* Posts by Cereberus

51 posts • joined 23 Apr 2015

Page:

EE customer: Creepy ex used employee access to change my mobile number, spy on me

Cereberus

I worked for their counterpart T-Mobile. There were different levels of access so normal staff couldn't access 'VIP' customer accounts.

I also had to investigate a colleague who was 'playing the system' to get cheap phones to sell on Ebay. The bosses were a little upset when they asked me to do it and my first response was send the request and authority on email. I certainly wasn't going to do it based on a word of mouth request which could be later denied.

Ho ho ho! Washington DC sends Zuckerberg a sueball-shaped present

Cereberus

Re: There is morality and there are laws

I think there are 2 main problems.

1 - If you sign up to Facebook, it is pretty much understood that they will take every last bit of information they can to sell on - that is after all how they make their money. Yes it could be perhaps clearer and yes you should expect that if you want everything kept private it should be private but only to a point. I think it would be reasonable for Facebook to say 'Here is a free account but you are limited on what you can keep private from us. You do have an option to pay a nominal amount to use the service at which point private is truly private and we won't collect information because you are paying for a service.'

2 - Collecting 3rd party data should just be banned. I haven't given permission for data to be collected on me by accessing John Smith's account which is free, especially if I don't have a Facebook account.

I do have a Facebook account which I use only for a small fishing syndicate. I have never posted anything, or read any feeds, beyond relating to this syndicate. I don't use Facebook to log into other things so they will have 'relatively' little information about me and I accept that what they get they will use.

Part of the problem is people expect 'free' to mean free and these companies should provide a totally free service for their use. I use free programs on the PC in a lot of cases because they do what I need but I also pay for the 'enhanced' program in other cases because I use the extra capability. That it how the business model works. If 10% of people pay for the fully working product the company is making money and can carry those who use the free version. I wouldn't complain that I can't use a particular function that is available in the paid for version when I am using the free one if I choose not to pay for the full version. If the software is good and does what I want I have no problem paying for it, if it isn't I don't. But I have full control over what I decide to do. With Facebook that seems not to be the case and someone who doesn't want their service should not have their information taken without their express permission.

Apple cops to iPhone 8 production oops, offers to fix borked phones

Cereberus

Am I being over cynical?

I sometimes wonder if Apple deliberately build in faults (hardware or software) so that they can offer a repair but only once any other issues have been fixed at the customer expense, especially since the make it so hard for 3rd party repairs to be done.

It's as if they treat it as an additional revenue stream. I wonder how much they make on the additional repairs compared with how much these recalls cost.

Surely a company that makes as much as they do wouldn't think of doing such a thing though.....

Devon County Council techies: WE KNOW IT WASN'T YOU!

Cereberus
Coat

Re: Thanks, Labour

So much for "Education, education, education".

Should that not be:

"Educaion, eductino, eduaction"

Swiss cops will 'tolerate' World Cup rabble-rousers – for 60 minutes

Cereberus

Being sensible

Personally I think this is just the Swiss applying sensible precautions. It seems to me that they are saying that people can celebrate or commiserate but try not to make it go on too long so it upsets other people, and so they have decided on a time limit for use of horns and a request not to interfere with traffic flow if possible. Any time limit could be said to be too short or too long so they have tried to pick a reasonable length.

On another point they don't say you can't cut your lawn on a Sunday, they say you can't between the hours of 20:00 and 08:00 on a Sunday or public holiday, which is reasonable to allow people to enjoy a lie in without being disturbed by someone insane enough to want to cut the grass when they get home from a back shift at 02:00 in the morning.

The bath one is a little strange but taken into context with it's counterpart example suggests that water pipes can be quite noisy and not to take a bath at night (which I would assume does not refer to the evening) so that additional noise from water pipes occurs.

Can't pay Information Commissioner's fine? No problem! Just liquidate your firm

Cereberus

Re: I'm confused

Thanks Aladdin, I need to get new reading glasses.

Cereberus

I'm confused

But the highest fine given out under both is £400,000, which is a fifth off the £500,000 maximum the body can dish out, although this will increase to 4 per cent of global turnover or €20m under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Since when was £400,000 a fifth of £500,000?

That might explain why so little of the money is recovered.

Does Parliament or Google decide when your criminal past is forgotten?

Cereberus

A legal judgement?

This is a complex issue, and whilst the focus is on one particular person and his actions the consequences of the judgement could have much wider implications.

As has been mentioned certain offenses will always have to be disclosed, as they should be whilst others could be seen as irrelevant. Should somebody suffer after being in the papers 20 or 30 years ago after stealing a bar of chocolate when they were 10 years old? At the same time should a company have to take the risk that they have someone guilty of fraud employed in a financial / senior business capacity?

On the other hand should someone who has been punished have to suffer the stigma for ever ore of what may be a one time mistake (whatever the reasons they did it)?

The more I think about this the more I feel there should be a statute of limitations which would be declared based on the offense and the level of offense. The RoO should then take this into account and it would work along the lines (purely hypothetical based around the case in point).

You defrauded the company of £1,000 - the offense is linked to your name for 5 years after serving time

You defrauded the company of £1,000,000 - the offense is linked to your name for20 years after serving time

alongside would run the following

You committed one offense, the above applies

You have committed the offense more than once - no statute applies and your name will forever be linked to the offense(s).

