Good shout, chap. At least I've managed to pull some files from older e-mails. Thanks for the tip. Have one on me.
190 posts • joined 19 Jan 2016
Our organisation is boned, no e-mail availability across the board, even via OWA. What's really daft is that my Outlook client runs in cached exchange mode and stores everything offline just in case of something like this but it's now crapping out whenever I try to load it so I can't even look at e-mails stored locally because the bloody thing can't connect to the server.
Re: All else being equal...
You're somewhat behind the times. In the UK men get 2 weeks paid paternity leave and both parents can then split the 12 months parental leave between them however they wish.
So it is entirely equal these days.
Source: I'm about to take 6 weeks parental leave with my son when the missus goes back to work. And I already had 2 weeks paternity leave when he was born.
Facebook's pay-for-more-eyeballs shtick looks too good to be true: Page views, Likes from 'fake' profiles
Though the use of the clever recognition technology for home safety – listening for burglars or a baby's sounds – is one thing, the commercialisation of ambient sounds may encounter some resistance.
As everyone knows burglars emit a low-frequency hum when on the rob...
This sounds like exactly the sort of thing the a typical marketing department would love to invest in. Primarily because they're too thick to understand what a bullshit concept it is.
Then again, I suppose an adult entertainment company could get them to map all the sounds associated with having one off the wrist and start pinging tissue adverts at the hapless onanist.
Then they could map the sound of a disrupted vinegar stroke and suggest some higher quality porn. This thing pretty much sells itself.
Re: Equality in advertising
Nail . Head . Best comment.
Only if you're a tool. Let me use your own example to make it clear what's happening and why it's wrong.
If a woman has an interest in mechanical engineering and such she may well then be a Scrapheap Challenge viewer. If so then she'll see the Royal Navy ad and might be interested in joining up.
The issue here is that Facebook are removing her ability to see the ad, no matter what her personal interests are, simply because she possesses a vagina. That's fucking stupid.
The equivalent would be that during the ad break in Scrapheap Challenge her TV detected the fact she is of the vagina'd half of the population and replaced the Navy ad with one for makeup or shoes or something vagina-bearers are supposed to be interested in.
Associating ads with things that people are likely to be interested in isn't a problem. It's when you remove someone's choice for following their up their interest based on something as daft and arbitrary as which set of genitalia they possess.
Re: UK trade union the TUC ?????
Everyone knows Tuc is a cheesy biscuit, and massively inferior to the glory that is the Ritz biscuit and its smaller but tastier cousin, the Mini Ritz.
OT: We have to retain e-mails, internet connection records, phone logs, everything at work. That's due to compliance and it's perfectly acceptable. We don't monitor keystrokes and our firewall only blocks P2P connections and child porn and that's because that's a requirement from our ISP. Anything else is allowed through (and where I work there are some users with legitimate requirements to view porn, the lucky bastards).
What we don't do is expose any of our records to anyone unless there's a) a very good reason and b) written authorisation from both the Director of ICT and the Director of the employee's department. And even then our Security & Standards Manager is able to refuse anything he disagrees with.
We do get the odd manager (aren't they all odd?) asking for web history or e-mail access for one of their staff. They get short shrift. My favourite response to one request (manager was concerned employee was spending too much time browsing the internet) was "This isn't an IT issue. Manage your staff better. If they're getting the job done who gives a shit how much time they spend online?"
With regards to monitoring staff outside of work, I'd kick off massively if I discovered that happening. One manager admitted he checks people's Facebook profiles before interviews and won't hire them if he see's anything he doesn't like. He also stated that if they don't have a Facebook profile he doesn't trust them because "What have they got to hide?"
My response was "Everything. Or rather, I've got nothing about my personal life I want to expose to any twat with a net connection." I've never had any form of social tedia profile and he'd hired me 2 weeks before that so I knew he was full of shit.
Re: Government failing the populace
OK, I'll bite.
1) They'll do that anyway. Net Neutrality isn't about the government "taking over the internet", it's about stopping large companies abusing their position. Which is exactly what the government should be doing, rather than letting those that are powerless to stop it getting rolled over.
