Re: Larry needs a new planet
Can we send him to Uranus
You'd need to surgically extract him from his own first.
4960 posts • joined 1 Jun 2012
Can we send him to Uranus
You'd need to surgically extract him from his own first.
Indeed ACPO will roll out what they want with no legal authority, and it will be done deal, just like the ever growing ANPR network.
Who needs oversight? "Not us," said ACPO, "because we are the law".
...before awarding that contract to Accenture.
A brief news search on the terms "Accenture" and "Police Scotland" doesn't look like a great advert. But if the Met can't even drive a web browser, then I suppose a botched IT contract will be the least of the problems the people of London have.
so that end-to-end encryption or devices with encryption that is too difficult to break are designed-out at the design stage
The release of those papers is supposed to assure us that GCHQ are becoming more transparent and to demonstrate they are really, really clever people. So let's run with that for a moment.
Either through backdoors that aren't called backdoors, or simply through banning too-difficult to break security, GCHQ will know as the rest of do that the really organised crims, paedoterrorists and the like who are (supposedly, hah!) the real targets will quickly and readily find alternative communications tactics. Denying these people the ability to do business on an Android phone or Windows/Apple computer isn't going to stop them, and the inconvenience is going to be marginal when they are already always looking over their shoulders. In many cases they will happily continue to use these systems, because they rely on idiot codes - as did SOE very effectively during WW2. In that case GCHQ won't even have caused these people modest inconvenience.
Then again, Hannigan's a typical civil servant, having studied "Classics" at Oxford, so we shouldn't be surprised. Can you imagine the chortling amongst the Bullingdon chums: "Binky Hannigan's moaning that he's cleverer than Sherlock Holmes again because he studied Classics, and we all did PPE. So I'm going to call his bluff by putting him in charge of the most technical most secret agency the government has!"
So, knowing that this won't affect the real villains, the only logical rationale for GCHQ's ambitions to give themselves unlimited prying rights is that it nothing to do with serious criminals, and everything to do with spying on workaday criminals (which I doubt) or is purely to support Theresa May's dystopian vision of universal surveillance of the population by the state.
And another thing, Mr Hannigan: If you want things to be different, and to be held in higher esteem, and to have some support, why are you spouting off to MI-fucking-T in Merkinland? If you want to get some support in the UK from people other than Big State enthusiasts, write something for the Reg (I'm sure they'd be delighted) and join us down here in the dirt of the Commentariat, if that's not too common for you?
Idiots don't get to be worth 12.4 BILLION dollars
Maybe not, but let's see the vile, wrinkled old lizard try and carry all that loot into the hereafter.
And that's probably only if there's another vendor who can provide support and/or a compatible product to transition to.
If you're a big company and have committed to a vast ERP implementation (the sort of thing people like Oracle and SAP love to sell) there's nowhere to run. The costs of change are vast, and any project that touches your finance or CRM systems is hugely risky. Even if the vendor support is crap and expensive, clients are locked in to the product, and what's to choose between the big two?
And even if another ERP vendor builds scale and looks as though they might be an option for clients, the big two just buy them, and Borg them into their model. You could go down the third party support route, and at least those conpanies live or die by the quality of their offering, but with closed source software there always that hint of paying money for old rope, and the threat that the IP owner will try and obstruct or tax third party support providers, to make up for "lost" income that they believe is theirs as of right.
The problem with this is that management rarely sees the link between offshoring and losing business
So long as the other outsourcers and offshorers are equally crap, the clients have nowhere to go. Insourcing something like IT is hugely complex (and shameful) job when five years previously you transferred all your in-house IT bods to IBM Global Buggerups, who promptly fired them.
The whole outsourcing industry is a scam, in which the buyers don't understand the business model of the sellers, but then find out too late that it is a scam, and there's no easy way back. But if IBM lose a client for their shit service, it doesn't matter because their snake oils salesmen can lure in a disaffected HP or TCS customer. The majority of contract wins amongst the outsourcers are simply industry churn, and most of the ITO and BPO vendors can live with that.
