Posts by Barrie Shepherd 319 posts • joined 6 Feb 2008
An Australian government body takes a private entity to court because they are doing what the Australian Government has legislated other Australian government entities, and pseudo government entities, should be able to do.
Such hypocritical irony "We can, you can't "
(Not that im defending any of Googles actions which are considerable overeach anyway)
I can save the Government some of the £200,000.
The chances of working through technical issues, permissions and protocols for attaching any sort of equipment to the Overhead Line Equipment structures is naff all.
As part of the 25 Kv AC overhead line system the structures are also part of the traction 'Earth Return' path. Active electronics attached to them will require considerable protection from the high currents and impulse noise in the contact wire while trains pass through drawing potentially 200 odd amps.
Any power supply, for the BTS, will require considerable filtering and will itself have to be protected by, externally, becoming part of the return current system to prevent dangerous touch potentials. What about battery support? where will that be located? There is often little room in the railway corridor for more infrastructure. In many cases there are no general power supplies (as in domestic types) in the vicinity of the track anyway, providing those will add to costs. Tapping the OLE power could be an option - but at high cost and unreliability, as sections of OLE can be isolated for railway maintenance activities. (as a side note I don't think the Railways supply agreements for the use of OLE power allow them to use it for non operational purposes anyway) Solar cells and the like is even more infrastructure to go wrong (and be stolen).
Providing telecoms links to the units will offer similar complexities.
Then you have the matter of BTS maintenance. The Railway Electrical Engineers will most likely refuse access to the structures, to maintain the BTS equipment, unless under an isolation i.e. the OLE disconnected and earthed. You can't have some random Telco tech climbing ladders up the gantry to attend to a broken BTS. The permissions and protocols for work on OLE are onerous, and take time to arrange, but they need to as 25 Kv is unforgiving.
When there is a derailment the OLE tends to suffer significantly so any BTS will be wiped out.
Ask yourself why the Railways signal engineers do not save money and attach signals to the OLE? It is just far too problematic, even passive signs (speed limits, restricted clearances etc.) are, in most cases, considered a no no.
Then ask why Network Rail spent millions building new towers/rooms for the the GSM-R equipment if they could have just stuck it on the OLE gantry.
This has been talked about in many railways over many years and large scale implementations, to my knowledge, have never materialised. I'm aware of some limited implementation on some European lines for GSM-R but am not aware of any public BTS kit attached to OLE structures.
The report is thus simple;
No option for using existing railway operational infrastructure exists. Improvement of public wireless coverage in the railway corridor can only be effectively achieved by Telcos developing stand alone masts and infrastructure, preferably a safe distance from the railway safety zones. Some opportunity exists for sharing of existing railway buildings and apparatus rooms but it is not considered that this opportunity helps in many areas where existing coverage is poor. Improvements in wireless distribution, inside trains, can be made but these will only be successful if Telcos provide the necessary improvement in coverage and capacity to the areas along the rail corridors - much as they do for the motorway corridors.
(please remit £199,999.99)
" if the Thin Blue Line accuse you of a crime in one place and AFR "catches" you elsewhere, it will help you. "
The problem with that argument is that 'you' don't have access to the ANPR and 'the thin blue line' will not go trawling through ANPR datasets because it may prove their suspicions wrong, and they may have to declare it to the defense.
Even if the ANPR data showed your car to be somewhere else the prosecution will claim that is no proof 'you' were in it (that logic only works in reverse when 'you' are considered the driver for all ANPR detected offences unless 'you' can prove otherwise.
".............. our mainstream media sites are now written by semi-illiterate cheap or zero-hour arts grads who copy what they read on Twitter or what press release was emailed to them - without any sort of fact checking or independent thought at all."
As is Government policy it would seem.
It's all Apple's fault, apparently.
But we all knew that before HM Govm't spent a load of money trying to develop something that they knew would not work in the Apple walled garden.
But hey why listen to the technologists when BoJo has spoken (probably with Cummings's arm pulling his vocal chords.}
I really don't get it.
To be effective the Gov. need as many of us as possible to use the APP and submit to the Track and Trace activity.
So why make the whole thing an effective commercial activity guaranteed to put a lot of people off installing the APP, and engaging with the system, given that every Tom, Dick and Harry will potentially have access to what may be sensitive personal data - even if claimed to be 'anonymised'
How much more support would there be for the simpler, non centralised APP, and Track and Trace activity only accessible to Health Professionals, and the data protected by Law from snooping (read RIPA) and use for ANY other purpose.