2) De-regulation doesn't work because it takes all the brakes off industry doing whatever the fuck they like to milk customers.
3) ISPs set their own prices, there's no cap on how much they can charge. Further, the ISPs operate as an effective cartel and have carved the map up into separate areas to ensure they don't compete with other too much. That's the opposite of what a free-market economy should promote, but is often the result of it because people like you swallow the corporate bullshit.
4) Net Neutrality categorically isn't about mediocrity of service. It's about providing a level playing field to all content producers. The alternative is that the ISPs impose a speed tax on websites meaning only the larger, established companies can afford to pay. This cements existing market dominance and provides an additional hurdle to new companies as they can't afford to pay for higher delivery speeds and so are perceived to provide a worse service. All you're arguing for is a tax on the likes of Google, Facebook and Netflix that they won't notice but will raise an effective barrier against any who seeks to challenge their position. That's never going to be a win for customers.
The rest of your post is just nonsense from start to finish. Trump's current obsession with tariffs is currently fucking things up across the world, not making things better. Get your head of the right-wing bubble and try looking at facts instead of just repeating what you hear. Fuck's sake man, jut provide evidence you've actually considered this on an intellectual level and analysed the situation instead of spouting off the same nonsensical crap time and time again. You're so partisan it's ridiculous. IF you make your mind up before hearing the facts, and base your opinion solely on whoever is talking then you're a fucking idiot.
Oh, and don't quote Rush fucking Limbaugh as a source of information. That prick wouldn't know the truth if it married his sister. Provide some evidence that download speeds have doubled, at no extra cost to consumers and with no investment in infrastructure. Without evidence it's just more partisan whining.
Re: So much for the "what you have" 2nd factor...
theft of physical things happens a lot, but stealing a locked phone doesn't get you access to the phone number.
Yes it does. You take the SIM out and swap it into a phone you can unlock. That's just a low-tech version of the same attack detailed in the article.
I agree though that SMS is not a secure form of 2FA. Too easy to compromise, whether through social-engineering, theft or SS7 attacks.
Re: Zorin OS
Sort of. I think a better analogy would be the car industry where there are only 3 or 4 basic chassis types that everyone uses but then the body-kit, interiors, and optional extra are bundled on type by each manufacturer to produce their own specific models.
Even that's a bit of a tortured analogy, to be honest.
I think the basic idea is you find a distro you like because of the desktop/packages/icons/random subsystem/whatever and then you take flaming pitchforks to anyone who uses a different distro.
Mine's Mint. Death to heretics.
Re: Zorin OS
It's pretty standard, to be honest. Ubuntu itself is based on Debian. Zorin is based on Ubuntu, as is Mint and a hell of a lot of other distros out there.
They use the same basis but maintain their own software repos and often bundle different file browsers, desktops and other standard software packages with them.
I suppose the advantage is you've got a fairly stable codebase (Debian/Ubuntu) but then as a use you can pick which flavour suits you best, rather than having to take stock Ubuntu and then doing all the work of swapping packages in and out for your own preferred versions.
I think most distros out there originate as forks from Debian or Red Hat, with some notable exceptions such as Slackware and Arch Linux.
The Beeb did a series back in the 90's called Weird Nature. Cracking little show and one episode was all about animals getting ripped to the tits on various psychoactive substances.
It included bees getting sloshed on pilfered pints and then showed the drunk bastards bouncing off their own hive when they flew home. The club bouncers at the entrance to the hive would refuse entry to any bee who was too hammered to do the dance properly.
Same episode featured drunk monkeys nicking pitchers of grog, hedgehogs huffing creosote and a jaguar stoned out of its gourd after eating something herbal.
The IP would be one of the assets the administrators would want to realise cash on.
But they've just been stripped of the IP by Sky, so there's nothing to realise.
It was a stupid idea from the start anyway. Nowhere near enough buttons for probably the majority of games, there are Speccy emulators out in the wild already and it probably would have been cheaper to get a custom case 3D-printed for a Raspberry Pi and bolt a screen onto the front of it.
