The same Capita as this?
Are they setting themselves up for another Carillon style fiasco?
1301 posts • joined 3 Dec 2012
The same Capita as this?
Are they setting themselves up for another Carillon style fiasco?
Odd how this sort of failure keeps on happening. Don't government contracts have some sort of get-out clause that allow them to drop suppliers without any financial penalties when said supplier provides such an abysmal level of service?
Stop whining when your only provider goes down and you're too cheap to pay for a backup service.
Or simply don't have the money.
Stop assuming people are living sufficiently comfortable lives that they can afford this. It might not be much to you (even for a 'crappy' line). It might not be feasible for many others.
I can't see them being keen on paying £X000+ each time they have a fault for text messages.
Perhaps the additional cost will be an incentive to keep large scale incidents to a minimum?
For that matter surely SMSs would only represent a significant cost if they keep on failing to provide the service to such a large number of customers? Small scale outages would presumably be less of an issue.
For me personally Virgin Media has been on the whole reasonably reliable. It's when things inevitably fall apart - as it will always do occasionally with technology - that the problems start.
Keeping customers informed isn't their strongest point apparently and when I asked them via Twitter this morning what had happened the previous day they couldn't give me any information. Given the scale of the outage I don't think being willing to tell such a large chunk of customers why they weren't getting the service they were paying for is particularly unreasonable. Apparently Virgin Media disagrees.
Funny how the ICO's willingness to start fining suddenly gets a lot stronger when it involves anything affecting them directly rather than another 3rd party.
<HAL 9000 voice>'I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that'</HAL 9000 voice>
Oh, I don't know about that. There could be entertainment to be found in watching Cortana struggle with accents.
Some of the clients I've dealt with in the past were quite resistant to sharing data with us even when they were using our software & had raised a support ticket requesting the sort of help that required access to it.
The idea that these same companies would be happy with a microphone switched on all the time listening to everything they're saying and potentially sharing it with Microsoft (which is presumably what any sort of real voice control & using Cortana would entail) seems unlikely in the extreme.
Didn't NSA employees get caught out on LinkedIn using project names that were then subsequently leaked by Snowden? And presumably their profiles have nice mugshots displayed?
So basically it's still undefined. Anything not tested in court is essentially little more than an opinion however informed it may or may not be. There are other opinions too. Even your own link says so. See the following article as an example:
On one hand you're accusing the EU of being vindictive merely by plainly following the rules *WE LAID DOWN*. On the other you suggest we should bend the rules as far as possible - maybe even beyond breaking point - purely to serve our own selfish interests and make a point.
And yet you still think the EU are the ones trying to be vindictive? Really?
It's also entirely possible that the EU will come up with projects or organisations in the future that the UK will want to join. What do you think the likelihood is of this happening will be if we've proven ourselves to be unreliable in the past?
There's a word for people that promote and intentionally follow a course of action they know will cause harm to their country. It's one that the likes of the daily mail is rather fond of using when it suits them: traitor.
The whole 'passport-must-be-burgundy' thing was a non-binding council resolution. We could have remained members of the EU *and* had blue passports.
Also ignore the fact that the blue colour was actually something brought about by the League of Nations in 1920 and the only reason we've bothered with biometrics is because of demands made by the US in regards to its own visa waiver program. (*muttermutter...bloodyforeigners...muttermuttermumble*)
One of my favourite Brexit tweets:
What gets me is the continued failure of our politicians to grasp the idea that people on the continent can quite easily read our papers too and can see how the likes of Johnson, Gove, Fox and Davis play to the gallery at home just so they can jump through the tabloid hoops.
Yet somehow our MPs are still continually surprised by the angry reaction of the EU when it comes to making promises in Brussels only to break them shortly afterwards just to keep the likes of Paul Dacre happy.
Are you honestly expecting the EU to give non-EU states the sort of control over its own systems that the US refuses to share with others when it comes to its own GPS systems even if they are NATO allies?
Which begs the question: why bother making such a song and dance about being denied access in the first place?