Essentially this means you make a mistake and after a period of time based on the seriousness and impact your name search does not show against the offense, but if you are a repeat offender you give up that right. This means that a mistake / poor judgement does not impact the rest of your life but if you are shown to be a repeat offender your impact on others is reduced as it is demonstrably no longer a mistake / poor judgement.

The details would be issued as to length of term as part of sentencing.

Irony's lost on old Pope Francis: Pontiff decrees fake news a 'serious sin'

Cereberus

Re: Have you guys read the 10 commandments

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.

Think how many blasphemers there are though. The commandment (excerpt above) doesn't state you shouldn't make yourself an image and bow down or worship them.

So does this mean that anybody who has ever made a cuddly little rabbit, painted a picture of a dog, used a photograph with of anything ever is a blasphemer? It does say an image of anything in heaven, on earth or in the water.

Just asking, a proper response from a religious point of view is welcomed, but not the old get out clause of it being a story to represent......and isn't 'strictly' true.

Investigatory Powers Act: You're not being paranoid. UK.gov really is watching you

Cereberus

Re: sort of confused ?

I think you are confused.

but how does this impact on the likes of Google et al, whose entire reson detre is to slurp up EVERYTHING about EVERYONE ................

People know they record the data and choose to use the service with that knowledge. Same with Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc.

At the end of the day you have an option not to make use of these services and prevent them collecting the data. It may be inconvenient to not contact people using Facebook but you still have the option.

The government want to collect the data without your (or at least the general public) knowledge, then potentially use it to support taking punitive action which may or may not be warranted.

Totally hypothetical, and (using relatively minor breaches of the law) extreme example: You go on Facebook at 10:00 then put your phone down and drive 140 miles to another location and then pick up your phone and send a text exactly 2 hours later. Your are now guilty of:

a) Using your phone whilst driving

b) Speeding

This is because nobody could drive exactly 140 miles in exactly 2 hours since you have to spend some time on other roads with a speed limit below 70mph so you had to use the phone whilst traveling or have exceeded the speed limit to some extent to reach the average 70mph over the 2 hours. They also know you were alone in the car because of CCTV cameras.

Yes it is a little silly but the theory is sound to show that lots of little bits of info can lead to a conclusion when you have not knowingly done anything wrong - in the above example you might have been doing 70.5mph but it is still over 70.

In a surprise to no one, BT and TalkTalk top Ofcom's whinge-list

Cereberus

Re: Regulator needs to damn well regulate.

Make the worst provider each quarter refund all customers 50% and the second worst 25% (and no hiking the prices to compensate). If that doesn't bring about some improvement, nothing will.

Or it could just send that provider bust as by fining them you remove 50% (not taking into account profit share etc.) of the funding to make improvements so they will consistently under perform due to lack of funds to solve the problems making them the consistent worst performer.

A better option would be to enforce a restriction on profits, dividend payments and so on and make the provider spend more on investment to improve the service.

We have targets set by a government agency, which if missed result in potentially millions in fines. All this means is we have less to spend on infrastructure and keeping the service we provide running, which leads to more problems, which leads to bigger fines, and so on.

By forcing investment (overseen to ensure it is proper investment and not just a paper exercise) the result should be an improved service, which results in happier customers, more customers joining that provider due toa better service (hopefully) leading to more income leading to higher profits leading to happier investors - theoretically.

The mechanics of doing so I will leave to others to work out. :-)

Apple's 'shoddy' Beats headphones get slammed in lawsuit

Cereberus

Re: No opinion on the headsets

What the fuck could the headphones have done so badly that caused $5 million in damages?

That's easy. The breakdown is:

$200 refund because the product wasn't as advertised - $1,000 total as 5 claimants

$10,000 dollars each for the inconvenience of having to attend court, buy new headphones, etc. - $50,000 total

$800 each for the time explaining why they no longer use the headphones - i.e. they are stained with bodily fluids and the battery needs recharged after 4.3 seconds of use* - $4,000 total

$9,000 each - pay for the iPhone XI next year when it is launched, and headphones that are compatible with the faster than light connector that replaces the lightning connector - $45,000

$980,000 to help with treatment for PTSD caused by being seen with such crap Fanbois 'Fones'. - $4,900,000 total

What they should get is electroshock treatment for being mad to buy the headphones in the first place.

*Running time will vary depending on amount of use and how recharges were applied, including duration, initial charge level.....

Google bins white supremacist site after it tries to host-hop away from GoDaddy

Cereberus

My concern is.....

Where do you stop? I have no idea because I either don't have enough information or don't have the clarity of thought to make an informed decision.

Banning far right (or far left for that matter) extremist groups on the face of it is justified because they are a loathsome group who shouldn't be given the time of day. However, if you remove these groups completely then the next group towards the centre become the extremists, and so on. Who will decide when you have come far enough away from the existing extremists for it to be allowed?

By removing these groups you drive them underground much like, as has been mentioned earlier, with pedophilia. It doesn't stop them but makes it harder to monitor them. The aim should be to stop this level of thought and moderate peoples views to improve interpersonal / group relations.

Finally, free speech should be about being able to express your views 'freely' without fear or favour so long as they don't hit certain criteria such as incite violence. There are already laws in place to deal with such issues so use them. If people aren't able to air their views freely, you can't state a case against those views to hopefully persuade the people with them to change.