I don't understand some of the things people invest in on those crowdfunding sites. I've seen so many completely boneheaded ideas that will obviously never work from even a cursory glance and yet people throw money at them. I can understand chucking a small amount of cash at something you hope gets made, but I've seen so many fully-funded campaigns flounder, followed by the inevitable radio silence from the producers, empty anger from the backers and complete and utter fucking apathy from the thieving bastards running the sites.
So much of this doesn't make sense. How did they locate the copy of the stolen data? And how can they be sure that was the only copy of it?
If it was an inside job and the data was exfiltrated to a single machine that was subsequently seized during a police raid then it would maybe make sense. Possibly. But even then you couldn't be sure it hadn't been uploaded to a hosting service or distributed to others.
And what's the point of taking out an injunction against the hackers? Their initial action was illegal, so I don't think they're going to be phased by a civil action against them. That's like taking out an injunction to stop someone committing murder.
Also, don't you need to name the respondent in an injunction? If they knew who they were taking an injunction out against then why would they not just let the criminal case proceed?
So much iffy info released by the company.
Or maybe they just don't have a fucking clue how computers or criminals operate.
Why not just let users choose when they want to apply updates? What the fuck is wrong with letting users control their own devices?
Predictive update management is fucking lunacy. Even if it goes wrong in only 0.000001% of cases, that's still too often for something that doesn't need to exist in the first place. They've actually spent money getting devs to create something that nobody asked for, is a pretty fucking stupid idea and serves no useful purpose except to remind the users who actually owns their device.
We have that problem where I work. There's been some movement towards introducing 2FA but there are a few sticking points.
Ideally I'd prefer it if users were issued fobs or smart cards, but there's no appetite for investment in that (judging from what I see there's not much appetite for investing in anything except more bloody project managers and iPhone Xs for those at the top).
The option that's being pushed at the moment is a Microsoft solution that relies on using either a smartphone app, texts to a mobile or e-mails to a non-corporate account. My issue with this is that very few users are issued with company phones and I'm not willing to use my personal device for corporate stuff. If they decide I require a smartphone to do my job then they can supply me one.
I agree 2FA should be implemented by organisations, but getting the bean-counters to understand why it's so important is another matter.
I think this result was the correct one, but not for the reason a lot of frothing loonies who are trenchantly narrow-minded in their opinion do. I come down somewhere between both sides in this.
And yes, we all know that an Orlowski article is largely an excuse for him to grind his axe.* But he has made some good points in his articles about this.
The intent behind the laws are good. The two articles in particular make sense. Greater protection should be given to content creators, rather than the huge platforms that sponge of the output of others to draw people in then slurp&sell their data on.
Likewise, publishers host content they've paid people to create and deserve to be reimbursed by companies that link to their material. If they're prepared to take money from advertisers for linking to material that nobody is interested in seeing, then they should put their hand in their pockets to pay for the content gets eyeballs focused on the pages they whore to advertisers. Otherwise it's just techno slave-labour.
I think the articles could do with re-writing, tweaking to ensure that the end result matches the intent behind them. It shouldn't come down to an automated takedown service because we all know they don't work, are easily gamed by large companies who can afford to automate their takedown requests, and requires people who mostly can't afford the automation to manually appeal after the fact. That's fucking backwards. And before the protests start, I'm well aware that Facebook/Google/Twitter, et al, can't afford to hire enough humans to deal with all the content that gets uploaded to their platforms.
I'm just very firmly of the opinion: Fuck them.
It's their responsibility to ensure that their business operates within the limits of the law, not the law's responsibility to adapt itself to the fact that they can scale out content upload easier than they can content vetting. If they can't afford to do that then they either need to throttle their upload speeds or get into another line of business.
If I ran, for instance, an off license, and had an automated facial recognition system to determine if I was selling alcohol to a minor, I'm pretty fucking sure the licensing authorities wouldn't accept that as a valid defence in court. Even if I told them I have a billion customers an hour and the error rate is only 1%.
I do get fucking hacked off with the bullshit being spouted by both sides though. Google fighting against copyright enhancement and pretending they're doing it for the content creators is fucking sickening. As is the music industry and their puppets doing the same. Content creators get screwed by both sides, hard and dry, and always have done.
