Posts by Charlie Clark 13433 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Apr 2007
Vivaldi is Chrome.
With you on that and the rest of the criticism. I've been using it as a standard browser since it came out but recent SNAFUs* and the failure to do a mail client have convinced me to switch to the new Firefox, with Opera sill handling my e-mail.
* I can't get at the passwords it's stored for sites and the most recent version keeps on opening links in full screen, which on a 4k monitor is not something I generally want.
Except that, in 2008, Green was a member of the opposition. Still, depending on what committees he was in he may well have had access to confidential information.
Someone somewhere probably has a list of how much time MPs don't spend doing their work but it's really up to the constituency to hold to task over this.
i.e. this whole thing has nothing to do with porn.
Years ago I've worked on someones computer where they most certainly did not knowingly download any dirty images.
This seems to be the line that Green's team is pursuing that of an innocent victim: firstly, of some kind of dodgy website infection; and secondly that some dastardly copper with a grudge kept notes and has now published them.
Sorry, I don't buy this. If there was nothing to hide then why all the smoke? Make it a three-day wonder by admitting to having been unwise but having done nothing illegal.
Sharing login details is far more worrying and likely to exclude someone from a government job. Well, except for BoJo, who seems unsackable despite being patently not fit for pupose.
So, again, why throw this up? Sorry to sound conspiratorial but what is Green really trying to hide? I suspec the BBC team have reason for thinking this as well.
If there was now a case for sexual harassment
As there isn't: why all the noise? Almost as the lawyers are worrried about what does come to light and getting the smokescreen up early.
Whether or not the copper has broken the law by firstly, retaining the notes and subsequently disclosing them is another matter. Seems unlikely to me but I suspect he won't be welcome down the Lodge any time soon.
That it is possible to sneak compromising images into a browser's cache without the user being aware was demonstrated a few years ago when the politicians were trying to give the police the job of enforcing access to obscene publications. Didn't seem to worry the law and order brigade then or when they were draughting and the overreach nightmare that is RIPA.
So why the fuss now? That an MP was browsing porn on his computer isn't news and isn't a crime.
You obviously haven't seen any of Oracle's enterprise contracts. In many sectors Oracle and SAP operate a cosy duopoly safe in the knowledge that migration costs will scare most customers from ever thinking about it. They then buy up and integrate any competitors.
Microsoft counts as the plucky underdog here!
The Android security model is fucked.
It's not without its problems but the evidence suggests that it's doing quite well: still waiting for something like Wanna Cry for phones.
All the modern phone OS do a fairly good job of something that is not that easy. They've had lots of examples of how not to do things and have indeed learnt from them.
As any consumer rights fule noes: a low price is not an excuse for not meeting statutory requirements which in this case means providing relevant software updates.
However, what we are seeing is a failure of the regulatory authorities to enforce the relevant consumer protection laws. This is, unfortunately, typical for software.
Unless you can prove mens rea beyond all reasonable doubt then under English law you're almost certainly looking at a negligence action in tort (civil law) at the most, if you can locate an injured party.
There currently is no criminal case but the argument would be over confidentiality, potentially of state secrets in which case the Crown would be the injured party. In such a hypothetical case I don't think that "all my aids know passwords" would wash that well and I suspect Special Branch my already have had words.
The more charitable (though unlikely) interpretation is that she understands plausible deniability
Depends on the jurisdiction but in general it will leave you liable if not necessarily culpable and possibly even an accessory.
Cf. the recently withdrawn German law on Störerhaftung (operators of free wifi being held liable for crimes committed using their network. Or anyone outside the US not keeping firearms safely locked up.
Making copies of data and release confidential information about an investigation is a very, very serious offence.
Well, we all know how effective the ICO is on matters like this. IANAL but I think, given the time elapsed, that there is not much of a legal case here otherwise the CPS would be all over this. This is probably why the guy was happy to go on the record about this. The BBC could have chosen to keep the source anonymous.
As for defamation: the tabloids regularly publish stories far more invasive and embarassing than this and rarely have to go to court for it.
Methinks Messrs Davis and Rees-Mogg protest too much. So Green was watching porn on a government computer ten years ago. Embarassing, maybe. Slap on the wrist for not cleaning up after himself (sic), maybe. But that should be the end of the matter.