The one thing the vendors can't live with is the idea of a client bringing back almost all of their IT in house, but because that's hard it is rarely seen. Meanwhile directors keep falling for the "too good to be true" promises of the vendors, despite the obvious conclusion that it it looks too good to be true, its because it is indeed too good to be true.
"Axe to grind" is a fairly emotionally charged term.
With all due respect, that sounds like somebody who's looking to take offence, and will still do so regardless. Which you may not mean, but illustrates another tech related problem that people are very poor at coping with instant written communications. My last two weeks have been a miserable time of trying to contain people getting on their high horse over something or other in email. The trigger point is always something that seemed innocuous to the author, and then in a few presses of "send" there's a petty flame-war going on, rather than people cooperating to get their job done.
I think there must be a huge market for a course "Dealing with email" and a follow up "Managing emotions and email". Most of us would need to go in these.....
This is exactly one of the reasons I love AppSense Application Manager and it's trusted user model.
Surely you can do this with a well setup Windows security policy rather than having to use third party software?
The vast majority of people on damp string choose to remain on damp string when better options become available.
If that's correct, there's the problem. It isn't that rural rednecks want broadband that the market won't deliver, it is that the majority of them don't want it even when offered, in which case the rest of the population should accept that the unavailability of broadband in rural locations is the preferred choice of the majority who live there, and we needn't concern ourselves to please the handful of moaners.
Regarding your point about the long term value of other infrastructure, whilst technology moving fast may be true, who would be rushing to roll out rural gigabit broadband using brand new lines anytime in the next decade or more? Even if there were, if Openreach lay all cable in ducts or via poles, then the bulk of the investment cost would still have enduring value carrying the new unicorn hair data links, because the infrastructure cost (and long term value) would be in the ducts, not the shorter lived assets strung through them.
That one home in six will pay at best £25 a month for that last mile.
In towns VM have competition from all the competitors using Openreach (and that's often for FTTC). My guess is that in rural areas you'd have about three out of five premises preferring proper broadband over Openreach's damp string offer.
I doubt it will be a long meeting.
Probably still the case without some form of cross subsidy or USO.
But if the costs are as prohibitive as is claimed, why is it feasible to offer as near as makes no difference USO for electricity and water? Most households now spend more on (assorted) communications than they do on gas plus electricity, and water bills are about a third of energy.
why is it so difficult to deliver what is in essence just a large database based lookup table?
Because it suits them.
So long as nothing technical is delivered, the idiots of the Home Office can pretend its a technical problem. If something functional were delivered there's the certainty that their "open door to anybody" border policy will be undeniable, and they'd also have the real and embarrassing migration data rather than the current made up drivel.
The e-borders programme will never deliver anything functional or useful, because that suits nobody.
When will these fuckwits realise that their public position will only recover when they pay tax on all thier UK derived profits.
Why would Zuck and other US CEO greedsters give a toss about their public reputation? Most of those taking a stand (probably like you and I) don't and wouldn't use Facebook. Most of those who do use Facebook are too busy posting cat pictures and (to others) dreary detail of their lives, and wouldn't understand the issues, nor care. After all, they don't pay Facebook.
The only reason that these companies are offering token and voluntary changes is in the hope that this will head off a full and fair implementation of UK tax policy that would cost them a whole lot more, as for public reputation, that counts for nothing until they see user numbers declining because of the company's behaviour. Look at Amazon's employment practices as well as its tax affairs, and its corrosive impact on other internet retailers - but do those behaviours have any measurable effect on sales? Not that I can see, because people will always buy as cheap as possible.
This isn't a tax problem, it's a law problem. The law is an arse in this instance
I believe the law has not actually been tested in court in relation to tax-dodging US corporations. By pretending that their UK business is overseas or has profit-erasing charges from overseas, the Globocorps are engaging in (amongst other dodgy practices) transfer pricing. That's accepted as illegal in almost all countries and international tax treaties. If a UK manufacturer or retailer did this with their components or retailed products they'd be hit quickly and hard by HMRC. And that law has been tested in DSG Retail and others v HMRC (2009)*.