Both sides are fighting for their own pockets, the actual content creators are being tugged like a ragdoll between them. I just hope the people drafting this law can tighten the laws up enough to make them stick and fuck both the media industries and tech goliaths at once and force them to pay creators a reasonable amount for their work. Not just let them pillage it while claiming the moral high-ground.
The would be a fucking result.
*To be honest, I'm pretty sure the head has disintegrated by this point, and the haft has been whittled down to a toothpick.
You are getting ripped off, you just don't know it yet. Uber lose money to both drivers and passengers on every trip they make (despite fiddling the journey times to gouge both parties). The only reason they do this is do drive proper taxis out of business so they can then jack their prices up. Or did you think they were running at a loss out of the goodness of their hearts?
As to saying you know who is driving, you may have their name but they probably haven't had the proper background checks and may not even be legal to drive. Likewise for MOT, etc on the vehicles they use.
Not that I don't take your point about plenty of other taxis being shit, but it's hardly universal. My local company are pretty good, the drivers are pretty polite, don't rip you off and turn up on time. Not bothered if some of them don't speak great English, I'm not paying them for their conversational skills, and most of the ones I've dealt with a pretty pleasant, regardless of linguistic fluency.
Even if standard taxis are sometimes shit, the answer isn't to replace them with a bunch of regulation-dodging cowboys with as toxic an outfit as Uber. They're the very worst kind of middlemen who try and dodge all responsibility for running a business. I'm still surprised people are using them after all the shit that's been revealed about their dodgy business practices. Using software tailored to hide them from regulators is pretty despicable and is the same sort of shit that got WV fined billions. Then there's the whole issue around them buying the medical reports of a woman who'd been raped by one of their drivers in an attempt to discredit them.
Fucked if I'd give them a penny of my cash, regardless of how shit the alternatives may be.
The Fonz Has Let Himself Go...
...Was my first thought on seeing the photo attached to the article.
On the issue of relationships within a company, in my experience it's usually fine if there's a degree of separation between the two parties (different departments, etc) but within the same team is a recipe for disaster and between direct reports is horribly open to abuse and favouritism, so I can see why they're banned in a lot of places.
Reading between the lines this seems like a pretty pointless exercise in pretending they give a shit.
From the article it says users can only provide feedback on ads they've clicked. The most obvious spammy abusive bullshit ads won't get clicked so the option of providing feedback isn't there. The only feedback they'll gather will be from people who willingly clicked an ad and the feedback is just going to be sold to the advertisers to help them "target their ads better". Facebook are dressing it up as a service for the users but as with everything they do, it's all aimed fellating their real customers while pretending to give a shit about what a toxic abscess their entire platform is.
Fuck Facebook. Glad I've never used it.
There is some sense being talked in the article. Up to a point. They need to legislate towards the outcome they want to achieve, and not against particular implementations. That affords a certain degree of future-proofing against changes in tech and the services on offer.
That being said, Google, et al are still full of shit need to be taken to task. Their entire "we're just a platform" argument needs to be exposed for the nonsense it is. They're currently making money out of hosting some truly vile content and can't keep hiding behind the platform excuse and then claiming AI will solve everything and block everything that shouldn't be there. There's no way for it to be done programmatically at the moment so instead of making bullshit promises they should hire enough people to be able to vet content properly. And that way they'd have something to spend some of their dirty billions on.
Re: "vegan fish"
Mine happily eat sweetcorn, peas, crisps, milk, cheese and pretty much anything else they can steal.
Yeah, but they can't digest it properly. My cat's a complete bastard for crisps (can't open a packet without him trying to intercept them somewhere between fingers and gob) but he doesn't get any real benefit except for the fact that he likes the taste (and some of the salts will make their way into his system).
As the CrazyCatDude said, felines are obligate carnivores and won't survive on a vegetable diet unless it contains specific additives.
I think the issue being exploited here is the auto-scaling nature. Compromising a web-app through something like SQL-injection then allows you to execute your own code on the server instance. You don't need to gain access to the actual back-end of the cloud system, just get the code running on the server-space that's been provisioned and then, as the compute requirements increase, the cloud provider will automatically spin up new server instances to cope with the load.