I think these days of global instantaneous vitriol, trolling and general attacks against people, no matter how justified you may feel, or how many people agree with you just adds to the problem as it causes greater polarisation between groups. People are scared to make a comment in the public domain because instead of a reasoned debate* they are attacked and threatened.

*I realise that trying to have a reasoned debate with some of these right wing groups is a contradiction in terms.

UK.gov cloud fave Amazon comes under fire for tax bill

Cereberus

... and yet that investment has resulted in an annual profit of £7.4. Either they are managing to get spectacularly low ROI, or they're cooking the books. Hodge is right.

As has been mentioned elsewhere the company spends a lot of the profits on investment. Shareholders might prefer it otherwise and receive more but the company has always operated on that basis. Some of this investment may provide larger ROI in the future, some won't work out and be a loss but that money has been paid into the country through investment costs, equipment, capital expenditure, etc.

The fact it doesn't come in to the treasury directly as tax doesn't mean it doesn't come into the economy. If you are looking for high ROI with no eye to the future Amazon would not be a company to invest in.

This by no means they are cooking the books, and shows a basic lack of understanding how the company operates by both 'Hodge' and yourself.

*Note: This is irrelevant to work practices and pay rates to the staff and the two should not be confused with each other.

FBI's spyware-laden video claims another scalp: Alleged sextortionist charged

Cereberus

Re: 15-30

Probably most of that will be spent in isolation for his own protection from the inmates, pity, being somebody's bitch would be poetic justice.

Such a shame people come out with these types of comments.

Jail time is supposed to be the punishment. If it isn't a punishment that is a separate social / justice issue.

How would it be if you went to jail for something and were subjected to a daily prostate exam by Bubba* using his 'medical equipment'? Would it be OK and acceptable as part of your punishment, or would it be rape and you would demand that action be taken to stop it happening? Should Bubba* get extra time on his sentence for raping you or should yours be reduced because of the extra 'punishment'.

At the end of the day this guy deserves prison but him 'being someones bitch would be poetic justice' is just sick.

You should consider as well that your are inciting the crime of male rape** to take place so it will (presumably) make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside at the thought of him getting what he deserves. You must sleep well knowing how well balanced you are with this kind of attitude.

Based on the article the guy also has some personality disorders by the way he taunted the authorities so that's alright then - he deserves what he gets.

*Note: Bubba is a fictional character and is unrelated to anyone alive or dead and is used for illustrative purposes only.

** Someones bitch in prison is, by context, inferring that specific actions relating to sexual assault would take place

Facebook's freebie for poor people under fire again

Cereberus

Re: That's what I don't get...

I would assume that this will link in with using old handsets that people have given to Charity for the starving (because phones are so nutritious).

All find and dandy except for the data-mining etc. which will then occur.

More appropriate questions would be:

Will they hand out solar chargers with the handsets?

If not will paying to charge the phone to Face book become more important than feeding your child (with whatever you can get)?

Will you need to pay for network access to connect the phone, even if the data is free?

If the data is dumbed down / limited then will it be Facebook that decides what is actually shown?

And finally - how many people are literate enough to use a phone in a 3rd world country.

This has potential to do great good with education, health awareness etc. but I have a feeling it will actually do great harm by exploiting the already poor and (assumed) poorly educated.

Thanks for U-turning on biz-killing ban, Ofcom – now cough up, say GSM gateway bods

Cereberus

Re: 999

If you dial 112 from a mobile phone it will tell the operator your location - this is the same as dialing 999 but with extras as it were.

Is it not possible just to put in a blocking system so that any emergency number (999 or 112 in the UK) must be routed directly and not through a gateway?

I find it hard to believe that all calls would be routed through a small number of sites, enough to block them up. But again it should be possible to drop calls if the network is congested to allow an emergency call through.

The bloke behind Star Fox is building a blockchain based casino. No, really

Cereberus
Coat

Re: Just throw your money out the window...

Now we have the internet there are other ways to exercise one's arm.

I know what you mean - putting my glasses on and taking them off again is hard work.

Australian regulator will decide if Uber drivers are staff or contractors

Cereberus

On the one hand it's good Uber employs rapists and murderers,

If only you had the word reformed after employs I would have agreed with your obviously non-sarcastic comment. (He says sarcastically).

I do think, on a serious note, that reformed convicts should be given a second chance albeit they should be perhaps monitored closely and not allowed in a position where they could re-offend. So Uber could employ a convicted rapist who is reformed but only give them jobs for couples, male customers, etc. and not ones where they would be left driving a lone female either directly or as a result of dropping her friends off first.

Of course not being an employer they wouldn't know about any prior convictions, certainly wouldn't charge customers a premium for searches they have carried out on drivers, or be expected to screen the drivers they don't employ.

Fighter pilot shot down laptops with a flick of his copper-plated wrist

Cereberus

Yes........

If for no other reason than you are there to hear it.

‪There's a ransom-free fix for WannaCry‬pt. Oh snap, you've rebooted your XP box

Cereberus

Re: Help! - Win7 Ports 445 / 135 just wont die...

Or alternatively apply the Microsoft patch to stop Wannacrypt being able to use the exploit?

Or am I just being naive?