I suspect their acting of leaping to Green's defence is to deflect from something else in case he does "decide to spend more time with his family". Basically Treesare can't afford to lose many more ministers.
Most porn isn't illegal just embarassing.
The browser cache was probably full of stills from the various films he was watching: 2008 is post YouTube so the porn video explosion had already happened.
Worried about doing something on a work computer? First thing: don't do it. If you must do it: go incognito or at least clear the cache afterwards. There probably will be records on the proxy of what you were doing but probably cause must be shown before anybody can start looking.
Electric cars are already heavily subsidised not least through the complete lack of duty on their fuel.
With the very real threat of cars being banned from city centres by the courts, we're bracing ourselves for a much bigger subsidy (left-pocket to right-pocket but a great vote winner) to retrofit Euro-Diesel IV + V cars with NOX reduction systems. Or trade-ins for Euro VI.
Obviously there is something wrong. Software engineers should learn to become nursery assistants and farmers, street sweepers and nurses can become developers… After all, it worked so well in China.
Anecdotally, recently ran a sprint where 10% of the people attending were women, which I found pretty good. They came because they're interested in software development and they want to be chosen for their skills, but their role as women is also imporent to them. Most of my female friends would rather do the ironing than learn to program! Maybe we should be using Pinterest instead of Meetup to get interest.
The stupidity lies with John Major's government signing Maastricht back in 92.
What are you on about? Act of Parliament, like all the rest. That's how the UK's democracy is supposed to work. Except now parliament allows itself to be ruled by the mob and the government has decided important matters should be decided by fiat. I guess that is one way of taking back control! We'll all be back being tenant farmers.
I haven't got the cash to invest in overseas property but I have been spending the last year learning German (from scratch) and finding alternative income streams from overseas.
At the moment you can have your pick of employers: German IT companies are screaming for developers.
if HO can do it locally with no government help and be a viable business it can be done nationally
This is flawed logic: it's always easy to cable up up a couple of hundred thousand places, but it becomes increasingly difficult to do more. Or, in investors terms, the returns on investment become lower and lower.
Openreach should certainly be taken off BT to remove any conflicts of interest and OFCOM's plans to allow other companies access to Openreach's ducts will help, but without the prospect of getting more money from customers, rollout will be limited.
The UK government has launched a review to figure out what’s holding back investment in "full fibre" and 5G networks and how policies could help the telco market.
… please sign me up for meetings and shindigs in exotic locations before pointing out the obvious: the timeframe for return on capital is unsuitable for the private sector.
The easiest way to economise on a new phone is to what more and more are doing: extend the replacement cycle. This leads to the mid-range being squeezed as people stick with what they have rather getting a replacement that is more or less the same, or they splash out on the latest and greatest.
Phones now have to compete with music and TV subscriptions services for people's reduced disposable income.
I think everyone must be dazzled by the headlights of Samsung and Apple.
Possibly, but this is also a change in the market as refresh rates decline and people hang onto their phones longer. The premium manufacturers are much better equipped to deal with the longer cycles, meaning there are fewer sales for the others.
So, rather than a dash for the shiny, it's about sticking with known brands.
but if the Android answer to my; 6month old phone is vulnerable to a web page hack that will leak my online banking details - is just go and buy a new £500 phone every 6months.
Luckily, it isn't. We need to take the retailers and the manufacturers to court to get them to do their job. Might add as much as € 10 to a handset.
I disagree with the premise: Updating existing handsets is one of the biggest challenges Google faces in the next decade.
The plethora of different Android versions has little effect for the vast majority of users. If this were not the case there'd be court cases from here till eternity.
Legally Google is in the clear because it pushes all relevant patches to AOSP. Most revenue-relevant API services are already rolled into Google Play Services.
Manufacturers have little or no incentive to up their game until they are held liable for not publishing relevant patches.
That said this is a welcome development.
FaceID isn't secure and anyone who thinks it is will at some point get a nasty surprise. Apple have implemented an extremely complicated convenience function essentially, as far as I can tell, to demonstrate how cool their facial recognition technology is. Arguing about the technology is largely missing the point: users want to be able to use the phone in some situations without having to unlock it.
I have argued elsewhere that for the use case not having a screen lock on at all times is better solved by something like Google's SmartLock approach: not infallible and not making any claims to be but useful all the same.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