It seems to be that it's not a case of compromising the entire system, just getting your code running somewhere (even within a VM or container sitting atop the AWS/Azure/whatever instance) and the programmatic elasticity will do the rest for you. You'd think that any company running something with auto-scaling will have configured alerts to let them know when the loads are spiking and by how much, in that same way that on-prem servers will have thresholds set up for things like CPU load, disk space, latency, etc.
Re: he is missing the lowest hanging fruit
I'm planning on hitting Whatsapp and Facebook myself for shadow profiles. I've never used their services but I know they've slurped my e-mail address and other details from my other half's phone (she uses Whatsapp unfortunately) and friend's Facebook accounts.
So I'm going to ask them to delete my data. And then refuse to provide any identifying data (because what would be the point of providing them data I explicitly don't want them to have?). Then asking them to just delete all data they don't have explicit opt-in consent to hold, on the grounds that my data will be in there somewhere and that's the only way to ensure that they successfully delete it without being able to personally identify me.
I'm strongly considering investing in metaphorical popcorn futures. Seems like a booming market.
I can only think Google are assuming they can ignore it as long as possible, then throw lawyers at it until it goes away but I really don't think they've thought it through.
I was having a conversation with the missus yesterday which came down to her saying GDPR was proving a nightmare for the marketing department. The rules are too vague so people can't work out how to change their current policies and they don't know where the boundaries are.
My point was that the rules are deliberately vague because the basis of GDPR is: Don't Be A Dick.
It's that simple. The biggest reason for finding compliance a nightmare is because you weren't compliant with data protection but previously knew it wasn't going to cost you anything.
And the biggest reason for whining that you don't know how to apply the rules is because your mindset is "How much can I get away with?" when the entire point of the rules is that you should be thinking "What's the minimum I need to do business?"
It's the same principle of least privilege that you find in security and it exists for the same reason. The less access you have, the less damage you can do*.
*Intentionally or otherwise.
Re: loads of email about GDPR asking me to sign up
If there's a possibility your local council will send an emergency alert via e-mail then I think you should stop worrying about GDPR and move to a different county. Preferably one not run by sociopathic bureaucrats. Or bureaupaths, as I call them.
Aside from that you've made some good points. So good that I've just e-mailed my local fencing club (that I sadly haven't attended for a couple of years) to assure them that they have my consent to keep e-mailing me about all the sword fights I could be having. Also, seeing as they haven't yet asked, it'll hopefully give the guy that runs it a bit of nudge to look into what GDPR means for him/the club.
Re: Turn off WHOIS
that wont work for a .com though. A .co.uk yes
It works fine for .com addresses. I've just confirmed it by checking my own. It was originally registered through GoDaddy and I just had to pay a few quid on top of the initial registration for in return for them obscuring my personal details. The only contact details listed on the site are GoDaddy's own. IF someone wants to contact me they've got to convince GoDaddy its legitimate first by contacting their abuse@ address. It was that or have every spammy twat out there being able to pull my details from a public registry.
As of Friday I won't have to pay the extra, but it's always been possible to obfuscate domain ownership.
Re: Oh Sorreee! Sorree!
The android securtity model is shite, it's not granular enough. You want access to the photo library, you need to grant the app with access to the phone records ( or some such bollocks! ). The Android secuirty model during development needs to be far more granular. When I need access to the network system, it should be portitoned out to only sub components I need and nothing else. When my app requests access to the photos, it gets access to the default photo app and the default photo directory and nothing else, not the phone records, SMS, logs from all other apps and Lord knows what else.
Complete nonsense. Every single example you've given is a separate permission in Android. Call logs are separate from calling permissions are separate from media storage are separate from SMS logs are separate from SMS sending permissions. In older versions you had to accept all the permissions an app requested in order to install it but the last few major versions have included the option to selectively bar each app from each permission category.
Not that I'm defending Facebook, or suggesting their app isn't malware, but you need to get your facts straight before you start pontificating about how to fix things. The issue here is that Facebook made yet another monolithic grab for data and turned out the usual shit apology when they got caught.