Don't gripe if you hand your PC to Geek Squad and they rat you out to the Feds – judge

Cereberus

The bigger picture

Without referring to what the doctor may or may not have done, whether or not it is legal and whether a warrant was justified my concern goes outside the details fo the case itself.

If these guys are doing a search to find the picture in question it would suggest they routinely scan through all the files. I have confidential documents on my laptop when it shows signs of being about to break, not a problem as I have backups so I delete all the sensitive files and take it to Mr Snoopy the PC repair man. Mr Snoopy then pulls copies of these files and has access to this info.

Personally, as someone who knows what they are doing I wouldn't take it to a PC repair shop in the first place, and any sensitive files would be encrypted but how many doctors, politicians, business people would think to do this, never mind know how to do it? I know there other considerations like you should have a decent IT policy, backups, not have sensitive info on a personal machine and so on but time has repeatedly shown that these guidelines aren't followed. It doesn't give a repair man the right to lift this material when I put a machine in for repair.

Fire fighters get grinding on London man’s trapped genitalia

Cereberus
Facepalm

It's amazing.....

what some people will do. Moving away from men to the fairer sex the worst problem I came across, in a medical capacity, was a young lady(?) who had inserted a light bulb where it is usually very dark. The light bulb had then imploded.

Very messy, and very long time removing all the pieces from a confined space.

TalkTalk HackHack DuoDuo PleadPlead GuiltyGuiltyGuiltyGuilty

Cereberus

Re: admitted stealing

I can see the point of view. I would argue, however, that they have deprived Talk Talk customers of their security and privacy by taking a copy of the information which they have no intention of returning.

I am not being deliberately argumentative, but I do think there is a case for saying they did steal something whether it be by legal definition or by dictionary definition. If either option is correct then original comment is correct.

Cereberus

Re: admitted stealing

(To paraphrase) For crying out loud, they did steal something :

Definition: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/steal

They removed (a copy of) data from Talk Talk without permission or any intention of returning it.

Trump's self-imposed cybersecurity deadline is up: What we got?

Cereberus
Mushroom

Re: "2). Calls an election in the hope that it will distract attention from #1"

And we are off - PM changes mind so obviously doesn't have a clue - running around like a headless chicken. Sack her, sack the government, sack everybody, the world is about to end. AAAAaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Truth is that it perhaps wasn't the smartest idea to keep saying she wouldn't have an election, but the election should be a good idea. Why?

1) If the SNP lose seats - they have effectively reduced their mandate for a referendum that Sturgeon has as the sole central point in her life and won't shut up about.

2) Conservatives increase their majority - this gives the PM the mandate to proceed with Brexit without all the stupid little delays from opposition and the Lords

3) We have a bit of stability whilst the process occurs

4) If the Tories lose or reduce their majority it arguably signals that the country has thought again about leaving the EU

5) If the SNP gain the last few seats they didn't get in the last election they can then sod off and take Scotland out the UK and try to stay in Europe (this is by no means a given) if they can win a referendum that this result would indicate Scotland want.

6) If 5 happens we can stop all the arguments about how much money goes in which direction between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Sturgeon can keep her nose out of English affairs as she will no longer be able to extend and argument further and further until she can justify how it impacts on Scotland and Scottish MP's have a right to vote, although she adamantly refuses to let the reverse happen.

I could go on but you get the idea.

Disclaimer: I should point out that I am not anti-Scottish but I am anti-Sturgeon who has broken the once in a generation promise she and Salmond made and will use any excuse to justify another Scottish referendum. Additionally my wife is Scottish, and Iive very close to the border so theoretically could get extra benefits from exchange rates by jumping across it to get goods more cheaply.

Will the MOAB (Mother Of all AdBlockers) finally kill advertising?

Cereberus

Minority of 1?

Generally I don't have a problem with ads as I can avoid them if I want to - mostly.

Like it or not and previous comments suggest everyone is in the don't like group, ads do serve a purpose and can raise awareness of a new product, service, etc. which may (probably won't but may) be useful.

There are 3 types of ads I do hate however.

Pay day loans and their friends - mainly because these are aimed at the less well off who then have to pay exorbitant amounts back in return. Spot the shark anyone?

Charities - whilst I support charities and the work they do I worked out once when I wasn't in work that if I sent the £2,3 or 5 pounds to each charity advertised on TV that day I would have nothing left in the bank (including the overdraft I would have taken out specially for making these payment). Why do we have so many charities and how much do they (subsidized no doubt) pay for all the adverts. Whilst I can understand the reasons, why set up yet another cancer charity in memory of my 'special person' who died of xxxxx cancer. Why not fund raise and give the money to an existing charity in memory of that person. In theory more money should feed through to those needing help, or research etc. instead of all the admin costs for each charity. Of course this leads to more questions on how money is spent by the charities, but that is a separate discussion.

Finally the big one. I have no problem with ads on the web. However, they should not be pop up, pop under, buried, bandwidth hungry, overly intrusive or cover most of the site. If they advertise a product for example and say 'Click Here' for a video with more info and I choose to click then it is my choice to watch the video. None of this should be force on me so I am struggling to get the info I am actually after.

Euro Patent Office reforms hit another stumbling block: Reality

Cereberus

Re: How close, exactly?

As the old saying goes - Lies, damn lies and statistics.

