AKA "Dead Cat Bouncing on a bungee cord"?
158 posts • joined 3 Sep 2013
Remainers like myself were hoping for an explosive report to blow up Brexit. Sadly it's been revealed that it’s our Remain campaign and the Lib Dems who are under investigation by the ICO for potential data breaches before the referendum. Arron Banks’ looming fines are well-deserved but almost entirely for using his Leave.EU mailing list to flog insurance after the referendum, not for activities during the campaign.
"A consortium that included private equity investors and the Church of England ploughed £600m into Williams & Glyn in 2013 in return for equity once it floated in an IPO, but RBS shelved plans to spin off the subsidiary due to concerns over its survival post-Brexit."
Just wondering what happened to that £600m. Will they get it back? Or is there a very special corner of Hell being prepared for the CoE Financial Advisers? I would ask my parish vicar, but he is too busy coping with the latest CoE cutbacks.
They used two geologically-recent events as their model: one at Laschamp around 41,000 years ago, and the other at Mono Lake, 34,000 years ago.
There's a funny coincidence Shirley:
Milankovitch cycles (of precession and obliquity) include a 41,000 years period.
I forget what has a 34,000 year cycle. Any ideas?
Re << If there's one thing likely to stir politicians into action its the prospect of fighting a skewed election. They certainly don't want that disadvantage. >>
They have *all* had access to the Facebook data for their campiagns. Back in 2012, it was being reported as a Good Thing and openly used by the Democratic Party.
What's changed? A few people have woken up? Some Democrats are shocked (shocked I tell you) that Trump's team did the same as them?
In related news, the Centre for Cyberhate Research and Policy is considering a rebrand as its role is expanded (thanks to more grant money).
The new name will be : Centre for Cyberhate Chat Policing (CCCP)
Any connection with any previous organisation with the same acronym and similar activities is entirely coincidental.
Are my eyes deceiving me? Or did the Reg strangely miss out a chunk of the memo?
i.e. from what some have dubbed the "damning section"
a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.
b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.
Stand by for Al Reg bots down-voting any reports that run counter to the party line. Like (for example) the recent news in the Washington Post:
"Russian Dossier" was paid for by the Clinton Campaign…
Meanwhile, stories are still breaking about the Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation around the time of the Uranium One deal which gave Russians part-ownership of American uranium assets. And a $500,000 speaking fee received in Russia by Bill Clinton,
"The Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees will jointly investigate the FBI’s probe into Clinton’s handling of classified documents. Meanwhile, the latter committee with the Intelligence committee will jointly probe the sale of a uranium company to a Russian firm when Clinton was Secretary of State."
Not here. I started my current BI/SQL job at the age of 61. My (relatively) old age and decades of scar tissue experience is proving to be a valuable asset for a rapidly-growing firm struggling to build secure, stable and scaleable systems. It's fun being a mentor as well, being able to predict the consequences, and help people Choose Wisely.
I'm old enough to be the grandfather of some of the people I'm working with, but we all get on happily. It might be because of a rather unique perk of the job, we can bring our dogs to work with us. :-) And my wife / Financial Director has no plans for me to retire for many years to come.
The crucial weasel-phrase is "implied consent".
I once worked in a place with a mailing list of c. 3 million people. We (in IT) looked at the ICO guidelines on marketing preferences (optins). We told the Marketing Team that if we took the guidelines literally, it meant (a) we should now only mail c.10K of the names on the existing list, and (b) new account registration forms should not have the "send me spam" checkbox ticked by default. The Marketing Team shat themselves. They decided we had "implied consent" to carry on emailing all the accounts. By adding more things to opt-out of. Educational mailings, professional development mailings, third-party material mailings, and so on. With obscure unsubscribe links that automagically went to a data-silo that strangely never got sync'd with the live database.
Just don't call them Marketing optins, OK?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019