Blood spilled from another US high school shooting has yet to dry – and video games are already being blamed
Re: Only Military??
The Founding Fathers DIDN'T TRUST militaries.
So fucking what? Their opinion on militaries is fucking irrelevant to the modern day. Primarily because they're all fucking dead and so haven't had a chance to revise their hallowed opinions in light of recent events.
And anyway, with the amount of money that's been spunked into the US military* it doesn't matter how many tooled up rednecks you've got roaming the countryside. Trust them or not, the modern US military is not going to get stopped by amateurs with access to AR15s and bump-stocks.
If only you yanks weren't so fucking scared of everything maybe you could step back and see that in an actual civilised country there's no need for everyone to go around armed. Because civilisation tends to imply that people don't randomly try and murder each other.
*The irony of the US military being so powerful is that it's driven by the same pathetic fear that keeps you all so beholden to the idea of gun ownership. Then again, your government (and by extension the arms companies that fund so many politicians) want you scared, because you're more likely to do stupid things...
Re: The world isn't the US or the EU
I think you're getting two things confused here. ICANN is absolutely NOT the government and has no actual legal powers except those which are specified within it's contracts. While those may be legally binding, they're not the same as an actual law.
GDPR is (or will be) law. Which supercedes anything in ICANN's contracts as illegal contractual clauses are not enforceable. So this isn't a case of EU vs US law. This is a case of EU law versus a US corporation which is (attempting) to operate contrary to EU law.
The whole reason ICANN wants to retain the whois service is because of the pressure from the US copyright industry. As noted by others, whois is also widely abused by spammers and most registrars offer a privacy option that keeps details from the whois database anyway. If that were illegal action would already have been taken over it.
So there's essentially no issue with ICANN allowing registrars to ditch the whois requirement because a) it would be illegal for registrars to enforce it and b) the only gnashing of teeth will be from copyright-chasing lawyers and spammers.
If the instructions being reported in the article are an accurate reflection of Google's advice then they've already fucked their GDPR compliance.
One of the tenets is that a user refusing consent is not grounds for refusing access to the service unless the consent is required for the service to function.
This means closing the app and asking for permission again the next time the app is opened (and then closing it again until acceptance is given) is in violation.
EDIT: Beaten to it by someone who even linked the relevant ruling.
You've misunderstood something there, CodeJunky. The services you access are required to gain affirmative assent that you agree to them storing/sharing your data. IF you ignore the requests they've got to turn the data hose off.
But GDPR also specifically forbids them from tying data-sharing in with service provision (except where the data is absolutely required for the service). This means you'll retain your access to the service regardless of whether you do anything with the begging e-mails they're sending asking you agree to their slurp.
Data + Context + Analysis = Intel
I don't see any advantage for China in the reported sequence of events.
As it stands, directing an attack from their own military base is only going to provoke a messy diplomatic incident and, bearing mind idiot Trump's current hard-on for going after China, seems to serve no overt of covert purpose.
If they want to fuck with yank military air traffic they'd do better to distribute a couple of crates of high-powered laser pointers to the local disaffected yoot and get them to do the dirty work for them with no easy attribution.
If the Chinese really did launch the attack from their base then their only option, when discovered, would be to claim it was an "accident" during "routine calibration" of a new system. And there's still time for them to put forth such an explanation so I wouldn't automatically rule it out.
It also strikes me that attribution must be very difficult involving a laser-source fired over several kilometres. It won't be visible over much of its travel and the affected pilots will certainly be in no position to identify the source, especially at that distance during a night-landing procedure when they'll primarily be relying on instruments instead of direct visual observation (not that that will save them from being blinded by the dispersed beam of a powerful pointer flooding through the cockpit windows).
I just don't see any benefit for the Chinese to do this directly when they could achieve the same, if not better, results by letting someone else work the tools for them. And the attribution is definitely suspect. As others have pointed out, this smacks heavily of the Cuban "sonic attacks" that are much better explained by poor sanitation but that doesn't have the same Man From Uncle panache that grabs the attention of a fearful-by-design American public.
Hate speech IS FREE SPEECH!
