
Whether it should be regulated
Yes, good luck with that, uk.gov, even after you've solved your IT competence issues...
While you're at it, you could try regulating hurricanes and thunderstorms.
151 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jun 2008
A number of less-than-fortunate consequences may follow from this. Many of them sound like the names of films, like "The Geckos came from Outer Space" or "Invasion of the Geckos". Of course the worst one would be "Invasion of the Lizard People".
Oops, I think we may have had that one already...
In reply to "This is not good"
'... put data into the blockchain, if you've enough processing power ...'
Heard of "social connections"? How's this for a chain of them?:
Big Banking <==> Government <==> FBI etc <==> NSA/GCHQ <==> Enough processing power?
"Of course, when everyone's out to get you, you must expect to feel a bit paranoid"
"The Right to be Forgotten" is BS for Whingers, or worse.
If it's on the internet, it'll be found, with or without Google search
The right place to attack this, first, is to look at when and how it gets published in the first place
The next best place to sort it out is at the website that's publishing it, not breaking Google search
Rewriting history is dangerous. Mario Costeja Gonzalez *may* have the "right to be forgotten", but Bashar al-Assad definitely doesn't. Now, where do you draw the line in between?
The point is not whether the man in the street is worried about it, Dave, it's whether you and your mates, and Clegg and his mates, and Milliband and his mates*, all realise that politicians are (a) meant to serve the people who elected them rather than control them; and (b), uphold the law rather than break it.
*A black plague descend upon you all.
All this will never have happened.
(For those that haven't already understood, the NSA/GCHQ complex will rule through puppet administrations bent to their will through blackmail. One of their early actions on taking power will be to erase all record of what we know today.)
I couldn't agree with you more.
If we issue a Royal Pardon for Turing, then logically we have to issue pardons for everyone who was convicted under the mediaeval law in force at the time.
If we issue a pardon for everyone convicted under that law, then logically we should issue pardons to people convicted under *every* law now seen to be barbaric. Pardons for the shot shell-shocked accused of cowardice in WW I; pardons for all the suffragettes; pardons for all the children hanged for stealing a loaf; the list is endless.
Then, once we legalise the consumption of cannabis, we have, logically, to pardon all those convicted under the present law. And so on.
This idea is called "re-writing history". Orwell satirised it in '1984'.
People, the damage is done! Although all these laws were abominable, they were the law at the time these injustices happened, and the injustices happened within a valid, if barbaric, rule of law.
We have to learn, improve, and move on. Pardons, and even apologies, just don't make sense.
Good! Now that's fixed so successfully, here are a few more suggestions for searches that Google and M$ can block on behalf of those in power:
"MP's Expenses"
"GCHQ Internet Hoovering"
"HS2 Budget increase"
"Social services neglect"
"Care home failure"
... to name but five...
On Hard Talk, Stephen Sackur asked Malcolm Rifkind whether he and the ISC knew the extent to which NSA and GCHQ were hoovering up the Internet. If you listen carefully to his answers, you'll see that he never actually said 'Yes' or 'No'.
Now, if he'd said 'Yes', we all might shout at him and argue that it was grossly excessive and why did he allow it -- a courageous answer, but at least honest.
If he'd replied 'No', however, that would have been an excellent sign of ISC's failure to exercise adequate oversight.
What's my conclusion? Well, 'Yes' would have been bad, but 'No' would be a complete disaster. As I don't see how answering 'Yes' would have in any way compromised security, I begin to suspect the true answer would have been 'No'
Perhaps, one fine day, when the G4S National Health Awareness Community Outreach Police come knocking at your door to invite you away for the Alimentary Re-Education Internment Programme, just because you organised a meet-up of your mates to eat pizza, you'll realise what was wrong.
Yes. I've had one for nearly three years, now, and love it.
I recently bought a Yubikey Nano, which has challenge-response and can be used as an additional token for Windows logon.
I just have one concern about the original (one-time password) Yubikey. The AES encryption key lives in the Yubikey, where it's safe, and on the authentication server, where, in principle, it isn't. Maybe a challenge-response arrangement might be better.
I don't believe this is a problem of religion, organised or disorganised.
What we have here is a sty full of murderous pigs hiding behind "religion" and exploiting the ignorant and stupid to further their own greed for political power.
Am I the only one to see the parallels with Northern Ireland? Or Bosnia?
... this is such a stupid own goal by the government.
There was obviously an internal conflict in the Ecuadorian government as to whether or not to grant asylum. UK threatening so send in the Plods was all that was needed for Ecuador to come together and decide.