Posts by codejunky

Facebook previews GDPR privacy tools and, yep, it's the same old BS

Re: Wow

@ doublelayer

"Many of us don't give facebook any data."

A good portion of your post refers to this but I discount these people from my comment- "If you dont then it doesnt matter to you anyway."

"Many of us that don't give facebook data are rather certain that facebook has collected data on us anyway, without our consent, and without informing us or giving us any option to have it removed."

Are they? How do you know and what are they collecting?

"Also, things that don't affect us directly still matter to us. If I knew that people living next to me were periodically beating each other up, even if it never affected me, I'd still report it in the interest of protecting their health. It's called altruism, and it is important."

Or another way of applying your first sentence is people choose to do something perfectly legal and without bothering anyone else, I dont like it make them stop! This can be anything. Your example was physical abuse and yes that is a concern you can get the law involved. Not liking their private hobby that doesnt affect you is not. In interest of protecting your health I am sure some militant vegans would love to step into your personal space.

"For example, if you agreed to let me photograph your house every day in exchange for providing you a service, you'd be pretty angry if you found that instead I broke into your house and started photographing all your posessions."

Facebook is breaking into your house? Call the police. Your taking pictures, giving them to facebook, telling them your age, place of work, what you had for breakfast and then crying that they use that information as is the companies function. All so you can post the mundane aspects of your life for friends and sometimes all to see (I know plenty people who do this).

"You're attacking again. Whether one's life is mundane or not is not related to whether facebook steals data. It's irrelevant."

The mundane factor is mostly my experience with the platform. But is facebook stealing data? If you give it data, you want a new feature so give it more data, you provide it data then it is not stealing. And it also isnt technically stealing as it is a copy of your information (which you gave it to have!) and not depriving you of your information.

"Yes, we have become aware of this fact. I have an amazing shock for you: people use facebook as a communication mechanism."

Me too! I am one of those. Part of a social group so we can organise meeting up and checking in on parts of the family/friends I dont want to talk to. I got an account because my job demanded it. And I put on there what little I really cared to put there over years. I didnt want to use the platform but it was required. And so what?

"However, they are not offering a no-collection paid version."

Then you do it? If it is such a money spinner some capitalist will do it surely! FB without the data just £x a month. I wonder why nobody is doing it if it is such a sure winner? The innovation aspect has been done, FB has tried to make a usable platform that people worldwide actually use! Saying one doesnt exist so we cant tell is to assume such efforts would succeed (or maybe it had been tried and failed?).

"True. However, the discussion about GDPR applies to EU citizens, and still does. In addition, moving the data for EU citizens to U.S. servers would not prevent GDPR from applying, if that were to be attempted. So the fact you've referenced does not change the validity of the discussion. Also, many of us do not consider this good news."

I never suggested it would apply to EU citizens, that is why I explicitly stated outside the 3 countries. And this again comes back to the private life. You may not consider it good news. I might take issue with how much salt is in your diet. Is that any of my business? Should I start poking my nose into your private business or do we have a right to our own choices?

Wow

I have an innovative idea! If you dont want to give Facebook your data (or any of the others) then dont. Feel free to keep reading once you pick yourselves up off your chair (for the few who wont have thought such a thing possible).

Does anyone really care? Or lets make this easier- how many of you have a facebook account? If you dont then it doesnt matter to you anyway. If you do then who put a gun to your head and forced you to sign up? More importantly who forced you to put up all those status updates of your mundane lives, pictures of your pets/holidays/cartoonified faces?

I have an amazing shock for you- there are many forms of communication. You can email, phone, sms, mmsms and god knows how many other methods of talking to people but they will likely end the conversation if you stick 1 line of cryptic text about how you have had enough or an invite to some garbage you have no interest in.

You do this by choice. Which means you are happy to put your information up there because you are willing to trade limited information to access facebook and then willing to post up more information to get people to look at you.

Put in another context how many of you with FB accounts are willing to cough up money? Probably a lot less, which leads to less people being interested as your cheap friends wont be willing to pay to access the platform (I am one of those cheap people who would not pay money for FB). So if you use FB you are happy with FB collecting the data you freely give them to use to generate the money you are not willing to give them for the product you are using.

Good news- facebook has moved users outside the US, Canada and the EU to US servers which puts them under US law not GDPR.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-moves-15bn-users-out-of-reach-of-new-european-privacy-law

BBC extends Capita Audience Services contract to 25 years

@ HmmmYes

"I guess they must be more confident that the license fee will still be around than I am"

I fear there are still many people who want it but only if others pay for it.

How 'parasitic' Google's 'We're journalists!' court defence was stamped into oblivion

Re: "get those taken down"

@ Jason Bloomberg

"But, at the end of the day, whether the Ministry of Truth has gone too far or not, comes down to whether you and your mates should get what you want or whether others and their mates should get what they want."