There are plenty of ways in which speech is restricted that you don't blink an eye at. You can't lie in court, you can't phone up a company and tell them you've planted a bomb, you can't threaten to kill someone, you can't tell the police your neighbour is a murderer, or just make up random lies about them.
None of those restrictions are unreasonable and adding racial hatred and inciting violence to that list is also completely reasonable. All of those restrictions exist to protect people from malicious arseholes. Don't try and claim your human right is being infringed if your only intent is then to infringe the rights of others.
Re: They're not suing Kodi
... it's equally saddening that it's comments and not the articles of this site who get it right rather than joining the gutter trash press in stooping to clickbait.
It's not the Register as such, it's the author's own bias. He's got a huge problem with various things including Kodi, Google, ad blockers, Google, Wikipedia, Google net neutrality and, oddly enough, Stephen Fry.
Some of his commentary is reasonably accurate, but mostly he just wants to grind his axe while clouding his nonsensical arguments in pseudo-intellectual bollocks.
If you really want to see him gnashing his teeth and wailing, get Stephen Fry to officially endorse Kodi.
Read about this yesterday and it sounds amazing, hopefully they can produce it enough quantity to make it a viable solution.
Although, I am reminded of the fact that in Niven's Ringworld novels it's revealed that the Ringworld creator's civilisation failed because of an errant bacteria being accidentally introduced that ate all of their superconductors. There'd need to be some fairly tight controls around using this to avoid it getting out into the "wild".
How can they stop you taking a screen-grab of the e-mail and saving it? Or just grabbing a photo using another device?
And what company is going to be able to legitimately use self-deleting e-mail? There are all kinds of law regarding audit trails and data retention.
Not sure how either of these systems are going to appeal to anyone other than the likes of Uber and other scumbags.
Or rather, the idea may appeal but the reality will prove to be somewhat different to the blurb in the sales brochure.
'Our way or the highway' warranty scams shot down by US watchdog: It's OK to use unofficial parts to repair your gear
Re: Goods in the UK &EULA
That's highly unlikely. There's no benefit to being seen stamping on consumer protection so it's a pretty suicidal position for an MP to take and would require changing quite a few laws that have been around for a very long time. Particularly the EULA garbage. You can't bind someone into an agreement they don't have a chance to read until after they've opened the box, and once they've purchased the product there's no reason for them to agree to anything after the fact.
As mentioned earlier, a moment of sanity.
Backpage.com swoop: Seven bods hit with 93 charges as AG Sessions blasts alleged child sex trafficking cyber-haven
@x 7: Any evidence to back that up? Not saying it's not true but just prior to the 2012 Olympics there was a huge fuss made by gov about sex trafficking which was quickly debunked by every fact-based study you could find.
As to the rest of the article, why the fuck are the cops patting themselves on the back so fucking hard? They've taken down a website and the associated ads. Number of children saved from sexual exploitation by this action: 0. Number of traffickers/exploiters arrested/proesecuted: 0.
Don't get me wrong, the fact that the shady cunts running the site seemed to not give a shit about people actively searching for sex ads offering kids is fucking horrific, but this seems like going after a big, noisy, soft target rather than the actual hard job of arresting the pimps and paedo's and rescuing women and kids from sexual slavery.
Xtree Gold was the mutt's nuts! I used to use it for cracking games on floppies back in the day, then sending them back in jiffy backs to some dodgy Swedish block who ran a BBS.
I was particularly impressed when I started opening Star Controll II source files in it using hex-view and could see all the ship designs in ascii.
Re: Better alternative
@andy_73 Even if faced with a stark "Agree to let us slurp your data or you don't get access" warning, most Facebook users will happily tick the box and go on their merry way. To the average person on the street, this is abstract, undefined stuff - "I don't read the ads anyway, so it doesn't apply to me".
No, most users will completely ignore the box, not bother reading the blurb, click OK and happily go on their way. That's the response of about 90% of users to anything like that. Which means Facebook don't get the slurp. Read the GDPR regs, they specifically ban any form of automatic opt-in, pre-ticked boxes or anything like that. Which means they're rather cunningly leveraging user apathy to provide default slurp-protection to the majority of people.