I guess the answer is the COVID virus has already taught the government that they have a compliant population, that accepts draconian restriction to their lives, so why not collect a load of data which we can sell off to commercial operations and provide material for endless PhD Thesis's.
It's not that we can legally get on a train and head to London to protest about the whole sorry mess - as we are under effective house arrest.
(Now waiting for the 'If you have nothing to hide.....' response from No 10.)
"So what's the problem?"
The problem is that this is a Public Health data, something which my be very personal.
Historically data about your health matters are personal and not shared outside of the medical practitioners who need access for your treatment.
The Government has refused to put any legislation around the Track & Trace activity to limit the reach of what the data may be used for or who can legitimately (for health reasons) access it.They intend to retain the data for 20 years! Why?
The data will be passing across the sight of at least three private organisations and will be viewed by employees of those organisation. Those employees will be using their own personal computers with, apparently, no audit of security. In other words the whole activity may have more holes than my kitchen sieve.
Then consider that, without legislation prohibiting it, the data will be available to any Tom Dick or Harry who has been granted access to data under the RIPA laws.
At least Australia rushed through very simple legislation to prevent abuse of the data or access for any other purpose than fighting Corona. I would urge those of you interested to read though the page and a half to see what abuses the Australian Government felt may occur if the tracking data was not protected
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L00480
"however Americans are entitled to the protections of their constitution in whichever country they happen to be in."
Dont tell them that they will be wanting to carry guns down Whitehall. The American Constitution ends at the boarders of the US, Americans are subject to the rules of the country they are in.
"You forgot the excessive use of the variable speed limit system when neither the traffic volume nor current conditions justify it"
Don't know about the rest of the country but they are honest about it on the M1 Nottingham - Sheffield North section - the lovely overhead signs proclaim "Speed Restrictions for Air Quality Control" - on a road running through countryside with hardly any residences nearby.
Staggering - I was impressed when I started work in 1970 and we were squeezing 960 telephone channels down a 4 MHz coaxial cable! Then we got 30 channels down an ordinary telephone quad and the rapid expansion of digital comms began.
This development just shows how innovation can continually improve the things we thought were already at "maximum smoke"
"The existing legal framework for the app, currently being trialled on the Isle of Wight, is inadequate to protect people from misuse of their data, as noted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights."
Australia has a two page Act to cover this;
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L00480
Take that and add a "cannot be accessed via RIPA" clause and it's done and dusted.
Importantly it also addresses third party coercion or abuse;
9 Coercing the use of COVIDSafe
(1) A person must not require that another person:
(a) download COVIDSafe to a mobile telecommunications device; or
(b) have COVIDSafe in operation on a mobile telecommunications device; or
(c) consent to uploading COVID app data from a mobile telecommunications device to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.
(2) A person must not:
(a) refuse to enter into, or continue, a contract or arrangement with another person (including a contract of employment); or
(b) take adverse action (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009) against another person; or
(c) refuse to allow another person to enter premises; or
(d) refuse to allow another person to participate in an activity; or
(e) refuse to receive goods or services from another person; or
(f) refuse to provide goods or services to another person;
on the ground that, or on grounds that include the ground that, the other person:
(g) has not downloaded COVIDSafe to a mobile telecommunications device; or
(h) does not have COVIDSafe in operation on a mobile telecommunications device; or
(i) has not consented to uploading COVID app data from a mobile telecommunications device to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.
I've posted in a previous thread asking why there is not underlying legislation to support the APP and make it clear the data is for a single use only.
The Australians have manged it in a couple of pages, well worth a read to see what issues they perceived could occur - for example secondary use along the lines of "You can't come in here unless you have the APP on your phone" becomes illegal, as does "You must download the APP to come to work"
Worth a read to see what the Aus government thought could go wrong! (it's only a couple of pages)
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L00480
Once again the centralised Mandarins show their colours.
Not content with wanting a centralised APP, immediately alienating people with a central data slurp, they then announce that rather than use Public Health staff, located in local communities to exercise the track and tracing tracing activity - people who are already trained in these tasks - they have apparently awarded a contract to Sirco to carry out this work. What price the data privacy/security when the data gets into Sirco? (Remind me how well was the prisoner tracking implemented?)
At least Australia implemented simple legislation to allay public fear about scope creep and unintended use of the APP.
