Linus is wrong about Chipzilla. It contributes nothing further to the randomisation if it has a predictable sequence. It's like wrapping an already random stream in see-through paper, that's all. It can't add further entropy if it is no longer usefully randomising. Dunno why he doesn't get that point. Using it just wastes processor cycles.
264 posts • joined 21 May 2013
"I realize the laws are different but I don't think the differences are there between contractors being contractors..."
The point I was making was about the poster before you who seemed unaware that to be outside of IR35 your starting point needs to be a "Contract FOR ServiceS" i.e. that is what a ltd co to ltd co would have. If you have a "Contract OF Service" (and a lot!!! of the agencey contracts would fall into that category) i.e. that's the same type of contract an employee would have.
In investigating IR35 status if your contract isn't a "Contract FOR ServiceS" [and there's rather more to it than just sticking a title at the top of it] - then HMRC *are not obliged* to look any further in deciding that you are indeed caught by the legislation and are a "disguised employee". The length of the contract is a complete irrelevance, in this case. Sadly, all too many contractors remain blissfully ignorant of this. Their own working arrangements may be that of a stone wall contractor - doesn't matter a jot if their contract is not up to scratch.
If - and only if - you clearly have a "Contract FOR ServiceS", are HMRC then required to examine your working practices, to detemine your status.
@ Don Jefe
" Real IT contractors should be moving fairly quickly..."
Not so. That's a tail wagging the dog strategy. If you are adopting that approach, you've not understood the IR35 legislation.
" Contractors can get locked into long term contract where your pay increases with time spent but you have to provide exclusivity (not legal in some states)...."
Any contract in the UK that requires exclusitivity is caught by the IR35 legistaltion - you are a de facto employee of the client and not a contractor.
The laws in the UK and US for contractors are really quite different.
"Perhaps someone more expert than I can explain it, but AFAIK IR35 will also bite the company that's paying your fees (they could get stung for employer's NI, which is a lot)..."
No. That was some of the FUD garbage initially put about by Dawn Primarollo, the then Paymaster General, and the beloved Gordon Brown, when they first brought in the legislation. Client companies are only exposed to liability for things like NI [if the contractor doesn't pay what he/she owes to HMRC] - if and only if - the contractor is engaged on a 'Self-Employed' basis (i.e no contractor ltd co involved - and tax and NI assesed under schedule D) - which, immediately proves (according to the IR35 legislation) that he/she is outwith the scope of IR35.
IR35 clearly states that all liability is passed on to the contractor (using a ltd co - not schedule D self-employed) if they fall foul of the IR35 legislation.
[Note also - nobody can be schedule D self-employed and going via an agencey - as prior legisaltion already stated that agencies can only supply people they employe directly or contract with on a ltd co to ltd co basis].
>>Kind of makes you wonder if this is really an initial discovery...
If you read the fine TOR manual, they have always warned that this type of attack is possible, right down to noting the (many) problems with routing bittorrent through TOR nodes.
I guess this is the first paper to put some actual numbers on things though.
Hushmail - ssshhh they could be listening....
"However, developments in November 2007 led to doubts among security-conscious users about Hushmail's security and concern over a backdoor. Hushmail has turned over cleartext copies of private e-mail messages associated with several addresses at the request of law enforcement agencies under a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with the United States."