But for some reason, when you're a huge software or communications services HMRC are utterly ineffectual, and don't go after the likes of Starbucks, Google, Facebook, Amazon. And even when HMRC are finally embarrassed into doing something, they settle for pathetic sweetheart deals like this.
So to say that the law is an arse is probably (until proven so in court) incorrect. HMRC and their political masters from all political parties are the arses. And even when HMRC have the political backing to move forward, they'd need a different model of enforcement, by contracting out all the legal work to top flight tax barristers, and hiring a professional project manager (and ITSec support) to bring in each of these companies in turn. You don't take a knife to a gun fight, and the globocorps have weaponised their tax affairs with top-dollar lawyers and tax accountants, and HMRC can't rely on their mid-grade civil servants (or the bunglers of the Clown Prosecution Service) to get a result.
* Warning! Warning! Barrack room lawyer alert!
The majority, however, are just fumbling around, toying with the tools, trying to wrap their heads around how to get that stuff into production in a useful way.
What about " desperate to get stuff done without having to undergo IT procurement water torture"?
Over the years it has become apparent to me that in any large corporate, the entire business is in a lifecycle that comes to a slow close when the support functions (procurement, finance, HR etc - even IT) become progressively more powerful and less accountable, less responsive to their internal customers' needs. Then, in the name of efficiency and low cost, the support functions suffocate the business with byzantine delegated authority requirements, bureaucratic and unresponsive hiring and reward policies, procurement processes that take forever and then award contracts to charlatans that the business/IT managers wouldn't have allowed even to be considered, given the chance.
So as far as I can see, Docker and Cloud are IT-specific means of bureaucracy evasion, trying to avoid the "process sclerosis" of increasingly authoritarian support functions. Things are not better, maybe worse if you've outsourced your IT infrastructure, because bastards like HPE take forever to deliver anything, and it costs the earth, so you either have the water torture, or get pillaged by your outsource "partner", or both.
So I'm in favour of cloud and the like, even noting the security concerns. Sadly, evading the bureaucracy doesn't make it go away, and it continues to throttle the business around which it has grown. And eventually the company ends up like Motorola, General Motors, Nokia phones, Microsoft, HP and many other dinosaurs that have or are disappearing up their own arse.
If Nokia Phones is 100% death through process sclerosis, my own employers are about 85%. The screams of pain from the business have reached the main board, but they've still not woken up and understood that every man-jack in HR needs dismissing now, that the Procurement teams need to report to the MD of the business unit they support, that IT and Finance need to have generous employee incentive schemes that are at least 70% reliant on the performance assessed by senior managers in the supported business, not within their own silo.
The bizarre thing is that there's so much real value in good, responsive support services. But rather than recognise that value, the business focuses on cost, and then these support services hinder the business and even each other.
so does this mean if you have a computer and the internet you may have to pay it?
Lord alone knows, but you can be sure that the detail will be an ill considered botch with unintended consequences, simply because it will be secondary legislation, meaning that it won't be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this just became an internet poll tax collected through ISPs. Initially they might require the ISPs to root through your viewing to find BBC sites, but then it becomes an opportunity to differentially tax information on a wider basis. Sounds a slippery slope, but these are clowns intent on greasing the Snoopers Charter into law, so expect the worst possible outcome, and then your expectations will be met.
I've already lived through one Endless September and I don't want to do it again
You were embroiled in "I recycle my soap" too? That was epic, the sort of thing that you never forget.
Does anybody know if Dhug is still around?
because there's no-one local available who can do the specific job
The US has in round numbers 8m unemployed, 6m involuntarily part time workers, 3m discouraged or marginally attached workers, and in total 94m adults not in the labour force.
