Insubordination? Isn't that management speak for "not immediately complying with some brain dead plan from a bunch of high up wafflebrains "?
80 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Mar 2007
For sheer, mind-boggling incompetence and stupidity this stands in a class of its own.
The tragedy is that this story of sloppiness and utter irresponsibility is just another example - albeit an extreme one - of the way in which standards of competence in our newspapers, once the highest in the world, have been allowed to plummet under Labour's stewardship.
One assumes that Dacre, or whoever runs the Daily Wail, has already tendered his resignation.
I presume anyone who recommends google maps over the previous tracking has never taken their phone abroad. Can you imagine the roaming data costs?
If anyone can point me to the page in the manual that says "This feature is time limited and will be removed" I'd like to see it.
If there is one person in a car driving himself across town, he's congestion. But if that same person hails an taxi that's been driving around empty causing more congestion, and gets in it, then that's public transport. Yet the taxi is causing more congestion (due to driving around all the time, partially empty) and more pollution (due to driving around all the time, and not going to its destination and parking). Taxis should pay more congestion charge, not less.
Q: Dear Plusnet. Isn't failing to protect personal information a breach of the Data Protection Act?
Q: Dear ICO. Given that Plusnet screw up on a frequent basis, destroying or disclosing personal information, why haven't you acted?
Q: Dear Plusnet. When you statement says "As previously announced", does this mean you were planning on losing the data?
Q: Dear Plusnet. How come you contrived to lose all the genuine emails, and none of the spam that you keep sending me due to your previous screwups?
Protect your own data, because the ICO won't. If you contact them detailing a breach of the law, they never act. Occasionally they'll ask the company, who respond "we're not breaking the law", and the ICO says "they said they weren't doing anything wrong", and believes them. It is, without a shadow of a doubt the most pathetic, toothless, idle excuse for a regulator in existence today.
It could be worse, you could be with Plus.net. Then you'd have had your email addresses distributed to all and sundry while they claim they can't do anything, and it's not their fault because despite Plusnet being insecure, the taking of the email addresses was a criminal act.