This is the mistake of the argument. It isnt a zero sum game, it is not to restrict either. The example a few comments above over searching for suicide and sanitising the results to 'ethical' (dictated) ones was blown apart by someone pointing out legitimate reason. It is that quick desire to restrict which is the problem.

I also pointed out Google is a private business and that private means something. It means if someone thinks it should be more ethical they can sod off and set their own up for like minds if anyone would be interested. And they might if people had the same 'ethics', a word that bothers me as much as 'morals' as it is extremely fuzzy to be almost worthless.

"And there's no single or simple answer for that, no absolutes, no universal truths."

I answered this with- "Google is a private company and whatever twisted version of ethics each person has is irrelevant. The world is as it is, not as a single mind would like to force it to be.". We should all be as free as we can because then we have useful advancements such as google.

Above we have differing interpretations of what google is. Different people having different visions of what it is. But it doesnt belong to them, it is not theirs. And they are free to set up their own if they feel google should be better.

Re: "get those taken down"

@ Joe Harrison

"That's what we need for every search engine, a governing body who decides what is Better for you to be allowed to see. I propose we call it Ministry of Truth."

Thumbs up. I am concerned how people think their view of what google is and how it should be (even the scary suggestion of what should be displayed in results!). Google is a private company and whatever twisted version of ethics each person has is irrelevant. The world is as it is, not as a single mind would like to force it to be.

I fear we are heading towards a Ministry of Truth situation. I expect those trying to regulate it are also the ones who would complain that there is no European Google, Facebook or some such without realising why.

Cutting custody snaps too costly for cash-strapped cops – UK.gov

About time

Law makers realising that laws are a cost and complying with increasing regulation increases costs.

Europe wants cloud giants to cough up data from anywhere in 6hrs

No!

Surely not the fuzzywuzzies! Surely they would never do a thing like this. I am shocked.

NHS given a lashing for lack of action plan one year since WannaCry

Re: Valuable comments

@ Doctor Syntax

"Sometimes we agree."

Probably more than we think. I do upvote a good few of your posts for being pretty spot on.

Re: Valuable comments

@ Primus Secundus Tertius

"The root problem remains. How much do YOU want to pay for the health of other people?"

I am not sure this is the problem. It seems more on maintaining the bureaucracy. Nothing needs to get done but great excuse to sit and chin wag about it. Of course the people on the ground having to deal with the problem aint happy but that wont bother the NHS. The patients, doctors, nurses, staff all come below protecting the institution, the religion, the NHS.

HMRC delays digi tax plans amid Brexit customs woes

Re: I hope that HMRC...

@ Dan 55

"Tautology is a tautology. Brexit is brexit."

Did I confuse you again. Sorry.

"No, I don't remember that."

Either look it up or go get your memory checked.

"apart from using it as a threat when negotiating with them that if they didn't give him what he wanted then leave would win in the referendum"

Oh so you do remember! Well done! Thereby confirming Cameron believed he could rig the vote which we know he attempted and so- if the gov is hamstrung by the result of the referendum the gov gave then the gov is hamstrung by the gov. Hope that helps.

Re: I hope that HMRC...

@ Brewster's Angle Grinder

"We'll have given up the forty years of opt-outs, rebates, and special exemptions that's allowed us to have our cake and eat it."

I think that will please those in favour of the EU. If they support the EU project then why would they want to be on the outside of it? In their love for the project I am sure they would love to adopt the Euro and join the political project currently in multiple self inflicted crises. The remainers do seem to want to undo the economic gains we have since the vote. They even seem to want us to concede the competitive advantage we gain from leaving the EU (that we gain competitive advantage by leaving the EU has been admitted and stated by the EU themselves).

Re: I hope that HMRC...

@ Dan 55

"In codejunky's reality, it's a good thing that government is hamstrung by Brexit."

The government is hamstrung? What is with such idiocy? The government offered a referendum that the people wanted, the result being one of two options which the gov had time to prepare for and presented with the stated aim of carrying out the result the day after the result. That is the same government who ran the referendum, set the terms and as we know backed remain.

If the government is hamstrung then it is the government hamstrung by the remain supporting government. Regardless of your belief in remain/leave it is the government who has done all of this and it is the government who should have been prepared (as they were claiming) to leave pre the referendum. Remember that the government were publicly in support of leaving before the referendum and claimed they would be in the referendum (before 'changing their minds').

So yes I think the gov should get on with brexit. And if they dont know how to do it they can call on Farage and his group to enact the plan they had for leaving the EU.

Re: I hope that HMRC...

@ Doctor Syntax

"Did you read the article?"