If you take the figures in the story and change the spin to the opposite direction:

14.28% response rate because every one else is unhappy but don't see any benefit in responding either because it will impact on any future applications, or because they think it won't make a difference. This means 144 non-respondents with the 13 who did and weren't happy is 157 of the 168 sample.

Or tp put it another way 93.45% of are unhappy. As is often the case with these things the actual figure will be somewhere between but just as a purely speculative number for take it half of non-respondents were happy and half weren't. The satisfaction rate would then be 72 no response plus 13 who did = 85 of 168 = 50.59%

Seems to me that is still a much bigger unhappiness level than there was.

Video intercom firm Doorbird wants $80 for device password resets

Cereberus

Lesson teaching perhaps

It might seem extortionate at $80 but considering the time in doing the checks, cost of delivery via courier, etc. it isn't as unreasonable as it sounds. Let's be honest, you are more likely to take care of the password or complete the registration details if you know you are going to be charged that much for a reset.

Don't forget if you have registered an email address the reset is done free of charge.

3 points do spring to mind though:

1) If you pay for the reset they could offer a discount for sending it to an email address, as there are no courier costs

2) You should be able to change the password to one you would remember, then you aren't as likely to forget it if you lose the device you have it stored on, albeit not a guaranteed solution

3) Use a password manager which works across multiple devices, or store a copy of the file on multiple devices. Discounting the risk of the password manager being hacked would you store your passwords on a single small portable device which is open to breaking down, being dropped and damaged, lost, stolen..... as the single source for these passwords?

Help wanted: Uber boss Travis seeks babysitter for him and his execs

Cereberus

Re: Only one candidate

Out the whole A Team Mr T would be the worst option (or B A Baracus to be correct)

How can anyone have pity for Uber? Their drivers yes, the company no.

Better options:

Hannibal: He would at least have a plan to sort them out

Murdoch: Might not be the best choice to sort problems but being mad he would probably fit right in

Face: The company already appears to have at least two faces - one more shouldn't be a problem

Facebook shopped BBC hacks to National Crime Agency over child abuse images probe

Cereberus

Re: Answer

As I understand it, and I use Facebook as a point of contact for a fishing syndicate I am in and nothing else so have never really looked at the mechanics of how Facebook works, there is a facility to report the page or image built in to the system.

The problem here is that these images were reported using this system then effectively ignored.

What the BBC should have done is taken these links and referred them to the police stating they had been reported to Facebook who had refused to act on the information using their own internal reporting system and so were aiding in the distribution of unsuitable and / or illegal material. The police could then move in and charge Facebook with distribution as they had ignored a take down request if the images were illegal. From the BBC report at least one was illegal as it showed abuse.

US Marines seek a few supposedly good men ... who leaked naked pics of a few good women

Cereberus

Re: That's degrading...

I think you need to look up the term bigot and apply it to yourself. The definition in part for a bigot is 'a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.'

The comment about "force made up of obedient heavily built...." was obviously an example of having the right people for the job. No reference was made to all men being brutes or that there can't be smart and heavily built men.

I am not sure but I think you would want to fight as an Avenger or a G.I. Joe where everybody has every attribute perfected and work as part of a super team. Real life combat doesn't work like that. An effective team has the skills required for the job they are doing. This can include heavily built shallow thinkers who just follow orders, slightly built shallow thinkers who can get in close because they can get behind cover better, and both builds but thinkers who can assess and adapt to the situation on the fly.

All have a role to play in meeting the objective and all have a different skill set. Fighting house to house can often be better achieved by smaller people as they are generally faster and less noticeable so more likely to get in and take out the bad guy without being seen - but then I have seen some very fast 'big guys' as well.

No fire team is made up of a group of people who all have every skill, it is made up of people who have a range of skills, who train together and know each others strengths and weaknesses and above all trust each other to support each other.

Uber: Please don't give our London drivers English tests. You can work out the reason why

Cereberus

Re: Please do this TfL.

I'd have a lot more time for these comments if the author could actually demonstrate a basic ability to communicate using written English rather than some truncated version of it.

I could just be a bit grumpy today though because I have to deal with poor grammar on a regular basis.

Grumpy Trump trumped, now he's got the hump: Muslim ban beaten back by appeals court

Cereberus

Re: as is usual in Trump article comments here...

Steve 124 - you asked:

Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

Where in that is there any confusion as to whether or not he has the legal leg to stand on?

The pertinent section here is 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States'.

Herein lies the reason for Donald to hop around because his legal leg has been removed. What grounds are there to ban these specific countries when there are so many more that have not only threatened but made good on those threats - Saudi Arabia and all the rest mentioned previously, including the UK. If the ban is because they would be detrimental then where is the proof, and why such a selective group of people?

You could also look at your internal right to bear arms. After all that hasn't inspired terror with how many people killed by guns each year - not even having to go into the atrocities where children get killed, but that's OK so long as you still have the right to inspire terror at whim by deciding to go to a school and terrorize everyone by shooting people at random - it's in the constitution.

Ultimately it was a badly thought out, badly imposed EO. Why can't you people just admit that and sort it out. If you want to ban people with justification that is your right, but that justification should be imposed evenly, not just as a means of grabbing a headline then whining because Trumpy boy isn't getting his own way, and it's not fair.