Worth a read to see what the Aus government thought could go wrong! (it's only a couple of pages)
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L00480
For anyone who has driven in Sheffield, and is concerned about the breach and the overreach it has revealed, Sheffield City Council have a Subject Access Request web portal;
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/your-city-council/subject-access-request
You can make a request concerning CCTV footage. The response from Sheffield, when it comes, should give insight into what they do with the data, how long it's stored and who they allow to access the data.
I hope their inbox is quickly filled!
"A number plate isn't classed as personably identifiable and as it was taken in a public place, you'll be hard pressed to get this through."
I am the only driver of my car, Sheffield Council will have access to the DVLC to identify registered keepers (hence drivers) and the cameras will also capture facial images in some cases. As a one off that may not hold much weight under GDPR but the entering all the collated information into a database with a mechanism to track individual cars (i.e. drivers) in real time, and historically, seems to be overreach. It is also unclear who has access to the data base and camera images, how they are archived, for how long and the security of that information.
If I operate a home CCTV system, that covers any areas outside of my property boundary, I am open to GDPR Subject Access Requests and must respond to anyone making such a request. Sheffield City Council, as far as I can tell, do not have any exemption (in relation to this camera network) from individual Subject Access Requests.
Lets hope that residents of Sheffield put in a few SARs to see what the response from the mandarins is.
"I put in a right to be forgotten request to the management company of the local Waitrose carpark. "
I like your style:-)
I shall start doing the same. In fact if we all made GDPR take down applications, the day after being scanned by these money grabbing inventions, it may overload their systems.
The evil in me thinks that the Reg should have just published the errant IP so we could all have a look in at our wives/girlfriend/mistresses/boyfriends all going about their daily 'business'.
That way far greater exposure, of the level our Authorities can track us, would have occurred and the 'embarrassment' (if indeed they have any) of the Authorities would have been far greater.
"Stupid people can't understand this, there's something broken with their brain that makes them incapable of understanding that sometimes, it's ok for an enforcement measure to be <100% effective if it brings other social benefits. Doesn't compute for them. "
I think in this case it is the pseudo Law makers (Chief Cunstables, DPP, Ministers on podiums) who can't work out that a person driving to an isolated location and spending time on their own does not pose a threat to the virus spreading.
"..............what are the chances that they WON'T come up with some lame excuse to link in our medical records and then let some third party process the data "because our systems are overloaded with all this tracking" ......"
I bet Crapita are already writing the Tender documents (together with their pricing response)
Given the Government, and close to Government (i.e. QUANGO), contracts this outfit continues to under-perform on I wonder if the Mandarins, in purchasing departments, will ever understand that cheapest does not mean best and that in future contract awards previous performance MUST be given weight against the tenderer.
The number of failures and questionable outcomes from the hundreds (Thousands?, Millions?) of contracts Capita has 'won' should be sounding alarm bells all over the place and certainly across the desks of the National Audit Office.
"First of all - as in the USA and other countries - you can only vote for someone who is an official candidate. (Why?)"
Last time I checked anyone can stand to be a Parliamentary candidate in the UK subject to appropriate oversight (citizenship etc.) and payment of £500 https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/standing/
Many Ballot forms have independent candidates on them. - I myself (residing in a 'Red Rosette' constituency) have voted for the Monster Raving Loony party as a show of protest!
In my working days (before Ethernet was the norm) I dealt with many systems using distributed data connections using RS232/422. There was always a need for a modem eliminator or reversed cable and it is ingrained in my memory that a modem eliminator is 4 to 5, 6 to 8 to 20, with data on 2 & 3, 7 data ground.
A couple of years ago I was asked to assist with a problem between two pieces of equipment connected by RS 422 over 1 metre of cable. The suppliers at each end were blaming each other. Their local staff did not understand RS connections. A simple observational exercise showed that ones mans DSR, CTS, DCD was not the same as the other. I made up back to back D25 connectors in a double ended shell, transposing the appropriate wires, with a switch in the DCD line marked 'Energise', and stuck a label to the unit it saying "Interface Dongle".
I showed my 'significant' knowledge by using the switch to fail the link. I should have potted it and charged them £500 apiece.
DAB receivers are power hungry compared to FM - I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
So who is going to model the extra power and resources (for batteries) that would needed should FM be closed down?