Yes. HMRC are doing exactly what they should be doing and this comes under the heading of 'waaaa waaa waaa' or 'brexit woes'. HMRC are pausing their other projects to focus on the main an important project of the UK leaving the EU. Something which is coming and has a time scale to work to so they are doing the sensible thing and focusing on it.

Scrapping the headline and reading the article it isnt something positive or negative, it is good sense being applied.

Re: I hope that HMRC...

@ Doctor Syntax

"Did they do that? Of course not. The Leavers were handed the job and as they were convinced it would be no problem at all they charged straight ahead."

Cameron refused to do any preparation nor negotiation over any possibility of a leave result as part of the rigged vote that returned the 'wrong' result. The only party who had all this organised and ready to go was UKIP. But Tories are what people are used to and were the only ones offering the referendum people had been wanting for so long.

The leavers are right that leave isnt a problem at all. Unfortunately they are stuck with remainers clogging up the works.

The only way is Ethics: UK Lords fret about AI 'moral panic'

Re: Steve

@ Tigra 07

"If supporting your own country is such a bad thing then i really do hope you move to the EU after Brexit day."

You cant be serious! Remainers may love the EU but they dont want to go there! Instead they want it forced on the UK and to have many opt-outs so they can have EU-light, it makes them feel special.

Instead they will sit here and whine about the bad weather being caused by brexit or something. Telling all the foreigners in the country that they are not welcome any more because the other lot voted leave so must be knuckle dragger's or something. Some might even be seen on the streets with home made signs predicting the end of the world as they shout about our doom.

Or maybe like the Euro debate a while back, they will just skulk off quietly under their rocks because they were again wrong. Where brexiter and its variants go the way of eurosceptic.

British government to ink deal for yet another immigration database

Re: Very happy that we are allowed to exist without needing the permission to do so.

@ John Smith 19

"Hilarious, given that people who voted Leave are most of the reason this is necessary in the first place."

How? Historically yes others have done this. But not here. In joining the EU Labour did suggest ID cards as they were trying to get us in line with the EU (selling us out because blair wanted to be the EU president. The same moron who wanted us to join the Euro). Leave voters are the ones who have made a move against ID cards by voting to remain the UK. To do things our way. There is a reason it is the Eastern European accent that comes to mind when we think 'papers please'. So in what alternate universe do you somehow blame the leave voters for your latest bull against brexit?

Re: Continuing to waste public money

@ Voland's right hand

"There is simply no way to have an effective immigration control system in a country without a mandatory identity system."

And in that eastern european voice I hear 'papers please' as a random person is stopped by some dressed up nosy jobsworth for nothing more than the crime of existing.

So glad we dont have that that here. Very happy that we are allowed to exist without needing the permission to do so. Being alive is not against the law nor needs the permission of it.

Hey, so Europe's GDPR privacy deadline for Whois? We're going to miss it ... by a year or so

Re: @ codejunky

@ NerryTutkins

"I am always fascinated by the people pushing the 'take back control' mantra being the same people who enthusiastically insist it is NATO rather than the EU that has kept peace in Europe for decades."

Why? The reason NATO gets mentioned as the peace keeper is because some seriously uninformed people arguing to remain and possibly not being old enough to know any better thought the EU kept the peace since the second world war. It became such a 'common knowledge' fact that anyone knowing better (remain or leave) had to explain to these people that history did not start with the creation of the EU.

"Put a guy from the other side of the Atlantic ocean"

And yet the military power that is large enough and equipped enough to be the main force in NATO to which the rest of us working together should be able to support except only some of Europe can be bothered to fund. All the while the EU tries to provide a new solution to a non-existent problem by wanting to make their own army but without a clue of how such a stupid idea can be formed. By a Union that is in self inflicted crises and struggles to wrap their heads around it. Yet expect the Americans to step in when they screw up badly such as Ukraine's current situation.

"But sit round a table with our (foreign speaking) neighbours and come up with common hairdryer rules?"

Have idiots imposing dumb regulations to enforce upon the people to make them poorer who are now trying to convince the UK to remain under such rules when we leave otherwise we will have a competitive advantage. Such neighbours who have less in common with us than those Americans over the ocean.

"What a humiliating insult to our great country, and a violation of our sovereignty."

And the good news is the people have had the right to vote on the matter finally and in keeping with our more democratic way we are leaving and taking back our sovereignty.

Re: @ codejunky

"Data protection is a fanciful whim because EU."

So your assumption applied means that air is oxygen. Which is wrong as oxygen is poison on its own (under normal pressure). It is instead a matter of degrees.

"Yep, makes about as much sense as your other posts."

If all you can see is black and white extremes you can never understand as the importance is in the degrees.

@imanidiot

"As opposed to countries outside the US listening to the US's fanciful whims as has been the case for decades?"

Exactly. We people dont like it and the US is actually powerful militarily, economically and politically. I dont think much comparison can really be made with the EU.