Here's a thought - why not use that massive multi group intelligence set up you have to target those people who may be a problem and just ban them. Of course you might actually have to have some intelligence in your intelligence services rather than just blanket ban a large number of people for the hell of it. But if you used that intelligence you might actually have some support for it, especially if you let the people implementing it know exactly what you want to do rather than leave them to try and work it out for themselves with the resulting chaos it causes.

America - land of the free, home of the brave - the only country to actually have sarcasm in it's national anthem.

Conviction by computer is go, confirms UK Ministry of Justice

Cereberus
Holmes

One rule for you, another for me

There are 2 main issues that I can see, both already covered - the additional costs of not pleading guilty by proxy and incurring extra costs encouraging people to take the 'cheap' option, and mission creep so what can be dealt with using this proposed system.

There is also the 'human factor' though. As Chris G clearly showed in his 'Justice' post there are 2 tiers of justice as well.

I am reminded of a few years back when I went to a job which meant we had to park on a private road leading to a garage. The millionaire owner agreed initially then decided he wanted us to move, although we had a legal right to park there (won't say what I was doing) and tried to work with him. He then blocked one vehicle in before lifting mine up on a fork lift truck. The police were called, 2 hours wasted giving statements and he was charged with TWOC.

Several weeks later I get a letter to advise he had been given a caution. If it had been some yoof wot dunnit they would more than likely have been charged, fined, sent to jail.......

In my view he should have been charged and had to attend court for what is a serious criminal offense. If he only got a small fine he would still have received a formal criminal record which may have made him start thinking a bit harder about his actions. A warning just says sorry to have to bother you with this, please forgive us oh mighty one but will you accept us telling you not to be naughty and we will forget all about it.

To add perspective, this garage owner had a long record of run ins with the police being called out to attend disputes and problems. The officer also told me how he had been fined for speeding whilst water skiing. He sent twice the fine amount in, and when contacted back to say he had paid too much his response was 'keep it for next time'.

The benefit of this system would be that everyone is given the same punishment for a specified action, however everyone should also be treated the same and given the same access to justice so they can prove themselves innocent without additional penalties, or receive the same punishment if guilty.

Big Tech files anti-Trump brief: Immigration ban illegal and damaging to business

Cereberus
Mushroom

Re: ...

There is also a lot of terrorist related activity in each of these countries. Some caution on folks arriving from there would seem reasonable.

Leaving out the likes of Daesh are all these 'terrorists' actually terrorists? Not trolling here but a genuine question. When we went to Iraq we were fighting terrorists, when we went to Afghanistan it was the same.

No doubt there may be some terrorist groups but how many? To put it another way how many groups are freedom fighters, fighting for their country but unable to do so in massed face each other across an open field manner because of lack of resources, training, equipment etc.

You could argue they are being misled but just because when we invade their country they hide and use guerilla tactics it does not follow they are terrorists.

One other question - how many of these terrorists (assuming they are) have gone to America, or Britain, or elsewhere and how many of the terror acts have been performed by home grown people who have been radicalized?

It seems to be to easy to say you don't agree with me so you are a terrorist and I can therefore do anything I want to you and am totally justified. This will of course teach you a lesson, and not help you want to fight against my tyranny of your country using terror or guerilla tactics. Oh by the way it is only guerilla tactics if I agree with you, because then you are obviously fighting on behalf of good whereas if you disagree with me you are obviously evil.

'Completely offended' Sheila calls cops over price-gouging ganja dealer

Cereberus
Trollface

We have OFWAT, OFCOM, OFSTED.......

Oz should follow suit then refer her to OFDRUG, or would that be OZDRUG

Protest against Trump's US travel ban leaves ‪PasswordsCon‬ in limbo

Cereberus

I have to agree with (although I hate doing so with an AC) the comments about being able to protest.

I didn't vote for or against Brexit for the simple reason I had insufficient information to make an informed decision but if I had been forced (democratically) to cast a vote I would probably have gone for Brexit.

Demonstrations and protests are a method of letting people know how you feel, and to some extent the number of people attending demonstrates the strength of feeling overall. If one person protests then who cares, if one million people do so you need to start taking some notice.

In an ideal world protests and demonstrations wouldn't be needed because the overall view of constituents (in UK) would be represented by the elected official, or MP. Unfortunately this isn't the case and the representation is made based on the party view.

If true democracy took place then the MP would be voted in based on their general views but would then continue to do so. This would be impossible though and as a result you have a group of fools who purportedly represent your views when in reality it is anything but your views because it is 'in the best interests of the country, or think of the children, or we know best.....' and certainly nothing to do with what is in their best interest.

This then means people protest and demonstrate and sign petitions to show the establishment how they feel - which may or may not then have an effect on decisions that are made.

Brexit was a close run thing, so it is reasonable that all views should be considered and not just written off as you lost / we won so there. This should then influence how we proceed with negotiations in the coming years.

Trump's FBI boss, Attorney General picks reckon your encryption's getting backdoored

Cereberus

Re: I'm all for it

"When everyone from the local mayor to the president has email and a cellphone that can be remotely hacked from Russia/China/Craggy Island - I'm looking forward to reading the daily wikileaks"

Not going to happen if the UK snoopers charter is anything to go by. Everyone in the world (or at least in the U.S.) will have to use backdoor encryption with one select group given an exemption - anyone in public office in the US of A who will have totally leak proof encryption.