Didn't the UK have a hand in writing the rules that said that non-EU states shouldn't be given this level of access? And that's precisely what we'll be after Brexit: a non-EU state. No amount of negotiation or fanciful plans will change that.
Now the EU is being vindictive because it's following rules that we helped lay down? Seriously?
Speak for yourself. I have seen a number of people angry that they were conned into voting leave when they wanted to see more money for the NHS. Then of course you have others that voted for the sunlit uplands and the 'easiest trade deals in history' that the likes of Davis and Fox have been continually promising until they collectively tried to rewrite history and claim that nobody said it would be easy.
The problem for them is that they did. Repeatedly. And the wonderful thing is that their words aren't readily forgotten, especially when we have the internet and archived articles to go back to.
How many people were conned by all those promises and fake fear regarding Turkey I wonder? Less than 4% of the leave vote? Because that's all it would have taken to change the outcome.
It's a mistake to portray leave voters as stupid in my opinion, especially when the government itself didn't know initially what leaving would entail. Expecting a member of the public to do so therefore when an entire civil service hadn't got to grips with it seems more than a little unrealistic. You could equally claim that remain voters didn't fully understand the implications of staying in the EU, however positive doing so may or may not be.
Not doing more to stop the over-spending, possible criminal behaviour and collusion with foreign states (*cough*Russia*cough*) to interfere with our democratic processes is, however, a different matter. People talk about respecting the result but from where I sit given the underhanded manner in which the result was secured I see nothing worth respecting. If this were to take place in any other country we would be loudly pushing for a rerun of the process. Funny how that doesn't happen when the mistake is made at home.
The mistake here perhaps is to see this as a negotiation to start with from the Europeans point of view when from their side of things it's probably more of an implementation of the rules they already have (rules that in many cases we had a strong hand in formulating - so it's a bit of a mystery why the government didn't see this one coming from the very start).
As Theresa May was so fond of saying until it started being flung back in her direction: Brexit means Brexit. There are consequences to leaving and this is one of them. Pretending this issue can simply be negotiated out of existence is just as likely as finding a solution to the Northern Ireland issue that doesn't involve either a hard border or non-existent technology.
Of course the caption 'Lose access to navigation services, your financial industry, automotive industry, aviation industry and fishing industry too amongst others. Oh, and by the way you might want to say goodbye to your loved ones dying of cancer now as they won't be around much longer when the medicine runs out' wouldn't fit onto the side of a bus quite so easily.
There are too many VBA-filled spreadsheets out there to allow Excel to disappear any time soon.
And I speak as somebody who regularly gets asked to update one such file for a client. This file has been around longer than I have, and I've been at my current employer more than 11 years now.
I've also seen a general resistance to learning anything new or changing working practices - especially in the larger accounting firms (I'm guessing they probably don't want the additional training costs in terms of both time & money for so many people unless it's really necessary). This means you can easily end up with a situation where people end up sticking with what they know & are familiar with using.
It may also be worth noting that whilst Libre Office supports macros it does so using its own language and not the same VBA that so many people are familiar with. A move to Libre Office would require a rewrite of those existing macros in files accountants are already using.
So: Amazon owes 250m, Apple billions... and all enforced by a European system on rules limiting state aid. Rules that Corbyn wants to ditch.
I bet the tax dodging corporations will love having him as PM...
While we're on the subject is there any chance of increasing the length of the editing window for people that have proven themselves in your eyes to be reasonably responsible? There have been a few occasions where I wanted to make some innocuous changes after the 10 minutes - typos mostly - but have been unable to do so because of this rather arbitrary limit.
De-anonymising data and then using it already seems to be a crime?