@ boltar

"EU have no jurisdiction over them"

I do look forward to seeing how this goes. I am hopeful to watch the Donald kick the EU's teeth a few times just for fun. It will be a sad day when countries outside the EU start listening to the EU's fanciful whims.

The true victims of Brexit are poor RuneScape players

Re: Lots of Independent readers in today :)

@Andy 73

"Lots of Independent readers in today :)"

I think the regs new leaning is trying to steer that way. God knows why as the independent is ruined and the guardian begging visitors for money. I expect we will see more as time goes on.

Nope, you're still a transport biz, top EU court tells Uber

Re: Protectionism...

@ jonathan keith

"Better to be fucked over by your own government than by an unaccountable foreign corporation though!"

Really? Being shafted is less of a problem as long as your shafted by one but not the other? I prefer not being shafted.

To the comments here about Uber being in the red, isnt that good for you? The company is paying for your journeys to be cheaper? If allthecoolshortnamesweretaken is right and Uber becomes history then people using Uber will have gained cheaper travel for a time and we all benefit from the better technology feeding into the taxi business.

Arguing to get rid of Uber because you want to pay more seems odd to me but we are all allowed our own views. But if you dont like them just dont use them.

Re: Protectionism...

@ ZanzibarRastapopulous

"Those of us who consume taxis rather than provide them are just being f'cked over by our own governments."

I cant believe I had to scroll so far to find such a sensible comment. Well said.

Accenture, Capgemini, Deloitte creating app to register 3m EU nationals living in Brexit Britain

Re: Bank Cards

@AC

"And you can't force just non-UK nationals to have an ID card, because any non-UK-looking UK national will have to have one anyway, to get by racial profiling"

Very true. But if none of us have it then the problem is solved just as it always has been in the UK. This gives an amusing but good view of the problem-

http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/2018/03/29/lets-not-have-id-cards-to-go-with-the-blue-passports-eh/

Re: Bank Cards

@AC

"Really - what is this app trying to solve - apart from reduction of a paper filled form?"

I think you just answered your question. Personally I expect your points are all correct and I assume from an employers standpoint it doesnt do anything to them, they just check the right to work in this country as normal for any immigrant/citizen.

But apart from being registered as a citizen of the country we dont do the national ID thing which some other European countries seem to like. Unfortunately there are some in government who want to bring back the nat ID card idea. I have no love for more government meddling.

Re: Bank Cards

@AC

"So just issue a National Identity Card. EU nationals should have one anyway."

The UK has resisted the 'papers please' approach and we didnt like it when new labour tried to take us that route. We are leaving. We do not need to subscribe to the interfering government methods used in Europe. It is not our way.

Hmm

Hopefully not going to be a screw up, but I would never put money on it.

Mind the gap: Men paid 18.6% more than women in Blighty tech sector

Re: apples with oranges again

@ Wilseus

"Is anyone surprised? In recent years The Register's reporting has become more and more in line with that of a red-topped tabloid newspaper as time has gone on."

The guardian? That isnt red topped.

Oh please

Can you guys get Tim Worstall back please. This article has one part of note-

"The gender pay gap does not compare the same job roles because it would be illegal to pay women with the same jobs less"

This should be an article pulling apart the complete failure of braincells for the idiots who want to use these figures to claim any pay gap. A better assessment of this joke is here-

http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/2018/04/05/the-entire-idiocy-of-gender-pay-gap-reporting/

Go on reg bite the hand! Its in your banner! Dont leave it up to the comments to do it for you. And from what I have read in most of these comments they would have written a more critical article.

Don't want to alarm you, but defence bods think North Korea could nuke UK 'within a few years'

@ wolfetone

"So excuse me for taking this news with a vat of salt the size of Argentina."

Well said. And yet when a legitimate crisis comes up the chances of people taking it seriously because of the 'cry wolf' factor will be very low.

Facebook want us to believe banning Putin's troll army safeguards Russian democracy

ha

I notice a lot of downvotes against my comment. I wonder how many of those downvoters apply the limitations from other jurisdictions like China for example. Or the muslim world with their decency laws? N.Korea? Why not?

Why does Mc Donalds sell non-beef substitutes in jurisdictions where eating beef may be illegal or extremely looked down on, but yet sell beef in the rest of the world? If you wont supply then a competitor will because people want it.

"Lastly, Zuckerberg told Reuters that Facebook has no plans to apply the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to users beyond Europe’s borders."

Good. Is this a surprise and if so why? I hope he is making the common mistake of calling the EU Europe so anyone outside the EU isnt subjected to it although I expect we will unfortunately end up keeping it in the UK.

Why Facebook would apply limitations from one jurisdiction in others that dont have such limitations would give competitors the advantage in those other jurisdictions.

UK.gov: We're not regulating driverless vehicles until others do

Re: Hmm...

