Re: Surely the answer is watermarking
You should do what Genius did to Google. It’s fantastic. https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/its-a-rap--embedded-watermark-catches-google-red-handed/
27 posts • joined 25 Jun 2007
There was one outside a business I worked at. It was very popular with the street people. They would huddle around it, make a call and the run (yes run) to wherever the meeting point for their dealer was. Why did this happen? The machines allowed for very short FREE calls. Supposed to be for one off emergency calls to friends and family (no credit on mobile type calls) but the street people found it more useful for short dealer calls.
It already kind of exists in the UK. The RIP Act 2000 gives the government the right to demand your passwords to any system. You are not allowed to tell anyone that you have done so (lawyer is OK). You could lose your job from sharing your passwords but can use the defense that you were following lawful direction from the government. If you don't had them over you can get prison time.
UK doesn't need back doors. They just take the keys they need to open any doors and windows available.
Of course it wasn't properly locked down so local councils were using it to find out if you were eligible for school places and to track down the owners who don't clean up their dog poop.
This is not a case where one neighbour is using CCTV and others complain. ICO has only has power when businesses are involved and not private citizens.
this is a case where a business is not following the rules covering CCTV usage on/around their property. In this case they violated the rules by only keeping limited footage and by recording Audio (huge no no). At work I have a professional audio recording system, but it extremely limited. It runs for a short period when activated. It announces it's activation over the speaker system and announces it's deactivation as well. By not doing similar in this case they ran a foul of the CCTV guidelines as laid out by the ICO.
I have CCTV at my home which is Video only and according to a rather pricy law firm in Leeds, there is no law covering domestic CCTV directly. They only way it could be run foul of the law is if I used it to harass my neighbours. Also it is fine to record public areas such as the Queen's highways. This is how Google gets to drive their cars around and News gets to show busy streets, etc.
My first thought is "Why not turn off my computers bluetooth?". Then I remembers I'm on a Mac so my keyboard and mouse are both bluetooth. A quick run of "show available bluetooth devices" gives mouse, keyboard and soundbar within detection range. Okay no so bad. Oh wait, there's my neighbours phone (computer on a shared wall). Well now Google can link me with him. Hum.
Just tried to run some of the google examples for this feature and received this error message:
"Web Bluetooth API is not available. Please make sure the "Experimental Web Platform features" flag is enabled.". So right now it's only a test that you have to enable to us.
Makes sense, until you realise you have agreed to T&Cs that state by plugging in your lamp, you give the company who operated the IoT gateway for the lamp to access your network to turn it on and off, the company the you designed/built it the right to access your network to monitor it's condition and provide patches.
Oh wait, you wanted a smart light that turns on when you enter the room? They need data on the room.
Cool feature, turns your light on/off like other lamps in the area when you are on holiday. They need data on your holidays and your lamps location data so they can work out where the other lamps in the area are. Is the lamp location determined by built in GPS (FEATURE!!!) or your registration data.
Then we move on from you over to their own systems. Data on people using their site to login and admin the devices attached, well this is data about their servers so would probably belong to them... but it's your data on if the light is being turned on/off so it's yours, but they need to the data to supply a robust system and it is their software after all, but you..... Complicated.
I think they have missed a trick here. A lot of people are complaining about not being able to get them due to poor network coverage. Well, would not smart meters in (nearly) every home be the perfect candidate for a mesh network? Then all you would need is one meter with coverage to provide network for an area? They already say that changes to your tariff may take 24hrs to reach your meter, so speed of connection is not an issue here.
I have been suing this sort of meter for at least a decade (networked meter that is) in the business I work at. It helps save a lot of money when it was rolled out as we could look at usage patterns and adjust. Of course, businesses saved most of the money from smoothing their usage. Businesses are being charged a "peak demand" fee. If it's higher than you need to are throwing money away, if you cross it you are hit by extra charges. Being able to reduce the peak and spread it out meant we could save on the fixed fee, ensure we did not cross the newer, lower threshold and still run in a very similar manner as before. Net effect was no real difference in total kWh, but lower bills.
It's a good call to say the shops will not accept them, as the banks will refuse to accept them off shops after that date. If the shop can not pay it into the bank then their sure as hell note going to accept the note off the public.
If you want to run a barter system with the old notes then feel free.
This is all due to what they told the EU/OFCOM: They said they would not rise prices after they merge with O2. So look at what they've done pre-merger: Hiked the price for all the customers who were outside of contract, Hiked the cost of MMS, hiked the costs of comparable contracts and removed most of the "all you can eat" internet.
I use 'guys' to mean gender non-specific at work. My line is that unless for some reason I'm trying to get you into bed (not likely after 21 years with the same women... they are pickled in a jar dontyeahknow), then gender is not a factor. It's just a phrase to apply to many.
Kind of like when I are on the phone to a call centre and I say "you have made a mistake" and they respond "I did not" and I have to explain the "You" in question is plural and is the company not the person and as the represent the company they represent that "You".
Ah, there is the rub. The government can not collect it as part of your taxes. The BBC is still putting their prices up every year, whilst government funded organisations are having their funds cut.
Also, by paying the BBC directly, the government would have to take responsibility for the actions of the BBC. Currently, the "contract" is between us the and the BBC. The government can sit on the sidelines and shake their heads sadly before moving on.
[quote]Watching foreign TV in the UK does require a licence
If you watch 'live TV' from a channel that isn't broadcast in the UK (including those picked up via satellite or online), you need to be covered by a valid TV licence.
This is regardless of the country of origin or the language of the broadcast.
That's from money saving expert. So THEY can insist you to watch live TV that is never broadcast in this country, but cry over the fact that people have found a way to live without paying them for the right to watch whatever they like. Next you'll need license to watch a Top Gear DVD.
Lets get this right, it's £35 for the parts right?
Okay, there is the labour involved in production, re-tooling production lines, advertising, promotion, transportation costs, profit margin for Microsoft, profit margin for retailers and packaging.
So when someone comes back with the costs involved with the above then and only then can you work out how much profit Microsoft/Retailer are getting.
*sighs* I wish people would think it all the way through first before their knee jerks up and smacks them in the chin.
The way I read it is that the householder can not be charged for any unused lines. My logic is that if you are not in a contract with the loop operator then there is no billing system in place to charge you. The operator on the other hand will still end up paying the £6/year for the line.
This might actually mean that BT will be running around physically disconnecting unused lines from their loops. The disconnect will be a win/win for them: a) no duty when it's not in use, b) a connection fee for any one who wants to use the line.
The fact of the matter is tat anyone big enough to conduct a few reveiw of the proposed standand and then to get their views out there for all to read in the press are going to be in one camp or another.
It's is up to the person who is reading the analysis to determine if it is leaning for or against the proposal unjustly. Anyone of us can/do look at these things but do not have the backing to make it news worthy.
Low level charities use these numbers to actually pay for the service it provides. In the case of one charity I am aware of, it pays for the enquiry line to operate without cost (or profit) to the charity itself.
Smaller charities with low income need these numbers to survive.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020