Re: More Questions
Well it’s pretty obvious that DPR didn’t know shit about opsec - using library wifi, using the same email address over and over, etc. The CAPTCHA story s plenty believable given all the other half-arsed stuff he did.
517 posts • joined 1 Dec 2014
"Even the bureaucrats that came up with this terrible policy foresee that it may not be legal..."
The rules are pretty clear on who qualifies for .eu domain registration; I don't see any legal uncertainty.
They were introduced for the benefit of EU residents, organisations and undertakings, after all.
So if you aren't one of the above, you don't have any business having a .eu domain... Simples.
@Nick."If you don't want to run an internet-connected host because you don't want to be readily identifiable and contactable, then this internet is the wrong internet for you."
It's 2018 and data protection/privacy is a valid concern. if you don't realise this then this internet is the wrong internet for you.
"ICANN et al. screwed this all up many years ago when they handed over management of ccTLDs to other jurisdictions without requiring those jurisdictions adhere to such central internet "security protocols" in the first place."
Tell me more about these central internet "security protocols". Did you make that up yourself just now? ICANN's been fighting a losing battle on the GDPR front - they made zero preparation because they assumed they were too big to fail, and the EU would just cave in to their demands
@Pascal Monett:"You wouldn't happen to be a copyright lawyer, would you ?"
In the event of a private registration the lawyer writes a letter to the domain registrar, saying "Please advise me of the registration details of xyz.com. If you fail to provide the details, your organisation will become party to the proceedings as I'll assume you own the domain."
@LDS:"The Italian registry utterly ignored GDPR..."
In Italy, the legislation to facilitate GDPR apparently only came into effect at the end of September. There's still some legal fannying about to be done to finalise matters...
Fines issued since May will be subject to certain provisions (i.e. ignored) from what I can make out.
**alza le spalle**
@tachyonhorse:"The question is, why would someone want to hide the true owner of a Domain Name, especially a commercial entity?"
Because they don't want crazy people visiting, or pipe bombs in the mail, or so on...
A lot of so-called "security analysts" spent months bitching about GDPR, and how it was going to impact on their work (Looking at you Brian Krebs), but the bottom line is that you can get the law involved if you have a legitimate reason to need somebody's registration info.
Why do you feel the right to know certain information outweighs the other party's right to privacy?
@katrinab:"Actually, the GDPR says you can’t do that anymore unless you opt in to having your details disclosed. Some big companies opt in, most don’t."
GDPR only protects EU citizens and their data. Someone in the US or Canada for example has no recourse to GDPR.
Why are registrars still publishing this info anyway? Most of us opt not to have our name/address/phone number in a phone book, yet we're fine with our personally identifiable info being published to a much larger audience online?
@big_D:"Apple abandoned the 64/32 Mac with Lion.
And they abandoned the PowerPC architecture after 10.5 - so what?
Oh dry your eyes... Times change. Technology evolves.
Sure was great using Windows 3.1 on a 486SX, but that was then and this is now.
Windows 7 is still in support, having been released in 2009, regardless of what hardware it's running on.
You're slightly correct in saying that OS X Lion isn't in support, having been released in 2011. There have been several *free* upgrades of OS X in the meantime that allow Mac users to stay current.
I'm still not getting your point... You're comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended).
@big_D:"On the other hand, Apple gave up supporting my 2007 iMac in 2014, even though it still works - only the Bootcamp Windows gets security updates these days."
What's your point?
PC manufacturers don't support hardware from 2007.
Microsoft doesn't support operating systems from 2007.
Is any linux distribution from 2007 still supported?
@Lee D:"It's another Apple "designer" product, and I don't see why anyone would touch them, nor why Reg would cover it at all seriously."
I'd hazard a guess that there are a lot of thing you don't see, or understand.
Cast your mind back to the news from IBM the other week. They've been increasing their use of Apple hardware due to better residual values and fewer support calls.
"IBM found that not only do PCs drive twice the amount of support calls, they’re also three times more expensive. That’s right, depending on the model, IBM is saving anywhere from $273 - $543 per Mac compared to a PC, over a four-year lifespan. “And this reflects the best pricing we’ve ever gotten from Microsoft,” Previn said. Multiply that number by the 100,000+ Macs IBM expects to have deployed by the end of the year, and we’re talking some serious savings.
Needless to say, the employees at IBM got it right. And with 73% of them saying they want their next computer to be a Mac, the success will only increase with time."