@ Doctor Syntax

"Those innocent bystanders who are the victims of testing a new technology on the public."

Which is no more collateral damage than comes under current law. The point being that the law already covers this without additional regulation. What you suggest is that the law is not enough and so special regulation must be applied to restrict this technology further.

"So we should allow technology to be tested on the public"

Yes. How do you think we have technology? How do you think you have electricity that you need to run the computer you are writing on? Or the many other advancements to bring you the technology you have every day? If you think this was done without the public trying it out and kinks being worked out along the way then your cotton wool world is only in your head.

"and if it goes wrong it's up to the public to hope they can pay a lawyer more than a big corporation?"

Are you arguing against rule of law by making that amusing sentence? Liability has already been established which is the important part, which means a car crashing into a house or hitting a person is already dealt with by law- https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/24/new_uk_law_driverless_cars_insurance_liability/

You are suggesting the law isnt enough and firms should have some cash stashed in escrow (how much? How badly do you not want innovation and technology in this country?) to compensate 'victims' and 'collateral damage' which I assume will still require judgement by law? Or are you suggesting throwing out the justice system for automatic assumption of guilt against automated vehicles? If not then the current rule of law applies and is good enough.

"Or is it simply that in your view the little people don't matter?"

I am not the one arguing against the rule of law which is to protect from the very situations you mentioned. Have a read of this- http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/2018/03/04/the-wrong-brothers/

Re: Hmm...

@ Stoneshop

"And now you want to sell your technology, and the vehicles made with it, outside the UK. Where the stuff is regulated out of existence, per your own words."

Read Dr Syntax. R&D becomes more expensive because the law of the land is no longer good enough for meddlers and so the cost of development goes up here because we are that dumb. That doesnt mean a car sufficiently developed or completely developed cant be bought here, only that the actual work into new and exciting technology, industry, product and service gets stumped here. We lose out of the benefit of being creators of the technology and end up importing from places that welcome innovation.

Of course then people will start crying that the monopolies have us by the hairy ones, that we import all our auto-cars because we cant develop them here and we find ourselves behind. All because someone wants to add additional regulation for fun or boredom.

Re: Hmm...

@ Doctor Syntax

"Not so good for those who become collateral damage of the testing process."

What collateral damage? Are you suggesting the law doesnt exist any more because regulations hitting a very specific industry havnt been made? The existing general laws already in existence dont suddenly vanish or cease to be because the government isnt micromanaging a new technology. Those general laws exist for a reason, so only special and specific problems need additional regulation.

"It should not be necessary for anyone injured or has property damaged or the family of anyone killed to have to sue for compensation"

So we should abandon the rule of law to make an industry stumping regulation for shits and giggles? Why? The purpose of suing for compensation is the law of the land, that it exists for this scenario that you state which is already covered in day to day legal protections for everyone.

Re: Hmm...

@ Commswonk

"As per usual, we are being let down. No change there then..."

How are we let down by this? What are we regulating? This is a fast developing and rapidly changing/improving area of technology which will not be helped in any way by pointless regulations. If others start throwing out regulation again we dont want to just copy it but see if it is a good thing in the first place before applying it.

If others regulate it out of existence that is good news for us as the industry will find it cheaper to do it here and we take the lead on the technology. If we make knee-jerk rules then yes you are right it is bad, but trying to do anything on this without this being an established and available product/service is knee-jerk in itself.

Tim Worstall does a good piece which is relevant-

http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/2018/03/04/the-wrong-brothers/

Re: Good call

Came here to say just that

Europe dumps 300,000 UK-owned .EU domains into the Brexit bin

Re: @ werdsmith

@ werdsmith

"It's nothing like theft, if you purchase the right to use the domain with a contractual condition that you agree to at the time of purchase, you break the contract you lose"

Well said. So where is the contract broken? The contract being private business/individual to EURid. This is the state (EU) dictating, to the surprise of EURid, that those private entities will have their service cut off without compensation for the loss of service from EURid.

"Absolutely nothing to do with anyone's feelings, that's just juvenile thinking."

So if you pay for something good or service you expect that to continue. Then you are told that although you made full payment you will only receive the service up to x date and you will not be compensated. The contract broke by the other party not you. And its not their fault but the state confiscating your product/service. Now what states in the world like to confiscate private assets? Venezuela comes to mind.

Is the state confiscation of private assets something you agree with? Be honest. Yes and you justify such actions, no and your disagreeing with the EU.

Re: No surprise

@ MrXavia

"Depends on what you mean by majority..."

The most votes cast were for leave.

"Majority of those who voted.... barely"

So yes, majority. It isnt a grey area or a flexible term but you accept at your first definition majority.

"To me the lies spread officially on both sides of the debate should mean we vote again..."