I'd suggest that if there's no locals to do the job, its either because the employer either isn't trying very hard, or because they are knowingly failing to pay a credible salary, or not offering training to do the job.
what does IBM offer to distinguish them from AWS/Azure/a big hosting provider like Rackspace or Sungard?
Nothing. But Gini will be getting a big bonus (c$13.3m of options for 2015) on the back of all the sackings, and because those are locked in for a few years, she has to keep the company in business and solvent to reap her rewards - but longer term growth beyond her options vesting date doesn't matter. Cue sackings, high prices, and reduced investment in long term growth products.
Regarding people like Rackspace, they've got a mere $3bn market cap. All Gini and her overpaid greedster C-suite colleagues need to do is tweak the IBM dividend down a bit, or up the IBM debt mountain (net debt around $46bn) and they can buy them without a thought. Then its a case of cut staff, cut development, increase prices, and report the results as "growth". When they've hollowed out whoever they acquire, it is a case of rinse and repeat. Wall Street don't care, they take a cut each time an acquisition goes through, and so long as the Federal Reserve keep printing money, the share price might keep going up as part of the state+corporate Ponzi that passes for wealth creation these days.
they'll be overwhelmed in fairly short order, and they won't be able to build additional capacity fast enough
Who will be overwhelmed? The plan AIUI is for the ISP's to have to keep the records and add the costs to your monthly broadband bill. If the ISP's have any common sense they'll be doing this with a decent margin on it, and the more surveillance hardware and storage they need to buy, the better their investors will like it. Everybody wins. Government control freaks oppress the population. Spooks and almost every low level government employee has free access to your internet and comms history. Your ISP has a steadly growing asset base with an (in effect) government guaranteed annuity return. And we win because........ermm....errmmm....YEs! We win because we're immediately protected from paedoterrordrugdealingtaxdodgists!
Yay! Roll on Snoopers Charter! Three cheers for the evil witch May!
You try writing coherently at 14:07 when you've been in the pub since 10:30.....
and the network operators starting to fall on the side of the people who pay them....
Fraid not, mate. Hutchison are more likely looking to control adverts in order to take a slice of the vast pie currently being gobbled by Google. You are free to believe that they are doing this to do you a favour, but common sense and economics dictate otherwise. With competitive pressure pushing network revenues per user south, and no volume growth in mature markets, they need more money, and one of the few levers is to throttle advertising content, and demand a toll on the adverts they deliver. Because users don't really care much about adverts, there's not expected to be the backlash that throttling user content would generate.
However, they're assuming that the advertisers will pay without protest or retaliation, and I think that's big gamble. Google in particular won't want to see the current model disrupted, so I expect there to be some interesting developments if they roll this scheme out.
seems the bury it 'neath the EU debate ploy is working.
Only working on the hard of thinking.
Purely on Snoopers Charter, I won't ever vote for the Tories again (I'm making the probably correct assumption that they won't ever come to their senses).
Interestingly Corbyn's doing the same with Labour supporters and Trident, so if between them, the senior braying idiots of Westminster can piss off enough of their core supporters, then the 2020 general election could be a real laugh. The only thing we need to work against is the simpletons in the population who might delude themselves that voting for the least worst alternative is an acceptable response.
The freetards are opposed to taxing things on the internet.
So, you're suggesting that internet retailers don't pay UK VAT, business rates on their premises, the various taxes on employment that government apply to all businesses, fuel duties in distribution etc etc? The only place the playing field isn't level is in the area of corporation tax for multinationals, and anybody who thinks that works out as cheaper customer prices evidently can't do maths.
The internet is (usually) much cheaper because high street retail is space and labour inefficient, leading to higher rents, higher labour costs, higher payroll taxes, as well as increasing the working capital in the supply chain. Factor in the festering sore of business rates, and the high streets problems can be seen as sadly inevitable. Taxing internet retailers more would certainly put their costs up, but I can't see that changing modern shopping habits.