From the ICO's own guidance:
If you produce personal data through a re-identification process, you will take on your own data controller responsibilities. [Link - section 2]
Also from the ICO on the subject of what a data controller is:
8. The DPA draws a distinction between a ‘data controller’ and a ‘data processor’ in order to recognise that not all organisations involved in the processing of personal data have the same degree of responsibility. It is the data controller that must exercise control over the processing and carry data protection responsibility for it. This distinction is also a feature of Directive 94/46/EC, on which the UK’s DPA is based. [Link - page 4]
So if you de-anonymise data & use it you're responsible under the DPA already, and since consent is supposedly already such an important part then it's difficult seeing how using de-anonymised data could be used legally today (assuming no legitimate interest case could be made)
Like I said before: don't expect things to change.
Existing law is rarely enforced in the UK. Just look at the farce that was the Google/NHS trials if you want one example, or the ICO's failure to act when 3UK proposed giving Shine/Rainbow the browsing habits of their customers.
Huge fines have already been available for quite some time but the ICO seems to prefer using their toothless 'undertakings', and even getting that far seems to take an inordinate amount of effort.
As for criminal offences, it might be worth remembering that the City of London Police were wined and dined by the very people that happened to be the subject of one of their investigations (Phorm) before conveniently closing it without prosecuting anybody.
Forgive me if I fail to see anything changing any time soon.
Why should those flouting the rules now be any more less confident about breaking them when GDPR/data protection bill comes into force? The price of avoiding justice seems to be little more than that of a good meal. We also have a regulator so keen to avoid enforcement that it's difficult to stop from asking ourselves why we should bother with them.
"I don't advocate building in backdoors," Hannigan said. "It's not a good idea to weaken security for everybody in order to tackle a minority.
Odd, given the events back in 2010. It might be worth noting that whilst he wasn't in charge of GCHQ at the time, Hannigan still held a senior position within the Foreign Office (Director-General of Defence and Intelligence from March onwards that year).
Some people here might also recall that GCHQ were spending their time seven years ago trying to hack the SIM card manufacturer Gemalto and effectively install their own backdoors by attempting to steal the encryption keys.
So much for playing nice with the telcos.
Presumably this involves continual examination of what sites/services are being used so they know which traffic to exclude from the total?
The J is important? But no dot I notice...
Why do any charities need to have access to data, regardless of whether it has been 'de-identified' or not?
If the value of that wealth plummets then even the rich can end up being in trouble (just look at what happened in places like Zimbabwe when it suffered a financial collapse).
Even if that doesn't end up being the case you only need to look as far as countries like France & Russia to see what happens when the poor are pushed too far and for too long.
If we take this to its illogical conclusion, where all jobs will be performed by machines, then there will be no consumers to generate demand for the products and services performed by those machines. Obviously, this doesn't make sense and isn't going to happen, at least whilst the motivation for producing goods and services is wealth.
The motive is to create wealth for themselves, not society. The company doesn't care how well society is performing as long as the company is doing OK.
It's only once the damage has been done that they'll be forced to think otherwise.
It seems more likely that governments will find a way of taxing robots labourers in a similar way to their human counterparts (maybe by taking the average salary of the human counterpart and using that as a basis for example).
What about traffic passing through the US in relation to services provided outside the country such as consumers in the EU? Won't make this development weaken Privacy Shield even further?
The important point is that it's a foreign company outside the control of the regulators here, and once we leave the EU will probably be even less willing to pay any attention to what the likes of the ICO have to say on the matter.
Sometimes it feels like the government here is making every effort to either sell out members of the public or let the private sector do it. If it wasn't Russian made spyware being inserted into our national telecoms system then it was the excessive surveillance and cooperation with the US and the NSA.
Americans on one side, Russians on the other, with the Chinese often interested bystanders with the likes of Huawei. Next to no thought seems to be given to the interests of the little people...
All that lovely data - soon to be shared with the Israeli company Rainbow (previously named Shine) who just happens to count the owner of 3UK as an investor...
They are interfering with the operation of a PC. I wonder what the Computer Misuse Act has to say about that?
They are intercepting traffic in a way that appears to go beyond what the law demands of them and clearly without consent. What would s.1(1) of RIPA have to say about that?
They are processing data in a way that appears to be excessive amongst other things, so it would be interesting to hear what the ICO has to say on the matter with regards to the Data Protection Act.