So you support the intentional severe rigging of the vote to remain as Cameron tried? He as the only representative of the UK who could refused to negotiate any possibility of leave. The government set the rules of the vote and then lies their arses off spectacularly to argue to remain. That does not mean revote as a revote will likely result in the lying scum doing it again.

If the leave campaign is disqualified for lying then the remain campaign is disqualified. The remain campaign was the government and if their position is so invalidated then the result is leave (as their bias was remain).

"£350 Million a week.... what a farce..."

How is that any different than the bull from the gov? Claiming by 2030 we will be however much poorer than if we remain (ha!) and that being misinterpreted as we will be poorer. Or claiming that the aim of the BoE and treasury since 2008 (and still today) would be a catastrophe because it will happen on the brexit vote (it did and it wasnt). Or that the gov would officially back leave if Cameron didnt get his damp squib of demands (he didnt). And of course their position pre the referendum that the UK would be perfectly fine outside the EU.

And Cameron sticking around even if he lost the referendum. That changed over a period of 48 hours didnt it? What a farce

Re: No surprise

@ Hastinger

"Could some kind Brexiteer now please explain, without the customary insults, how this constitutes a mandate or even a majority?"

>37% voted leave which is many more than those who voted remain as per the rules of the referendum.

>The first and only vote on our membership of the EU failed to return a threshold majority (thresholds suggested after the result but for the vote was set to 50% of those who vote) so there is no mandate to be in the EU.

>If the referendum was advisory and not necessary to carry out then there is no reason for another vote, article 50 has been handed over and remainers should be pleased the gov is ignoring them the lower number of the voters.

>The leave campaign lied and so is disqualified, but remain lied and the government lied disqualifying the rule-setter and so by default the result is to leave either by government disqualification (their position cannot be held due to corruption of the contest) or because there is still no mandate to be in the EU.

@ werdsmith

"One of the conditions of holding a .eu domain is to be homed in an EU state. If that condition is not met then the ownership is rescinded and is a natural and logical consequence. Nothing to do with vindictiveness."

Interestingly this is actually theft. The service which has been paid for will not be allowed to go to completion nor will there be compensation for those losing the service they have paid for. All because we hurt their feelings.

And while I doubt losing access to that TLD will be much of an inconvenience to the UK the willing theft by the EU, the act of doing this without consulting the people involved and the act of removing potentially a tenth of their easy income it does add another reason for private individuals and business to distrust the EU.

Re: Retaliation is the answer

@AC

"Obviously EU based companies shouldn't be allowed to own .uk domains after the divorce."

Why not? Its easy money and it flows into the country. Just because the EU doesnt want UK money supporting EU jobs because their little feelings got hurt doesnt mean we need to be as stupid. If they want to throw rocks in their own harbour thats fine, it doesnt mean we should do it to ours (its not a good idea).

Re: I'm an European citizen and I hate Brexit and its perpetrators, ...

@ Doctor Syntax

"It hasn't actually happened yet, so at the moment you might say you'd have no hesitation."

At what point does this stop? Feel free to say never, I understand, there is a guy in town with a sign who shouts about the end of the world being now (every week, for at least a year now).

We were to have a recession the day after the vote, didnt happen. The excuse "we aint done article 50 yet!". Article 50 is served, still no recession. The excuse "we are still in the EU wawawaaaa!". Then we were told its when we leave (I am sure you guys are just awaiting the normal business cycle recession due approx every decade). Then what? What is the next goal post?

And then we again have the glee of the remainer that the EU do something dumb and childish and you cheers them on. This was apparently done by the EU without asking the experts and without considering the cost of losing potentially a tenth of their registry's easy income to the EU. Woo victory?

@ Phil O'Sophical

"Given suggestions from politicians within the EU that once the UK leaves they'll be able to forget about English"

At one point Junker was saying this in one of his speeches (I think to Italians or Spanish?) and to make his point he had to switch to English so he could be understood. It was almost like watching stupidity as a physical entity.

Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, off you go: Snout of UK space forcibly removed from EU satellite trough

Re: Wow

@ Dr. Mouse

"One point though: I know many people from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland and many other EU countries."

I too have friends in and from the EU, US, Russia, Asia and Middle east.

"The UK had the most anti-EU sentiment, and it only managed a narrow margin in favour of leaving."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/873266/Brexit-Europe-map-Italy-Ireland-Greece-France-EU

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jun/23/is-britain-most-eurosceptic-country

and more recently and localised-

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803061062277107-italy-elections-eurosceptic-youngsters/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/22/france-would-have-voted-to-leave-eu-too-if-in-uk-situation-french-leader-macron-says.html

Sorry to be contesting another point but the EU isnt popular.

Re: Wow

@ Dr. Mouse

"If we are to leave the EU, we need to back it up with a strong negotiation or we are going to be well and truely in the ****."