"fines enforceable against individuals"...Wouldn't that be nice, though it rather defeats the point of limited liability
Utter rubbish. The point of limited liability is simply to put a limit on the investment risk exposure of investors, not to allow directors to shield themselves from fines for their own actions in breach of law.
There's a whole host of activities where directors can be personally held to account for their actions in a limited company, including Health & Safety breaches, competition law offences, controlling a company whilst being disqualified as a director, contempt of court by the company etc. As usual, the statute relating to data protection is decades out of date, and the enforcement is limited by the rules that Parliament rubber stamped without reading or understanding.
and the deal would give the Chinese company...
Have I missed the invasion of Taiwan by PRC, or is this just the usual splapdash writing that makes us love the Reg?
How would separating Openreach help?
Because where Openreach isn't separate from BT, the regulator has to rely on management accounts. By their definition, management accounts are a sub set of the statutory accounts, and tell a very selective and incomplete story. That's why any competent regulator (for example, OFWAT) are red hot on ring fencing regulated business from non-regulated commercial business, and then the regulate the operation of said monopoly in a very detailed and transparent way.
Now, Ofcom are as bold, brave and effectual as wet lettuce, but that's a separate problem. If we could see Openreach's accounts as a standalone company, along with regulatory detail that establishes what it trades with BT group and proves that BT trades at arms length with Openreach, then you'd have the basic facts on which to regulate the operation.
But, there's a reason why BT opposes any form of separation, ring fencing, or split off of Openreach, and that's not to serve customers better.
Ofcom says it will open up BT’s ducts, but that was supposed to happen in 2009....And it did happen. It goes by the amusingly ironic name of PIA.
And unsurprisingly it didn't work. A bit worrying if (former) senior officials at the useless Ofcom can't see why this wouldn't work. It is difficult, if not impossible to have genuine, economically viable competition in network infrastructure. For a few trunk/transmission links yes, but for last mile (even last twenty miles) it simply can't be done. That's why 99.9% of us have only one electricity connection, one gas connection, one water connection, one sewerage connection. Even where it has been tried, in cable, the result has been years of losses and large asset writedowns, so that Virginmedia's owners never paid the true cost of the network they now own.
There is an answer, and most people (other than the dimbulbs of government, regulator, and now Her Majesty's Comedy Opposition) can see that: The establishment of Openreach as a separate legal entity to BT, strong and effective regulation (not by the drips of Ofcom), and some degree of legal commitment to USO and a commitment to slowly upgrade to FTTP.
Some will say that the FTTP and USO costs will be too high. How, then, did we afford to get electricity and water to just about anybody who wants it, even in our relatively impoverished past? There's other solutions to digging trenches or erecting poles everywhere. But as set up, BT simply can't be arsed, and Ofcom couldn't even find its own arse.
.internet blackmailers should spend the next 30 years in prison. Anything less is a disgrace and encourages more crime
Actually, the penalty is largely irrelevant, its the likelihood of being caught and the speed of the justice system that count. In this case, there's probably a whole host of laws been broken, and potentially each file or record attacked is a separate instance, so the potential jail sentence would be as long as the "justice" system wants to make it. But until the scum find that they are detected and apprehended quickly, and then put behind bars promptly, they'll keep on doing it.
I can't speak for Germany, but in the UK our government are more interested in spying on the domestic population than they are on stopping electronic forms of crime, so there's little chance of the UK becoming any safer from ransomware, spam and the other problems.
Regarding the "Russia and Ukraine are out of bounds" argument, in the case of Ukraine, the corrupt government are only kept going by Western bailouts. If the Western authorities grew a pair of balls and told Ukraine to play by our rules or go bust, the gangsters running the country would find and shoot every hacker and cybercrim in the country. Russia's more of a problem, although the persistent anti-Russian stance of the West is a contributor, but there's solutions like telling Russia that (say) EU countries will lock out telecommunications connections to Russia if they don't stamp on their cybercrims. Or just throttle the bandwidth of crossborder digital communications with all Russia based servers. That of itself wouldn't stop the crims because of the nature of digital communications, but it'd put huge pressure on the Russian government, making commerce, finance and even diplomacy a problem, and they'd quickly find those responsible and break both their arms.