That is basically what they have done with the snoopers charter. Everything has to be tracked for everybody everywhere in the UK, except those in government linked roles because of course they would never do anything to harm the country or it's citizens - honest guv, would I lie to you. How about a new watch, genuine Rolex it is, got is from a friend after it fell off a lorry. Special deal today only - don't worry about the Made in China sticker, that's only to reduce the import tax.

Phoney McPhoneface: The thrilling tale of ZTE's crowdsourced mobe

Cereberus
Devil

Re: Excellent idea!

<

Excellent idea!

Buy a phone for next year now, before the pound crashes even further!

>

I can't wait to get an article which doesn't at some stage have a comment about either Brexit and how the pound will die, or Trump included somewhere regardless of how tenuous a link there is, and how it will spell doom, Doom I tell you, DOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!!.

HMRC IT cockup misses nearly 1m Scottish taxpayers for devo PAYE letters

Cereberus
Unhappy

Slightly disgruntled still that my local branch is in Carlisle.

Same here for the opposite reason - account originally with Lloyds, then Lloyds TSB, then when they split moved to TSB. Live in Carlisle, nearest branch in Wigton

MPs suggest introducing web blocking to tackle suicide rates in UK

Cereberus

Re: Sites that act as a catalyst for bullying...

Ken, you were close but didn't go that extra step required:

'The action of "unfriending" someone needs to carry a Government Health Warning: "Are you sure this person can handle your pressing of this button? Are they going through a difficult time? Do they need your support?"'

After they are 'unfriended' and attempt suicide, you will be arrested because you caused them to commit the act and so are guilty of murder - you did select Unfriend after thinking about it so it is premeditated.

'Of course we know you were the person who caused it because your act was the last one before they took their life so it must be your fault and not the fact that they had no job, life, partner and suffered from a terminal illness which would have killed them in 2 years anyway. How do we know this? We monitor everything you do and every webs site you go to except when you do it through a VPN which means it must be an illegal site or why would you hide it?

'No, looking up signs of suicidal thoughts and how to help is not relevant - we banned everything to do with suicide years ago, after child porn, extreme porn as defined by the BBFC 60 years ago, looking at a naked back last year and looking at naked ankles last week.'

As has been mentioned several times, look at the cause not the symptoms - banning doesn't solve anything. All it does is make people into potential criminals because they don't accept or know about the ban which served no purpose. The next step will be an extension of a work place filter. Trigger enough 'illegal' searches and you will be pulled in to explain yourself, and you better have a good reason......

It's now illegal in the US to punish customers for posting bad web reviews

Cereberus

Re: My approach

I hardly post reviews on line because I got what I paid for nothing more and nothing less. If I get especially good or bad service / products etc. then I will post.

When I look at review posts for a product I always expect there to be a certain amount of bad feedback because that is life. Some people demand more than they should reasonably expect and post a bad review because of it whilst other people would think the same service or product is excellent - it is a personal view after all. Ultimately though I look to see what the balance of good and bad is and what happens when it goes bad.

If I get a product which isn't fit for purpose I shouldn't be afraid to say so. At the same time if I take it back and get it replaced for one that is fit for purpose and have posted a comment then I should update the comment to show it was a one off. After all nothing is guaranteed so if I get good after sales service to help solve a failing in a product I can accept the little bit of hassle of having to return and get a replacement and won't slam the product as a result or supplier as a result.

I also hate anonymous cowards and tend to ignore their views as probably being trolls (some cases are different where they could be putting themselves at risk but otherwise....). If you write something because you mean it then you should have the guts to put your name (or user ID) against it and not hide behind anonymity.

Investigatory Powers Act signed into UK law by Queen

Cereberus

Who do I sue?

As mentioned in previous comments someone somewhere will hack in and obtain all this stored info. The question is who do I sue for failing to keep my data safe?

a) The ISP because they suffered the data breach

b )The government because they forced the ISP to retain this information

c) Myself because the above will have iron clad protection from being responsible for any loss of data and I should have used Tor and a VPN running through another VPN to a satellite that encrypts the encrypted data and downloads it to another PC through another VPN (can't have too many), 3 decryption programs, back through TOR and then to my PC - so it is all my fault.

Accountant falls for sexy Nigerian email scammer, gives her £150k he cheated out of pal

Cereberus

Does he really deserve jail?

Whilst I don't agree with what he did, lying to a friend / client to get the money I have to ask if 18 months jail time is really appropriate for a 79 year old. By all accounts he was totally taken in by the scam and then abused contacts he had to get the money but this was to the point he was going to sell his own house so it could easily be argued malicious intent wasn't present.

Arguably he should know better, but how many pensioners are taken in by phone scams, etc. every day. Ultimately his was a minor role (albeit expensive) in a friend paying out a large amount of money - should the friend not have checked more thoroughly before handing that much money over and at least share some responsibility.

Yeah, he is guilty of fraud but many people do much worse and get less jail time.

Democralypse Now? US election first battle in new age of cyberwarfare

Cereberus
Flame

Re: But surely

"I would argue how utterly stupid the statement that people shouldn't vote is, but then I realised that if you have taken that position then you wouldn't be able to understand any of those arguments anyway." would indicate how utterly stupid someone must be to make the statement in the first place.

I don't vote for 2 primary reasons:

1) There is no / limited factual evidence to make an informed comparison of different political groups

2) There is a lot of evidence supporting the fact these groups will say what they feel is necessary to get a vote regardless of how valid and accurate the statement is.