I agree. So instead of complaining remainers determined to sing our doom when the EU threatens to bloody its own nose and have May trying to get something to satisfy 2 very different groups she needs to get on with leaving the EU, even if it means no deal.

"But they do not have to, or need to, give us decent terms on future trade."

In didnt say they did. It doesnt matter. I said- "We are leaving. There is sweet F-all the EU can do about that.". We want to leave. Thats it, there is nothing to negotiate if the EU is unwilling to negotiate. A negotiation is almost completely for the benefit of the EU.

"However, we will be severely hurt with no free trade agreement. This gives the EU the stronger bargaining position"

No just no and that is probably where you are getting this so wrong.

"We want out of the EU, but we still want to keep certain bits which we like"

As remain yes. They want in even though we are leaving. Not possible. We are leaving and the EU can take back its toys, thats fine. Watching them bang their head on a wall and hurt themselves again is not our fault nor problem.

"I have not seen us "doing well" out of it now."

Then you either have not paid attention to the economic benefits of voting leave or you dont understand them.

"And to hell with the consequences?"

For the consequences. Being better than in. The opposing argument being to pin the country to a group in self inflicted crises and in a poor state.

"I will admit that I'm biased in favour of the EU." and "your own bias against them. Everything the EU does is shouted down as being petty and childish."

Your first statement proved by the second. EU negotiation starts with them refusing to negotiate and demanding money, Irish border and reduced sovereignty in the UK. Refusing practical solutions to the Irish border problem. Now refusing UK help with their toy and suggesting actual theft of private property without compensation (EU domain names). Yes petty and childish.

"The EU, and Ireland, do not want a border."

Except the EU does. And so there is the problem. The solution is a deal to allow no border or a soft border using electronic tagging. A system the EU is looking to implement itself elsewhere. Be aware they again refuse to negotiate until we agree on a hard border which apparently we must make. The EU version of the Trump wall.

"We want to control our borders, except that bit"

How is that a contradiction? Our choice to do that is our control of our borders. By not understanding such simple truth remain complaints consistently fall flat. And this is an insistence I get often no matter how many times I correct the remainer.

"The EU is offering reciprocal rights"

No. That is why it didnt get very far in negotiation because the EU refused reciprocal rights.

"I don't think May will sabotage negotiations. She may screw up through incompetence and weakness"

Either road is the same failure. And failure is not to leave the EU. Even by her own definition.

"We need to leave on good terms or not at all, or else the country will suffer."

I am not sure that is possible. The EU doesnt really have great support. Even the French president admitted the French would probably vote out. This is something well known by leave but rejected by remain but the fact stands that member countries mostly wont give the choice because the EU is unpopular. Funnily leave is popularism precisely due to being the popular opinion. And the EU dont like that.

"I don't think anything either of us say to one another will change that. We will find out who was right once negotiations are complete and we have left."

Hope so. As I said my fear is we wont leave. But a remain outcome will still make people unhappy as the country struggles and suffers for being in.

Re: Wow

@ Dr. Mouse

"The government doesn't have a plan, and every "negotiation" and "agreement" so far has seen them backpeddle furiously from their "red lines" and give in to whatever the EU wants."

I am glad you see that as a problem too. Brexit should be a full brexit, out of the EU and its dictats.

"We do not have a strong bargaining position, strong negotiators or strong leadership"

Actually we have a very strong bargaining position. As strong as it could ever be. We are leaving. There is sweet F-all the EU can do about that. They can cry, they can scream, they can jump up and down and they can take their toys away. So what? The dictated terms before negotiation are worthless, we have no reason to comply. So how do we not have a strong position? Leadership is a remainer PM pandering to people crying out for soft brexit or no brexit. Our negotiators seem to be doing fine, they say no to stupidity and then May goes to visit the EU. The EU negotiators being banned from negotiating.

"IMHO the EU aren't being stupid. They are in a negotiation, and using their position of strength to gain the best possible deal for themselves. Why do you think this is stupid?"

As per the examples the EU is a child on isle 5 banging their head on a wall and screaming its our fault for not giving them what they want. Best part is its not our child, we have no responsibility to them. If the EU wants to stop the UK from sending the EU money that is certainly stupidity and not ours. If you mistake that for a position of strength then yes you will think they are doing well.

"Not from anything I've seen, but even so we haven't yet left the huge trading block with which we do a large proportion of our business."

First the goal post. When is this apocalypse coming because it is not a prediction for people to keep claiming it is coming it is coming. A recession happens on a business cycle, approx every decade. As for what good news I assume you are confused? I quote you "Yes, there has been some good news around Brexit.". That is from the same comment and you say not anything you have seen! Make up your mind. However I will point out the currency falling, leading to core inflation, leading to the BoE looking to increase base rates, leading to a cooling of the housing market (all the BoE and treasury aim since 2008). We wont get much good news until we leave as the EU is in charge until we leave!