None of this is going to happen of course, because the authorities still see cybercrime as not affecting them, and because as noted they don't have the balls to take bold action.
would it be called Handsome Interested?
Well that's covered about 2% of the male population. What about the rest of us?
Big boned interested for the larger gents
Grizzled interested for the older gents
Scrawny interested for thinner gents
Fugly interested for gents blessed with a Crimewatch face.
Or maybe we should accept that the genders make their choices intelligently, abandon wanky competitions and ignore the hand wringing by feminists in the Graun.
I hope people are going to make a point of emailing this story to their various MPs
Why? The Tory MPs are a collection of lickspittles, and the Lefties are a disorganised shower of piss, still rooted in late 19thC socialist philosophy.
is it really that good?
Depends. If you see the world in black and white, nope. But if you can imagine a chequer pattern made up of alternate dark brown and mid brown stains, yes.
I think he means the dish 'Scouse' which has a bit of beetroot in it.
Actually I was referring to sugar beet, and all the marvellous confections that can be made with sugar. I could have been more precise, but that would have disturbed the carefully crafted comic balance of the original post.
Imagine how rich I'd be, and how successful my employer's business if I put this much care into my day job!
One of the side-effects of a broad spectrum allergy to half of the plant kingdom....
I think this is a regional genetic abnormality originating in Liverpool, still prevalent there, but now quite widespread in other regions. The sufferers are unable to eat any green vegetables, root vegetables or salad. Luckily all forms of fried edible tubers are readily tolerated, along with products based on the residues of beta vulgaris, and those from processed barley and hops, so long as none of the toxic vitamins or fibre remain.
PUtting 4G towers alongside it is also a good idea.
Why? The whole flawed, comically fictitious "business case" for HS2 is based on the stupid, nonsensical assumption that business travellers' time spent on the train is totally wasted by virtue of inability to communicate. If HS2 has good connectivity, then it's whole raison d'etre disappears, in an Escher-esque impossibility loop that could fracture time-space itself.
When was it that the Tory party became wedded to grandiose and wasteful public spending on vanity projects? I suppose around the time it became the Etonian Twats' Champagne Socialist Party.
...that they appear to have formed a Staff Consultative Committee solely for the purposes of consulting said staff on the sackings. Presumably they'll be able to disband the committee immediately the consultation period ends.
Imagine the agenda:
IBM UK Staff Consultative Committee Inaugural Meeting
1. Introduction and apologies
2. Planned sackings
3. NOB (like AOB, except we've decided there is no other business)
Errrm Grammar Nazi Fail, I'm afraid.
If you omit the "you", then the resultant sentence fragment is "cold volcanic activity and I". That might be a good sequel to Withnail, but otherwise I cannot see that can sounding right to many people.
I claim the Grammar Nazi crown: ------------------------------------------------->
It's the inconvenient buffering that irks me
So you're the inspiration, and thus responsible for all those stupid Kevin Bacon "buffer face" adverts?
I'd call you a rude name, but being a polite sort of person that doesn't fit easily with my delicate sensibilities.
I think you have missed Adam's excellent sense of humour, which is a fine way of bursting the bubble of people like Keller. Although the general outrage over Keller's opinions may have got through from the barrage of criticism.
Post of the week, Sir!
so there will be 38 unarmed terrorists available to carry the ammo.
Not much of a terrorist if they're just carrying the bags of real terrorists. Absent any better explosives, maybe they could try igniting their own farts. Would that qualify them?
"Relevant" means people who've paid.
Yes. And this is about fighting net neutrality in the advertising space, because most users don't like ads, and therefore there's nobody to defend the concept of neutrality. Of course, if ad supported sites find this a problem, and start blocking Three, then it does become a neutrality issue that the users will care about. But in the meantime, Three hope to "monetise" ad streaming over and above the data allowances that users have paid for and in theory already pay for the (largely unwanted) ads.