In short I don't vote because there is no select-able option on ballot forms which states I wish to register my wish not to be governed (as an election example) by any of the lying, cheating, self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing <insult of your choice> above.

Should Computer Misuse Act offences committed in UK be prosecuted in UK?

Cereberus

Stand up and be counted by being sensible

Just keep it simple. The offense was allegedly committed in the UK by someone in the UK. Any criminal proceedings should be delay with in the UK. We should co-operate with other governments of course as part of international relations so we agree an offense may have been committed by a person here.

Please Mr USA, if you believe an offense has been committed against you send us the evidence, we will review it along with any other submissions and then make an informed decision on whether there is a case to answer. Oh, you don't want to send us the information because of <state reason>? In that case, as we can't find sufficient evidence to build a case to prosecute there is no case to answer so we will not take it any further. Sorry, you want us to send the person to you so you can prosecute them for an offense committed in our country. OK we can do that after you have sent (using comments on this thread) all the US citizens who drink alcohol to Saudi Arabia for trial as they have breached their laws.

I misunderstood I think - alcohol drinkers haven't committed an offense? Well they have under Saudi law. Just because they haven't been in Saudi when the offense was committed doesn't make them any less guilty does it? Surely you wouldn't want to use double standards here. Oh, and by the way can you send all your gun carriers who don't have a justifiable holders permit under UK law here so we can prosecute them. Don't worry, we won't use any underhand tactics like plea bargaining, we won't even send them to jail if found guilty - we'll just fine them and send them back to you - or Saudi if you prefer.

In short the alleged crime is committed here, regardless of who it is against, the person should be prosecuted here. If you won't provide the evidence to back up your claim, go away and stop whining - you do not decide our laws, or when you can supersede them because you feel like it Mr USA. You make think you are the world's police but you still have to follow the rule - innocent until proven guilty - in line with the law of the country where the offense was committed, not where it impacted. we won't discuss how secure your systems were, but don't complain if they are not secure and someone gets access.

Vodafone UK blocks bulk nuisance calls. Hurrah!

Cereberus

Scaring the scammer

My tactic has always been to answer the phone and when I ask who is calling and they tell me I was in a car accident in the last 5 years (or whatever) I just ask them why they are calling the Air Ambulance emergency support line and do they realise someone could die because they are blocking the line. In the space of 2 weeks the number of calls I got dropped through the floor.

If I am bored I ask them to give me the details and how they found out I had PPI / was in an accident / have a problem with my PC etc. I once strung out a call for 45 minutes about a car accident - so how did you get my info, when was the accident which you must know if you know I was in an accident and have been given that information, where was it.........

Worst case it was a frivolous use of my time - best case it stopped another 30 or 40 people having to speak to these idiots.

Sex ban IT man loses appeal – but judge labels order 'unpoliceable'

Cereberus

A man goes to the doctor...

and admits he may have a psycho-sexual problem. He admits an incident where he may 'have gone further than intended' to the extent it potentially could be rape.

How to react:

1) Check the details and if it was consensual - no case to answer and lets address how the guy feels to stop him getting any worse to the point where he may commit a crime - possibly arranging psychiatric help

2) Check the details and find it was rape, already stated as possible by the 'defendant' - gather evidence, go to court and convict him. Assess if he should go to prison or a psychiatric hospital for treatment

3) Persecute him and put in place an order which will impact every area of his life to the point he becomes homeless even though he hasn't officially committed an offense in law. He can't get help and support into work under a rehabilitation act be cause he hasn't been found guilty of anything.

Would you employ someone who says I have no criminal record but the police need to be able to access my work computer anytime they want. Why? Well, I have this urge when having sex to make my partner afraid of me. I like S&M - and when I say like I mean LIKE. But I am not going to jump on a woman at work and strangle her whilst raping her, honest.

If anything the order should state that he has to report any sexual contact as soon after the event as possible so that the police can covertly, then if necessary overtly, investigate if anything happened that shouldn't and build the necessary case for court action. From the reports this guy seems to really like S&M, and if the partner is willing (and there are men and women who like being subservient to the point of fear) then that is their choice.

Forgot option 4) Assume everyone is guilty of breaking the law and arrest us all before throwing us all in jail for life - which won't be for long as we'll all starve / dehydrate and eat each other because there is no one outside to cook, bring food, etc. - they'll all be inside as well.

Breaking 350 million: What's next for Windows 10?

Cereberus

It's not all bad

I recently got a new PC because of the cost of upgrading which I had to do anyway (nothing to do with the OS). To be honest, apart from a minor learning curve from the move to Win 10 from Win 7 I haven't had any problems.

It runs faster (of course this needs a pinch of salt when comparing to a 6 year old Win 7 box with loads of crap installed and then removed again over the years), is easier (for me) to navigate settings and so on and the only time I get intrusive adverts is if I want to play Solitaire or Mahjong - although it does get annoying when you have an advert for something already installed.

I can't speak for up-graders but I have no problems on a new machine. The only exception would be the privacy settings, but then I have that locked down. Wouldn't be so easy for a basic word processor / web surfer, but many of them just click yes whatever you put on the screen.

*** I have my flame proof, troll blanking outfit on in preparation for replies

Page:

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019