Always on a Friday.
855 posts • joined 16 Jan 2013
I am not a fan of cancel culture or firing for the sake of it but there are serious ethical issues at these hospitals and arguably compounded by financial incompetence.
You could argue that it was an exchange and not purchase - but I'd argue that value was purchased with patient information, highly unethical and is in financial reports = it's been bought somehow, exchange of goods.
ICO should have it's big boots on and the boards need clearing out.
Windows 7 could have been supported for longer but was becoming a complete mess of code. That was part of the bonus of Windows 10 although it's going the way route.
The need for new OS isn't always to punt new machines, Linux variants offer updates just as often, not from a commercial stand point. A lot of it is code housekeeping.
The bigger question is why MS can't keep it's code tidy on new OS for longer.
It's mining your interactions with it irrespective of whether you make a purchase or not. Any interaction can be used and that could also be accidental - or why not even expand that to be passive listening and mining since that's how the devices have to operate in order to be ready to respond?
It's not ridiculous to complain that you are unaware of essentially dubious use of your interactions
Not the brightest spark are we?
Even if we could disconnect them entirely, what about civilian reporters, journalists etc who are providing the truth of what's going on - do we really want to cut them off too? That's what would happen, the veil would fall and what little scrutiny and independent evidence gathering and exfiltration would stop.
He spouts about possibilities with little science backing it up. Hyperloop, fake electric truck etc etc.
Sure he occasionally gets it right and he's certainly someone worth following as I do think he's absolutely necessary to have - people pushing for more, better, faster and change but he's not worthy of the idolisation he gets, he's wrong far more than he's right.
Thing is when he is right he makes people wealthy so you can see why they speculate on his BS.
I think he's been watching too much Harry Potter, they essentially do this in Dumbledores study.
Put bluntly, Musk is an innovator but what he says rarely matches what is done by his companies and in many cases can be proven false by current science or his live displays - his truck glass for instance, his hyperloop which is just currently a 1KM tunnel with human driven cars in LA.
We need people like him but I'm sure investors wish he'd pipe down occasionally with the nonsense.
I was a CAD draughtsman back in the 90s on a DOS version of AutoCAD. I remember the costs back then were insane and I joked that one day they'd find a way to do away with the dongles and screw the company over some other way.
Later on I found out about the subscription models they were adopting, constant need for updates etc and realised they'd found that mechanism..
It won't, it'd just create more, smaller ones doing the same thing.
Monetary penalties which put the C-suite at risk personally would help.
UK public sector should be mandated to grade procurements with a weighting of cyber security at 20-30%, currently any procurement I've been involved in security is worth at most 5%, in many cases less. While cost will be 40-60% of the weighting.
All that does is mean we buy cheap insecure products over and over again and then people like me are given the impossible task of trying to manage risks around products we thought were horrendously insecure.
When companies fail to get business because they are insecure they will start to take it seriously.
Even if split along national lines it will be trivial to link up a PC to that national "internet" and remotely access it via satellite etc even if there is no physically connection to do so - which there would be anyway thanks to telephone lines.
Even if there's an entirely different networking technology underlying it there will always be a way around it
The EU safety regs didn't stop Grenfell, product safety tests done in the UK may not either.
Proper on site surveys of buildings, which used to be done years ago may do so - if the companies conducting them can be held liable should they miss something.
It's not just a case of checking products though, especially in construction and manufacturing but also how they are applied, what methods of treatment are used, what products are near, touching, heating/cooling, have current going through them etc.
It's a bit like welding box sections in bridge construction, it CAN be effective but if done incorrectly introduces stresses within the material which MAY affect performance depending on the type of bridge the box section is part of.
It needs a layered approach to safety.
This is the problem with Cyber/Info Sec, some products are easier to show ROI on than others and many it's very much a benefit which end users don't see or don't notice e.g. less down time.
I frequently use incidents like this, Wannacry etc to show what can happen and I'm a huge fan of risk assessments as a way to make senior management accountable for what is or is not done. Sadly that doesn't seem to be done in many companies though.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022