"The only good thing I can see is that the predicted immediate consequences didn't happen, but that's not good news, it's a lack of bad news."

Actually they did. not the stupid apocalypse rubbish, only an idiot could believe that. But see above as Osborne and Carney predicted it but tried to put negative spin on what they have been trying to do since 2008.

"Or, why should we leave a strong trading block which is using it's strength to apply pressure on us and is getting it's own way in pretty much every little bit of the negotiations so far?"

If this is their strength in negotiation we are better off out. They have so far been a damp squib at best and a world wide embarrassment at worst. Their childish statements and desperation to find anything we want from them to negotiate with shows their weak hand. And instead of being grown up where they could probably get more from us they have to talk to May to get anything because their negotiations are a colossal failure. This is with a member who is leaving and so already complies with their standards so it should be moronically easy for them.

"I don't, because I don't see it as desperate or stupid."

That is where you are viewing it as an optimist for the EU. Nothing is agreed until everything is and while you claim we keep backing down I am yet to see it. We offer some money to cover what we had been charged as part of the EU, on the condition they make an agreement. The EU is desperate for a border in Ireland, the best we offer is a soft border that the EU cries about. The EU want extra rights while not offering much for UK citizens in the EU, so far not getting too far. The hope being that unless May sabotages negotiations (if she does that will be a remainer victory however much they will still cry about it) the EU will need to step up.

Re: Wow

@ Dr. Mouse

"It is not a desire, from Remainers, for the UK to "burn", but a belief that we are likely to "burn" if we keep heading down this path"

Ok that is your opinion yet to be realised or shown in evidence but your not the only one who thinks things are going bad regardless of good news and brush off stupidity as 'fairly obvious that things like this would happen'. Why is it obvious that the EU would be stupid? It makes the leave case stronger but they do seem to be going out of their way to make daft suggestions like this or even the EU domains thing. Their desperation to find anything to negotiate over no matter how much self harm it causes is nothing short of stupid. So if its not desire what is it that causes remainers to back the EU's stupidity and see it as a negative for the UK? Even for some to suggest we change our minds?

"At the end of the day, personally, I hope I am wrong and that the country does well from this"

We already are. Although Osborne and Carney tried to claim things would go bad, their prediction was what the gov and BoE have been aiming for since 2008 and it is happening. The predicted recessions and doom/gloom/brimstone have never appeared. And yes goal posts of when our doom will come keep being moved (probably to the next recession whenever it occurs) but that is the economic stupidity claiming problems.

"or by abandoning it as a bad job"

Why? Why would we undo progress and good news to rejoin the EU which is in multiple crises and act like children? After seeing how petty and self defeating it is do you still want to be part of that sinking ship?

"So, yes, I will laugh when this sort of thing happens"

Me too but I guess for different reasons. The more desperate the EU is at doing anything to try and negotiate with to the point of self harm is amazingly daft but funny. It amuses me even more to read comments desperate for things to be bad for the EU, I dont know how you feel such gloom. You may or may not want the UK to burn if we leave the UK, you do seem to think its bad somehow so want us to change our mind, but why? Why excuse EU desperation and stupidity?

If we were in the EU and another was leaving, and the EU wanted to harm us by blocking off the leaving country I would consider them just at stupid. It is nothing short of self harm.

Re: Wow

@ Dr. Mouse

I have so far entertained the portion of the discussion you wish to have but you dont seem to be replying to the point of my comment which again is the glee of remainers at any perceived knock down of the UK by the EU. The desire of EU or burn. The nearest to a response being the AC who seem to have that frame of mind in the hopes that we then change our mind and do what they want.

I am somewhat willing to discuss the EU project they have put to the ESA to make and whatever collaborations but I feel the point I was making is the important aspect as it encompasses the problem with such remainers on these message boards.

Re: Wow

@ Lars

"No, I can't find Israel in that link, and regarding Canada and Switzerland they haven't apparently shown any interest in changing their status."

Sorry if I am wrong about Israel I might have been looking at out of date articles maybe for example-https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-becomes-major-partner-in-eu-satellite-program/ but when did Canada join the EU? They recently changed their status as having a trade deal with the EU.

"With Brexit the UK will resign from ESA's governing Council"

I havnt seen anything about this. Not claiming your wrong, but since the ESA is not the EU the EU is in the ESA that would seem funky.

"As can be seen from this list, not all member countries of the European Union are members of ESA and not all ESA Member States are members of the EU"

Thank you. So EU petty politics is to play in this. And yet reading through this comment board the point I am still making is the joy that seems to be coming from the remain crowd for a perceived problem to the UK. I dont understand the perverse pleasure of wanting the EU to knock down the UK.