Posts by PJH 18 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Apr 2006
# The Register understands delays were caused when BT
# asked Phorm to develop a network-level opt-out, based
# on its own layer 7 switch, dubbed PL7.
Assuming this is a reference to the OSI Model, WTF is a Layer 7 (application layer) switch, and WTF is one doing in an ISP? Again, assuming OSI, this implies that BT are doing their own DPI.
"However, in its advice to Phorm and ISPs, the Home Office said it believed that publishing a website gave implicit consent."
Bah! to that. Time to add an explicit prohibition to websites then? A-la: https://nodpi.org/2008/10/01/terms-to-deny-bt-and-phorm-from-your-web-site/
"PHORM PROHIBITED
The contents of this site, and communications between this site and its users, are protected by database right, copyright, confidentiality and the right not to be intercepted conferred by section 1(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The use of those contents and communications by Internet Service Providers or others to profile or classify users of this site for advertising or other purposes is strictly forbidden."
FTA: ``The key word here is "should", which T-Mobile interpreted as "don't have to be"``
What other meaning did the reporter think could be attributed to the word "should"? "MUST"? Perhaps they should take up writing RFCs?
Clarly the real failing is OFCOM not using the word 'must' instead of 'should.'
> As you all know, an ordinary Google search gives you just ten
> results. You can't get more without loading another page.
An ordinary search for me returns 100 results. Perhaps someone needs to look a bit deeper in the preferences page beyond setting the language to "Bork, bork, bork!"
"Online banking fraud losses, however, decreased by a third from £33.5m in 2006 to £22.6m in 2007."
Yeah right. *Reported* losses probably decreased. Because you can no longer (usefully) report phishing/account problems to the police, the only people who can collate the losses are the banks. i.e. we no longer have centralised reporting for this sort of crime.
And what are the odds on the banks self-reporting "Our bank lost XXX last year ...," we're having enough problems getting out of them how much they've lost in the sub-prime debacle.
.. on the internet are made up.
From Q.I. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes_%28D_series%29#Episode_2_.22Discoveries.22)
"It rains the most on Saturdays, because of industrial activities over the week cause a seven day dust cycle."
Something isn't matching up here....
The WP article is short on one little detail - he was sharing his mp3's via P2P software - that's how he was caught. And what he is being charged with.
And as far as the 'unauthorised copies' rubbish goes - any copy of a CD has always been unauthorised. This, however, doesn't make them illegal. Or stealing. It only becomes an offense if you start sharing them amongst other people.
It is quite legal to make an unauthorised copy for personal use; always has been since LP's and reel-to-reels were in common use. This is the 'fair use' doctrine in copyright law.
In short, the WP article is just more FUD.
> Their site uses MSIE only[..]
Dunno what version of Firefox, Opera, Safari or Lynx you're using, but I've just tested logging in and viewing my credit card statement on all four successfully.
Unless you're talking about their Money Manager which is produced by a different company (eWIse) in which case you should be complaining about them using an ActiveX...
> Some of us aren't American and don't know how much 44 inches is.
It's 1.18132936e-16 light years. See http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=44+inches+in+light+years
> Please, in future, can we have all measurements in metres, litres
> and kilos, just like we learned in school in the 1970s?
Well I was in a UK school during the late 70's and 80's and they taught us about inches and miles. And why aren't you complaining about the UK road signage being in metric instead of imperial?
Barry:
>Unpatched Vulnerabilities
>
>IE: 36% Firefox: 15%
>
>(Source: Secuna Stay Secure)
Ian:
> The good news is that Firefox 1.5.0.2 has no known
> vulnerabilities rated higher than 'Less Critical' (2/5)
And this makes Firefox better than software that doesn't have vulnerabilities how exactly?
Microsoft is crap at fixing vulnerabilities, but the fact that Firefox still has known ones doesn't make it necessarily any better. Critical or 'Less Critical' (How does that work by the way. Isn't that like being 'a little bit pregnant?')
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