Yes Aquiva may save energy/money at the MUX, broadcasting less power, but the population uses more power to listen. So how does promoting DAB help 'save the world?'
Mind you as DAB causes corona virus, trees to die, birds to drop out of the sky, along with reading your brainwaves and triggering cancer clusters I guess the conspiracy theorists, that lurk in social media, could well cause it's downfall /s
"With the rolling out of 4G network sharing in blackspot areas, and the increase in reliable coverage, wideband audio over LTE will probably be more available."
It is hardly efficient use of emerging 4/5 G spectrum/coverage to have hundreds of cars driving around streaming multiple radio stations. And then there would be the cost in network charges to the users.
I would also hazard a guess that it would be impossible, irrespective of fill in stations and site sharing occurred, to be able to hold a audio stream while travelling down a motorway for 1 hour or so.
Perhaps OFCOM could consider the value of the DAB spectrum if it were used for 5G - and leave FM alone but release licenses for narrow band FM for those broadcasters who don't need stereo or audio quality outside of the 300 Hz - 4 kHz telephony specs?
"Agree with other commenters here about OFCOM. Their remit seems to be to do the government's bidding rather than representing spectrum users."
The problem, as I see it, is that the only 'spectrum users' that OFCOM understand are the ones paying them money, or potentially could be paying more money. Joe public is not considered a 'user' just a receiver!
DAB in a moving vehicle is really annoying. The total cut out (which always occurs at some interesting part of the programme) During the drive (when I could), of the 2 miles to my local station there were 4 200m sections of the road where the signal always blanked out two at traffic lights where you are invariably stopped - so the only positive about DAB is that it is consistent. FM may get scratchy but it never just collapses in a heap of silence.
My other gripe is that the DAB broadcasters do not support TA (Traffic Alerts) - something very useful when on a long journey.
In a domestic setting DAB's processing delays, in different suppliers equipment, means that it is no longer possible to have the radio on in two or three rooms at a time as they are all out of sync.
The DAB signal is more sensitive to local movement, short term fading and multi-path reflection because it is not from 'many local transmitters' but, in my case, is from a mast on a hill 30 odd miles away.
.....and don't get me going on general DAB audio quality...........
Rant over!
"And still, the drones are much less invasive than tracking that has been covered here in recent days. ......But the drones don't easily allow perfect identification or tracking. Mobile phone tracking does"
But I'm currently allowed to leave my mobile phone at home should I want to go off for a day out in Derbyshire. (Not that I can at present because of the politzi road blocks now set up around the English Counties)
My Australasian friends were laughing at me about the Derbyshire drone use and just sniggered that I now lived in an Eastern block police state (not withstanding the Australian draconian internet/mobile meta data laws)
Great! - some karma today - they are now facing the same overreach by the Police.
Very soon policing will be conducted by 'Officers' in secretly located control rooms with just drones patrolling the streets. The officers and their families will not live in the community but in large secure gated cities where they will be isolated from the problems the rest of the population face.
I expect George Orwell to rise from his grave soon and shout out 'Told you so'
"That Port Toilet video has a very unconvincing .........................."
Maybe but according to the council it is equipped with speakers;
https://www.npt.gov.uk/1410?pr_id=6443
"Neath Port Talbot Council has teamed up with South Wales Police to survey hotspots where people are not following government measures on social distancing.
The drones are equipped with speakers that will transmit messages directly to the public."
I was under the impression that the right to be forgotten rules, as they applied to Search Engines, were about preventing searches by name revealing web pages that covered the matter the respondet wanted to be forgotten - NOT taking the page off the interwebs.
e.g. If dirty rotten scoundrel did not want his name to be used to find a connection to his involvemnt in the fleecing of old age pensioners then Search Engines had to make sure a search for his name did not turn up the pages about the fleecing of pensioners. There was no obligation to NOT report the pages in a search for the term " fleecing pensioners".
The BBC used to report on instances where some of their news pages had been de listed from named person searches but were still availabe in context search results. https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f32-b110-d02fbf7fd379
The pages were still available on line and in search reults if other search terms are used.
To be completely forgotten a responent would need the Courts to deliver takedown orders to individual web hosting organisations which won't work for those outside of the Courts jurisdiction.
On the face of the article, as reported, it does seem that Google has been dealt a raw hand by the Swedish Courts, who appear to want to operate as a world censor. Maybe the takedown orders that Google have "mishandled" related to a wealthy Swedish businessman/politician?
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020