Re: I'm sure we've all done this too
It's just the air of menace and the big hammer you carry. Equipment needs to know who's boss.
21507 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
I suppose you think you have nothing to hide. If so go back and look at the T&Cs of the online services you use. Start with banking. Then come back and tell us all the login credentials you're contractually allowed to share with us.
Legitimate online commerce depends on being able to maintain security. Anything that compromises that for the sake of attacking criminal operations also attacks legitimate commerce is problematic.
While one part of me thinks this was a great operation the other side worries. To do this legitimately, with due protection to the innocent, it should have been conducted under appropriate* warrants. Was it?
*I also have concerns that the framework under which interception is carried out in the UK really is appropriate. There is a history of the Acts which provide this framework being struck down in court and replaced by a new one to provide the same shaky cover. I suspect that somewhere in a Home Office filing cabinet there's a draft of the next Act ready to put before Parliament as soon as the existing one gets successfully challenged.
"I may be wrong but my understanding is of encryption when using this device depending upon a dedicated chip."
The Motherboard article says they didn't, they just added a little something in software to intercept the plain text from the keyboard. Which raises the question of how did that get smuggled out to their own servers without anyone noticing?
"Yes, but people here accused of terrorism still have the right to a fair trial, overseen by an independent judge with a 12 person jury where the evidence is heard by all parties and a defence entered for the accused."
It depends on "here" as there were the Diplock courts in NI where the judge also acted as a tribunal of fact. Even there, of course, the rest of the trial proceeded as normal. And one fo the features of the Diplock court was that the judge gave a reasoned argument as to how he arrived at his decision, something that juries never have to do.
"Funny, given that it's his country's (frequently his state's) megacorps that are the problem"
You might be looking at cause and effect here. Plenty of his voters work for those megacorps and aren't happy with the thought that they're some of the subjects whose data their employers are abusing.
"It depends, if you sell something, you have to record the name of the buyer, for online sales, and that information has to be kept for tax purposes."
How many shops do you walk into and have to give your name because the shop has to keep that information for tax purposes? Or insist that you set up an account?
Clearly somebody selling physical goods online has to collect delivery information but doesn't need to retain that information once delivery is complete
Billing information might need to be retained to deal with a complaint or need for a refund but doesn't need to be consulted unless that happens. However, a physical shop doesn't need to do that - what they need is to provide a proof of purchase. Maybe there's scope here for a new product - a system for providing an electronic tamper-resistant proof of purchase.
In the long term it's not deletion systems that need to be developed, it's data acquisition and handling systems that are based on the proposition that the data acquired might become toxic waste.
"I'd say about 75% of the people shopping in supermarkets, gift shops or just visiting nice areas are pensioners."
Pensioner here, living in what's considered a nice area to visit. Haven't been in a supermarket for months, all such shopping done by our daughter. Haven't been in a gift shop since goodness knows when. And the people I see visiting here are seldom pensioners, especially not those congregating in non-socially distanced groups.
"Have you seen What 3 Words?"
Having got past that AFAIK it's just a geographical coordinate system. Postal addresses are more than that. They have to deal with multiple addresses at the same location such as Flat 1 or 1a Acacia Ave etc.
"find the most effective way of delivering it"
It sounds easy if you say it quickly enough.
Actually there's also the problem of finding the money to do it. And the additional problem that about half the country don't want you to do it and you hope enough of them are going to have to vote the next time round. And the overriding problem as to whether what you decide you want to do will prove to have been a good idea when it confronts reality and the law of unintended consequences.
But, apart from that, simple.
"Government Tory therefore government stupid."
I'm instinctively conservative - with a small c. But this particular government is formed out of a clique that took over the Conservative party. They've shoved out anybody who showed an inclination to do details and rely on rhetoric and Dunning-Kruger powered hubris.
Gove made comments, aimed at the Civil Service, about group-think. He and the rest of the present government need a mirror.
Elec-trickery isn't the only utility that can get knocked out by industrial kit. Some years back a dyer had a new gas-fired boiler installed and until they got their own supply they connected it to the domestic supply main. Then fired it up the first time in the middle of winter. The initial surge took the pressure down so low that pilot lights went out. It took a whiles for the gas engineers to work out why the pressure was so low in the mains.
Sometimes I wish it happened like that with manorial rolls. Somebody says something in the English of the day. The roll is written up in Latin. The editor translates it back into modern English for publication but what was originally meant. I'm sure vill didn't always mean the same thing in different circumstances but what did it mean when it didn't mean "township"?
"The Respondent employs AFR Locate at specific locations in the South Wales Police's area of responsibility. It could not lawfully or practically 'track the movements of individuals as they move around the country'."
The practicality could be addressed by deploying at more locations. If they claim the present deployment is lawful how many more deployments would it require to become unlawful? If it's not possible to answer that then maybe its no lawful now.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020