an exemption that allows registered parties to process personal data "revealing political opinions" for the purposes of their political activities.
Coming up soon: the registration of the Cambridge Analytica Party and others.
16449 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
" you think that going to a conference like this is actually making you a better person, then you're simply not very good and should be in another industry. "
To be fair, discovering the pointlessness of this is a rite of passage. If you don't grok what's wrong after the second conference that convincingly contradicts everything that was so convincing in the first then you really should be in another industry; probably management consultancy.
"Under the Computer Misuse Act, such an action would be illegal without authorisation."
It doesn't apply within the Ecuadoran embassy although they may have their own legislation about that. If they were to charge him they'd probably have to take him to Ecuador to stand trial. The trip might go via a British court and possibly jail here. Sweden might get involved as well.
"You put the code the developers write on the same system as your data"
You put the code on some 3rd party "serverless" server. Now where do you put the data? In some other location? Then you expose the data directly to the internet so the serverless server can access it. Let's think of all the ways that could go wrong.
In the "serverful" world, deploying code has significant costs – you need to work harder to deploy the code (which takes time), allocate ongoing compute resources (which costs money), set up constant capacity monitoring (more time), and on top of that you need to continuously patch these servers and secure them against the bad people out there. These costs mean you only deploy code that is worth deploying, providing enough value to justify the price.
Has anyone noticed there's a word missing in there?
The servers that those allegedly all too expensive admins look after don't just keep the developers' code running, they also house the data. If, in this developer centric world, the "Ops" bit of DevOps is just seen as deploying code, then we can continue to see more and more TITSUP events resulting in data loss.
would might identify 50 people, one of which would be me."
It depends on the rate of false negatives but given your figures, what happens to the other 49? How many of them get picked up, held for a few hours, searched, miss trains, get locked up because they refuse to give anyone the password to their phone?
"It's a prefilter."
That was my reaction. If it was doing a good job at that it would be worthwhile. But even for a prefilter that rate of false positives is very high and raises the question of how many false negatives there are. Is there adequate reason to suppose it's doing a better job than picking faces out at random?
" If the phone service were not provided that maintenance costs that are currently chaged to your phone line will simply be added to your broadband charges."
Let me amend that. In the fibre future you'll still be charged for the upkeep of the line and it may indeed at some point be less than it costs OR to maintain the current structure. However you'll also have to contribute your share to pay off OR's loans for the cost of rolling out the new system plus the interest charges on those loans.
So will the rest of us, irrespective of whether or not we wanted anything more than FTTC. The chorus of "FTTC is not enough" have done their work. Now OR have got a means of getting a price increase past OFCOM.
"I've no use for a voice line in the house but I've got to bloody have one to get broadband."
You may not have noticed that the broadband arrives in your house via the same set of wires as your phone. If the phone service were not provided that maintenance costs that are currently chaged to your phone line will simply be added to your broadband charges.
"It is attracted by ordinary matter - its gravity - but goes straight through it and out the other side. Why? because it is the electrostatic forces that present surfaces, that repel things when they get close."
On a cosmological scale it's gravity that counts. It's gravity that holds galaxies together, not electrostatic forces. Electrostatic forces come into play at smaller scales. Electrostatic forces stop your hands passing through each other but when we see galaxies interacting it's gravitational forces that determine the outcome.
We're also told that dark matter, like ordinary matter, forms its own structures on cosmological scales. What's not clear is why ordinary and dark matter cosmological structures don't coincide given that they have a mutual attraction. I'd expect to see a single set of structures with dark and ordinary matter being similarly distributed.
"Your other option is something like MOND that says that things are different at the Solar system scale and on the galactic scale (effectively, gravity is not quite M/R^2 at large Rs). It has to make sure that you explain everything we know, and we have not observed any deviations from 1/R^2"
Aren't the observations that dark matter etc are invoked to explain just such deviations?
The problem I have with the idea of dark matter is that if it exists it should be very easy to detect. It (allegedly) interacts with ordinary matter by gravity so it should be attracted to ordinary matter (or vice versa seeing as how we're told there's a lot more of it). So it ought to be right here, where we are, and not somewhere out there where we can't see it.
"By evolutionary principles, of course: anti-malware, like the immune system, can so far not respond to a threat until it appears."
OTOH if system designers built in security by design the bad guys would be lagging a long way behind the good guys.
Of course when it comes to something like FB the concept of "good guys" doesn't apply. We have to think in terms of bad and worse.
I think the main reason encrypted email isn't used routinely is that nobody* knows anyone who uses it so nobody* uses it themselves and hence nobody* knows anyone who uses it. If we had a new version of SMTP that made it default it would take off. In the meantime those who need it really need it but, if they're focussed on their security they're likely to have HTML-enabled email turned off.
*Well, hardly anyone.
"Then then evil regimes decrypt their stockpile of old PGP email intercepts from suspected dissidents."
Easily avoided. Don't enable HTML rendering in your email client and don't, of course, use webmail. But if you were being careful these would have been as basic as blocking ads and running NoScript in your browser.
"Doesn't sound very side channel."
Apparently it requires the attacker to have intercepted the encrypted version and then wrapped it up in a multi-part email which persuades the victim's client to wrap the decrypt as an HTML request to the attacker's domain - providing the victim has been daft enough to enable HTML rendering.
I'm sure one of the reasons why businesses prefer young recruits to experienced old hands is that they're easier to impress. After a few "latest things", each insisting that the previous things were wrong, experience brings scepticism.
Management doesn't like its newest, brightest idea to be greeted with "Oh no, not another one." or "Meh". Even less do they like to be told "That's what we were doing in the '80s, all gussied up with new names. However little they charged you for that you were done.".
"When I cut a cheque with it and pressed Go, the cheque image scrolled slowly upward to reveal a new cheque underneath, instead of the entry just blanking as in the previous version."
I once worked with a guy who spent an afternoon animating the replacement of one message by another. The new one appeared to slide out from behind and then in front of the old one. I suppose it was an afternoon well spent. It kept him from harming some other piece of code.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019