@Norman Nescio"This is what you get when trading anecdotes to make IT decisions. Both people are correct according to their own, but very different experiences."
One of the parties is far from correct.
He's recommending a solution which - by his own admission - he has no experience of using, purely because he doesn't like Windows 10.
As stuartnz suggests, it's cool to hate on Windows here at El Reg...
@Shadow Systems:"I very strongly suggest that you stick to Apple for as long as possible. Win10 is *NOT* for anyone that can't either repair their systems themselves or pay constantly to have someone fix it."
"...And all this, this entire plea/rant is from someone still stuck on Windows 7 whom has used a Mac for less than an hour total".
lol..."I've used a Mac for an hour, but I hate Windows 10 so much I'd recommend you go out and buy a Mac despite my limited experience with them".
Jeez, this guy takes having a chip on his shoulder to a whole new level...
@Big Al 23:"Providing the password to an electronic device is not the same as providing testimony in a court of law."
One of the fundamental principles of criminal law is that you have the right to keep your mouth shut to avoid incriminating yourself.
This principle applies when you're in an interview room with police - you can answer "no comment" to every question.
This applies also applies in court - you can choose to avoid cross-examination if it might show you in a bad light.
The reason why should be obvious. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and (generally speaking) there is no requirement for the accused to help them by incriminating himself.
TL:DR Tell the police and the judge that you *forgot* the passcode. Don't use fingerprint or face unlocking, use six digits instead of four for your passcode, and set your phone to wipe after ten failed attempts
"In a post-GDPR world, with personal data redacted from the .UK Whois, there may be a diminishing demand for services offering privacy,"
...after Brexit registrars will presumably be free to un-redact personally identifiable information from the .UK Whois?
So they could in theory justify charging a fee to redact your information again, although they would be massive scumbags if they did...
@MIke Moyle:"...unless it inconvenienced or prejudiced HIS interests; then it's right out!"
My comment was partly tongue-in-cheek.
Assange is an arsehole (and I think I'm on record saying so on numerous occasions), and his supporters can't claim the right to freedom of expression while at the same time denying the same right to those they disagree with...
@CrazyOldCatMan:"Compare with Tory Blur giving ex-IRA people assurance that they wouldn't be prosecuted - politicians cannot and should not pre-empt the Judicial branch."
A lot of people on both sides got off the hook as the result of an agreement to bring about peace in Northern Ireland - you may have heard of it: the Good Friday Agreement?
The Protestant community in NI has plenty of blood on its hands too...
@The Original Steve: "That'll be the rape accusations that he was interviewed about in Sweden at the time, case was closed and they said he could leave the country.
Nope, he ran out the clock on the statute of limitations for the "minor" offences he was accused of.
The statute of limitations on the rape charge doesn't run out until 2020.
The Swedish prosecutor cancelled the European Arrest Warrant on the basis that Assange wouldn't become available in the near future, but has stated previously that another will be issued post haste should Jules become available.
Which could happen sooner rather than later...
@Surreal:"Li'l Ross couldn't have been All That busy as a criminal kingpin or he'd have the bushels of cash to get a stern reprimand, rather than life in prison."
At the end of the day he's just another lowlife drug dealer, regardless of what his mum thinks.
El Chapo's mum probably thinks he's misunderstood too...
@RobThBay: "Hmmm... the boss of Silk Road gets jail time for activities other people did using his website."
Ulbricht was charged with drug trafficking, criminal enterprise, aiding and abetting the distribution of drugs over the internet, computer hacking and money laundering. Prosecutors are debating whether or not to dismiss the murder-for-hire charges, solely because he's spending the rest of his life behind bars anyway
He's a big boy and he knew what he was doing. Time for him to take his medicine...
"Ross is condemned to die in prison, not for dealing drugs himself but for a website where others did. This is far harsher than the punishment for many murderers, pedophiles, rapists and other violent people," writes mother Ulbricht.
Ma Ulbricht, let's not forget that time your little angel hired some Hells Angels to murder six people.
@Redstone: I've met some dense motherfuckers in my time but you take the biscuit.
Your philosophy seems to be 'everybody for themselves'. I don't see why the thought of same work/same pay gets you so wound up. To be honest I don't care for an explanation cos it would just be more of the same boring crap.
You're such a cliche moaning about 'white knights', 'SJWs', and 'patriarchy' with no sign of intelligence whatsoever. The only thing you left out was a 'libtard' accusation...
By the way, what are your thoughts on blacks, Jews or the disabled earning a comparable wage to you?
Or is it just women who make you angry?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019