltd company. As a Ltd company they do not have any kind of right to privacy. So google seem to have deleted links for no reason in this case, contradicting previous cases where they have strenuously denied being able to censor their indexing of articles available on the internet.
How did you find that? Did you google it? Maybe other Andrew O articles will start to conveniently disappear from google now.
If only Max Mosley knew that taking down search results could be so simple.
At some point I do think that someone will take issue with google's database of take down requests and will take legal action against that.
1990 - Timmy Mallett in Bombalurina
...and we could run them on special tracks so they could be much longer with a whole series of trailers. They would need to be more powerful for the long train of trailers. But, instead of batteries, they could take power from overhead lines.
if skin = brown then Terrorist();
If religion = muslim then Terrorist();
if person = coming-from-far-east then Terrorist();
if person = american-with-personal-arsenal-and-psychotic-tendencies-occasionally-demonstrating-violence -and-might-just-shoot-up-a-school then Perfectly-Harmless-Person();
if skin = black then Shoot();
Or it didn’t happen!
I'll quickly explain where the confusion arises. When written into law, there is a difference between the words "should" and "must".
If the law said "You should not ask for data that is not required to operate the service", then the trader still could ask for an opt-in. Legally speaking the word "should" is a suggestion.
If the law said "You must not ask for data that is not required to operate the service", then the simple act of asking for an opt-in would be illegal. The word "must" when appearing in a law means what is written is mandatory.
The law actually says that (and I simplify) "you should not ask for data that isn't required to operate the service, and you must not use that data it if you have it without consent."
It is this last example that has people thinking that you cannot refuse service if someone opts out. People are confusing the words should and must.
It's slightly misleading. A company can refuse to do business for any reason it wants as long as that refusal isn't illegal, i.e. the trader is racist and does not want to sell to anyone that is black.
The issue here is that the law says that data must only be kept for the legal minimums, and additionally for a reason which must be stipulated via a policy explained up front. The policy will usually say that data is used for marketing. Now if upon reading the policy the customer has concerns, for example his name and email address will be shared with 3rd parties for advertising purposes, he can choose to opt out, and can choose to take his business elsewhere. Also the trader can legally refuse to do business and let the customer go elsewhere.
At this point the customer could send the written policy to the ICO showing them that the company intends to, or is using data in an unreasonable way. The ICO would then investigate. If the ICO investigated and found that the company has indeed been using data in an unreasonable way, they would then prosecute. Or if they investigated and found that the data actually wasn't being used unreasonably then the trader has done nothing wrong.
Where people get confused is in the middle ground, where either companies have existing data they are misusing, or they acquire new data without consent, or they use data in a way that contradicts the previous written policy, or they refuse to remove a customers data upon request. In these cases, the company could be breaking the law, but only an investigation could conclude that and the trader be prosecuted.
It is enforceable. ICANN are well within their rights to refuse European registrars the ability to register domains as a sanction for not following their rules. They won’t, because money, but contractually they can.
That is the predicament ICANN are in. Their contract stipulates the registrars must provide contact details of the owner. EU law now forbids that.
The only way for ICANN to get what they want is to refuse to allow EU registrars service, and register domains with the end user direct, I.e. European customers buy domains themselves from America. Come brexit I think this will all become moot once the government realise that a trade deal with the US would be hindered by the GDPR. Then it would be recinded by parliament.
There isn't a problem within Europe. Your registrar has solved the issue with a GDPR compliant work around. This workaround however is against ICANN rules. The problem is ICANNs, not yours or Europes.
What your registrar is doing is GDPR compliant, but against ICANN rules.
"So what would be easier than to add a checkbox in the domain registration process"
It would be very easy, however the issue is that people would opt out when purchasing domains within Europe, which isn't the desired outcome for the vested interests who don't want to change the status quo.
The dutch have got it right, they have simply informed ICANN that the terms are invalid under EU law and have made the appropriate change, the problem has now been solved in the Netherlands.
"Are you saying that every university or startup that doesn't have signed timesheets is breaking the law?"
Judging by the responses so far, I'm saying people are clearly unaware of their rights, are not exercising those rights, and are being walked all over by their employers.
If your employer makes you sign a 48 hour opt out, the law says that is illegal.
If your employer makes you work more than 48 hours a week without opting out and doesn't pay any overtime, that is breaking 2 laws. First is the working time regulations, the second is the minimum wage laws.
If you willingly sign the opt-out, and your employer repeatedly forces you to work for example an hour per day additional work at no pay, the company is breaking minimum wage laws. (The law actually considers the weekly average overtime worked, with this based on all additional hours worked over a 17 week period, then averaged out. This then provides the basis for the minimum wage claim).
If you willingly sign the opt out, and work a 14 hour shift fully paid, and then another the day after, the company is breaking the working time directive by allowing you to exceed your statutory maximum. Opt-outs don't apply.
If you are under 18 and are working a 48 hour week, the company is breaking the law because under 18s cannot work more than 40 hours a week, and they cannot opt out.
In all these cases if the HSE investigate, and the company has not got any documentation that can disprove the claims of the employee, then the company has broken the law by default and will get the appropriate slap on the wrist. Like most corporate crime, if no investigation is made, then no laws have been broken. Employers and HR departments walk a fine line when they mislead employees about their rights, and many of these companies are aware they will get away with it most of the time because people are sheep, the comments in this thread back that up. People don't read the laws that give them rights.
Don't take my word for it, google is your friend. Or click the links I posted above which takes you to the relevant regulations, and pages upon pages of explanations.
*There are some exclusions and additions to these regs like the armed forces etc but these are specific cases that have been written into law for that profession.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018