Basically, Three want to be paid twice for the same thing, which is nice work if you can get it. If they want to make it fair, then lets see them ignore all ads when calculating data usage for mobile customers.
In the wider scheme, its the same pressure as causing Vodafone to sack its few remaining UK workers, or EE to jump into BT's arms: the City (in EE's case not the City of London) want growth from their telecoms babies. With average users only wanting a dumb pipe and a phone on lease purchase there's not much growth, and pressure on pricing for the commodity service. So the only option is to try and cut costs further, or constrict the pipe and then flog an "upgraded" service to ad slingers (today, users next year?).
That's why high-tech flourish in appealing places.
Have you ever been to Shoreditch? It's a classic urban shithole, and what's more, if you're after poor people to train, there's Tower Hamlets and Hackney a stone's throw away.
Personally I'd put guards around the M25 to stop any escapees, and invite the Luftwaffe back to do the job properly.
People quite like working in places where you can walk to work and at least some basic shops without getting a car every five minutes.
An interesting idea, but unless you live somewhere with a fairly large range of potential employers within working distance, you'll have to move when you change jobs in order to continue walking to work. For some that'll be just dandy. For me, I'll stick living where I do, my children having a stable education, and commute for the various jobs that my career gets me into.
I might add that the sort of urban hipster utopia that is described is my vision of hell.
You forgot, more taxes to dodge.
Just a simple grab from the vid, no jiggery-pokery.
In a way I'm disappointed. And, if you'd diddled the image with some low rent Photoshoppery, that would have satisfied the first two whining commentards, n'est pas?
and at the same time redesign the rear end to make it rather less eye-searingly ugly.
The original design inspiration had a different design at the back. You remember, the three wheeler that Goldmember used to escape from Austin Powers.
Jail the directors/principals behind the nuisance calls for five minutes ....
Given that a murderer will expect to serve only about six and a half years, largely on account of government not having built enough jails, how on earth do you think that it would be feasible to start locking people up for this?
Ideally I'd like the guilty to birched, but once you start with that sort of thing you get the sort of "justice" seen in northern Syria. So, we can't beat them, we can't afford to jail them. And that's why the objective of the ICO should not be to piss around as they do at the moment, but to make sure the penalties stick, and that all monies owed to the ICO are clawed back, if necessary by leaving the company directors homeless. Industrialise the process of enforcement and clawback to make sure it gets results, and that there's no easy escapes, include the costs of enforcement in the penalty, and the message will start to leak out into the murky world of auto-dialler and outbound call centre companies.
As a simple start, the law needs to change to make directors personally liable for unpaid civil monetary penalties.
One wonders whether the best approach to stopping such calls involves the use of a few large blokes and a dark alley.
Ain't going to happen. Unfortunately, the ICO are pathetically weak in following through. When they assign a monetary penalty, and some scumbag like Pardo winds up the company concerned, the ICO should formally oppose the striking off, demand payment, and then cause the company to become bankrupt if they don't pay. Whilst this might seem to have the same end effect, by making DSM insolvent, the ICO could then apply to the Insolvency Service to have Pardo disqualified as a director. That would make his life a whole lot more difficult when he tries to establish another shady outfit to do the same thing in a few months time.
Until the ICO actually enforce penalties against those who intentionally break the law, then those people will continue to see that there is no risk in breaking these laws. I would moot that all the penalties that the ICO do actually get paid are from the unintentional law breakers, quite often in the public sector. Call me old fashioned, but taking money out of the health budget, and recycling it to the Treasury via the ICO is a pointless exercise that benefits nobody.
not much interest and not much change
Whilst undoubtedly true, I'm surprised that it took ANY resource to provide the data to the web, in which case why stop publishing it if the probe still transmits it. Haven't NASA heard of automation?
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds