Posts by Vimes

And then we have NowTV for other exclusives. And Netflix for yet more exclusives...

I wonder how many people are prepared to pay for all three just to get around all these limits put in place by all these exclusive deals?

Serious WPAD flaw in IE?

https://nodpi.org/forum/index.php/topic,5549.msg50007.html#msg50007

Before fetching its first page, a web browser implementing this method sends the local DHCP server a DHCPINFORM query, and uses the URL from the WPAD option in the server's reply. If the DHCP server does not provide the desired information, DNS is used. If, for example, the network name of the user's computer is pc.department.branch.example.com, the browser will try the following URLs in turn until it finds a proxy configuration file within the domain of the client:

That is soooo bad. So so bad.

BT: a company that previously trialled systems offered by Phorm.

Telephonica: a company whose Brazilian branch is currently trialling systems offered by Phorm.

I don't think either of them can be trusted.

Something else: doesn't the government have certain legal obligations that they have to adhere to where the disability discrimination act - or whatever it's called these days - is concerned? Has something changed in recent years?

What's bad about this is that it has the potential to affect people well outside the borders of the US.

Take the mobile phone companies in the UK. I know I'm repeating myself here, but at one point both 3UK and Vodafone were using the services provided by Bluecoat. This entailed them sending all URLs being visited by their customers to Bluecoat, whereupon Bluecoat would then attempt to access the same page. Apparently this was all part of the filtering product they offer - the one downside to that being that it just didn't work the moment you started visiting pages protected by SSL (and the less said about redirecting known Bluecoat IP addresses or deny them access entirely with a few simple lines added to the .htaccess file the better).

In any case a US company both based in the US and subject to US law would at that point have a complete browsing history where non-SSL protected traffic of UK based users is concerned and would be able to hand over personal information even more easily and with fewer checks than before.

Oh, and in case other readers here have forgotten there are a number of UK.gov websites - including the ICO - that use Google Analytics from Google's own servers.

If stuff was bought with the stolen credit card then presumably they have his address within the block of flats when he provided a delivery address.

Personally there is one other thing I would consider doing: try to get a hold of this address and then sign him up for as many samples as possible. Drown the bastard in unwanted mail and as much embarassing crap as possible being delivered to his door and in plain view of his neighbours.

Just out of curiosity why only count the posts under the current user name? When showing the total number of up and down votes the page seems to show the total for posts that include messages that I posted as A/C. I don't understand why then the badges can't be displayed for the user rather than current name being used provided they aren't posting as A/C at the time?

Perhaps it's time that telcos were forced to be a little more honest?

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ofcom-ban-the-fraudulent-use-of-the-term-unlimited-by-mobile-networks-and-isps

And this is the sort of situation we'll end up with in the UK if the snooper's charter ever makes it onto the books here: intelligence services unable to understand what they can and can't demand because the only bureaucratic hoops that they will have to jump through to get what they're after will consist of ticking a few boxes on a form. They'll end up with a sense of entitlement that will put the GCSB to shame. It already seems to be happening too - even before the legislation has been put into place. I know I've posted this elsewhere but I think it should be repeated:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/9991351/Town-halls-join-rush-to-use-the-snoopers-charter.html

The so-called snooper's charter isn't even in force yet and councils are already planning on how they want to abuse it.

And isn't it interesting how 'national security' always gets lumped together with the real reason for this sort of thing? In this case 'economic well being', although how NZ's 'economic wellbeing' is determined by the amount of money being made in the US by members of the RIAA and MPAA is a bit of a puzzle to me. I suppose in this case they couldn't shriek 'It's for the children' instead but they could of at least done more to explain why it's actually needed rather than simply rely on the old catch-all of national security.

Petition: Ban the fraudulent use of the term 'unlimited' by mobile networks and ISPs

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ofcom-ban-the-fraudulent-use-of-the-term-unlimited-by-mobile-networks-and-isps

Samsung hiring students to post negative HTC one comments online?

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/04/samsung-might-be-hiring-students-to-post-bitchy-comments-on-htc-one-reviews/

Are Samsung really that scared of HTC?

Personally I don't see why they don't just make it easier for the end user to select which CAs they want to trust. If they did this then the only thing that those working on firefox would need to care of would be the maintenance of a blacklist that people can either choose to use or ignore.

Town halls join rush to use the snoopers’ charter

It's not even on the books yet, and councils are already wanting to abuse the systems that would be introduced by this.

Council staff, health and safety inspectors and even Royal Mail want to harness the Government’s proposed “Snoopers’ Charter” to monitor private emails, telephone records and internet use.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/9991351/Town-halls-join-rush-to-use-the-snoopers-charter.html