Sometimes intent is irrelevant and doesn't make it any less potentially illegal. I wonder if this is one of those times?
If that's all it was why haven't Vodafone done anything about fixing it?
Vodafone already seem to be playing silly buggers with some of their customers. I dread to think what will happen if Liberty Global and Vodafone end up merging...
it can't legally be used against you in court.
Two words: parallel reconstruction.
From the privacy statement:
'We also obtain data from third parties.'
I wonder who these 'third parties' are and what data is being shared with them? For that matter has consent been gained from the user to share it with Microsoft in the first place?
Paradoxically, no company has done more than Microsoft to challenge antiquated laws that provide insufficient personal data to users
And to government too.
They were amongst the first participants in PRISM, and the current fuss over legal niceties regarding Irish servers only started *after* their shady dealings with the US government were revealed by Snowden. They had to resist this in court. They simply had no other choice. They have known for years that this was an issue but did nothing until they were forced to do so.
If Microsoft cared so much about how their customers are treated why did they fire Caspar Bowden?
I'm not sure I would be so forgiving, especially when Caspar was so open about his own views on Brad Smith. A quick search on Twitter can be revealing.
You need only look as far as Caspar Bowden and how he was treated by Microsoft to know how they really feel about privacy. It would be interesting to hear what - if anything - Brad Smith has to say about it.
They only started caring when they were given no other choice but to do so.
In 2002, Caspar left FIPR and joined Microsoft, where he became chief privacy adviser for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Microsoft was originally keen on privacy, and Caspar got the company to sponsor privacy research in various ways. But the company’s direction changed as cloud services became important and as the Bush surveillance laws gave the agencies access to cloud data. In 2011 Caspar left. As he told the story, he was responsible for briefing Microsoft’s government sales managers in 40 countries about privacy, and told them that if they sold Microsoft cloud services to non-US governments, the US Fisa court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveilliance court) would give the FBI, NSA and CIA unfettered access to everything. For this, he was fired.
I used to have to go to hospital regularly for my pre-transplant appointments. It seemed at the time that they couldn't even keep track of the paper records, never mind deal properly with anything of a technological nature (they managed to lose my notes on a distressingly large number of occasions).
Incidentally, it may have been my imagination but I could have sworn the last time I saw a PC in hospital a few weeks back it was running XP...
Mind you at the time the whole place seemed to be poorly run (this is getting on for 20 years ago now). I recall having to stay overnight after a biopsy on a ward. The bathroom was located at the end and was a large room obviously intended to deal with disabled people too. I remember how the elderly man next to me had to get up in the middle of the night to use the toilet. All I could hear was a series of heartfelt faint 'Oh dear's repeatedly coming from the bathroom at the time.
I had to get up myself a while later, probably ~6-8 hours later. When I went in there I saw a series of dry brown puddles leading up to the toilet.
Nobody had noticed in the intervening time and nobody had bothered to clean it up.
I recall my old HP 320LX. Problems with the design seemed in some instances to be entirely avoidable too.
I don't recall offhand which version of Windows CE it ran but the start menu structure was rather odd: it seemed some of the entries were recursive and you could end up going round endlessly from one menu to another if you really wanted to.
Revenue for 2015/16 rose 3 per cent to £9.78bn for the full year, while sales in Blighty increased 1 per cent to £6.4bn.
3% growth internationally but only 1% within the UK?
Perhaps a more accurate headline would be 'Growth in the UK is only a fraction of what the rest of the EU is experiencing'?
Maybe it's just me, but only seeing 1/3 of the growth seen elsewhere isn't really something to shout about.
Does this have anything to do with the falling value of the pound by any chance and that most IT kit seems to come from abroad?
In such situations sales could be falling but profits could still end up higher than before...
Again: no it isn't. Anybody who has made FoI requests will tell you that, especially when the private sector organisation doesn't actually give that information to the department they report to (with regards to transport, it's not just NATS, but also National Rail that would fall into this category for example)
It seems that if all else fails they just flat out lie
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018