Re: What about those
I'd rather the material inside my own head stayed there, out of sight.
42414 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"SANE people don't commit crimes because they fear punishment for them."
You raise an interesting point. From personal observation some habitual/career criminals seem to prefer it and yet it would be difficult to have them diagnosed as insane. Maybe it introduces an excitement to life. Maybe they have a feeling of sticking it to the man. Maybe they're utterly convinced they'll get away with it this time in spite of past experience. Maybe they're convinced that next time they'll really hit on the big one. OTOH for some it seems to be the only thing they can do, being unable to hold down a regular job.
Maybe it's just an extension of the fact that we're all different; after all, even here some of us seem to prefer working in regular employment while some prefer freelance and others to run a business employing others.
Very likely the company co-operated with the ICO. This normally gains a reduction in penalty. A penalty so near the maximum indicates that the ICO took the case very seriously indeed. Had it been under GDPR it's reasonable to expect a much larger fine would have taken place.
This is one of the things that we keep having to explain again and again.
"Being in receipt of stolen goods, is not an offence unless it can be shown that the recipient knew it was stolen."
We're not dealing with goods, here, we're dealing with PII and there was legislation in place around that. If the buyers didn't do due diligence in relation to its being obtained it's their problem.
Interestingly Bounty stopped this last April. Remember what happened in May that might have influenced that? If any of their customers were still in possession of the data after GDPR came into force are they liable under that legislation?
"Bounty shared roughly 34.4 million records from June 2017 to April 2018 with credit reference and marketing agencies. Acxiom, Equifax, Indicia and Sky were the four biggest of the 39 companies that Bounty told the ICO it sold stuff to."
How about a few prosecutions of those who bought the data? If the sale was illegal then the purchase must also have been. In the long run killing the market for illegal PII would be pretty effective.
"So, I'm guessing savvy science bureaucrats actively seek good press."
They need to get better PR people on the job. There were a lot of people involved in a lot of ways and plenty of stories.
An observatory at the S. Pole would be a good story that wouldn't strain the brain power of the Daily Mirror. Imaging S/W would, however but here's a story with a picture that will hit the Daily Mirror's buttons guaranteeing that a lot of irrelevant issues will be raised. If there was ever an angle that would ensure the outstanding achievement would be overshadowed this was it.
Yes, of course it's wrong that we have to consider this but it wasn't at all savvy not to realise what the media would pick up on (some segments of the media being what they are) and what the political wannabes on both extremes would then do with it.
Why have women in science become such a contentious issue?
In my experience - nearly 60 years- they've just been there, starting with a couple of University lecturers and some classmates including a then girl-friend. Subsequently there've been SWMBO, our daughter, her friends, SWMBO's sister, my god-daughter, her friends, another cousin's daughter and numerous colleagues and friends over the course of 20 years in science. Fair enough, a couple of those veered out of science into finance ("that's where they keep the money") but otherwise it's just normal to expect some of the people in science to be women.
I can only assume that those on either side who make a fuss aren't themselves scientists. Not being scientists; now that really is weird.
"If the material is classfied it will not be released to the lawyer.
This article is a bunch of nothing."
It might not be a bunch of nothing if you'd read it carefully enough to realise that the material being reviewed is the accused's instructions to his lawyer. Having a reviewer interposed to black-hole instructions on the unchallengeable (because black-holed) basis that they're classified is not a good way to have justice seen to be done.
It goes on to say "if a hostile power attempts to shut down connectivity to and from Russia."
So any power getting fed up with Russia sticking its internet fingers into other people's affairs has only to make a relatively ineffective attempt to block them and they'll take over and do the job themselves. When do we start?
Greetings AL. The circumstances in which I've seen this happen were either the original statement included references to material not before the court (e.g. exhibits relating to people no longer suspects) or the case going through a process where the statement was expected on different forms.
It has led to policemen turning up expecting a quick signature and finding that they had to wait while I went through both versions very carefully and I presume my colleagues in similar circumstances would have done the same.
"or perhaps the Judge is getting close to throwing it out"
I'd be surprised if that happened so early. The case is down for a long hearing so there must be many witnesses to be heard. It would be difficult to throw it out after just two. In any event I'm not sure the judge could just do that without being asked. Of course the parties could agree to settle and cut it short.
"But this is the first time the case hasn't looked like a walkover."
Courts like a contemporaneous account (police witnesses reading from their notebooks tend to be asked to confirm their notes made at the time). A written agreement vs an alleged verbal agreement committed to paper years later? Not so good.
I do wonder how Egan is going to emerge from all this.
"on the right side of the pond you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
The actuality is that you can only answer the questions counsel ask. If the question is along the lines of "tell us in your own words what happened" then fine. If counsel takes the approach of micro-managing (while avoiding leading) it's more tricky. Why would counsel do that? To limit the other side's scope for cross-examination.
Politicians everywhere at any time have had a fear of anything which empowers people (actually the worst offenders might not be the politicians themselves but their staffs)*. They also have a strong belief in magical solutions to their problems. The internet combines both of these. We'll need a few more years before this settles down. In the meantime the best solution to this particular one might be to simply throw back the lists asking for them to be reviewed. The faster the requests keep coming in the better.
I remain convinced, however, that the British courts plus the ECJ will do a better job of protecting my rights than the British courts alone.
*The private car has long been an example of this, certainly since the days of Barbara Castle if not earlier.
"I suspect the law enforcement agencies are using bots to identify what they see as terrorist content and no one is manually checking to see what it is actually is before the take down requests are issued."
You're almost certainly right.
The best solution would probably be to ignore them. If they want to enforce the request eventually someone is going to have to take legal action. A bit of common sense would indicate that the material would be reviewed by a human before proceeding. If common sense wasn't applied it would very quickly become publicly embarrassing and if it would they'd be left wallowing in the bots' excrement.
Back in the late '90s I was minding a system which needed to receive data from bits of the NHS. Initially all this was on floppy although we got an address on NHS Net so eventually it moved over to email. I guess that office still had the kit from those days.
As the disks weren't returned I built up a nice supply of floppies.
happened to me in support for DWP in the 90's
I'll believe anything of DWP in any of its incarnations at any time. I spent several days (I think it was only days) with one of their suppliers trying to sort out scads of data from their (DWP's) self-billing system which they (ditto) clearly didn't understand.
The classic was back in the days when, in Harold Wilson's self-exculpatory term, I'd been redeployed from one of my first jobs* and I had a job interview miles at the other end of the country on the day I was due to sign on. The erk in the Labour Exchange couldn't get his head round that going for a job interview was a more effective way of making oneself "available for employment" that turning up at his useless office. He finally conceded when asked to explain the steps by which he arrived at that conclusion.
*OK, probably one of the few that wasn't HW's fault at that time. Putting a big investment into new premises for one of your least profitable and maybe loss-making product lines isn't a good idea whoever's running the economy.
"Royal Mail are the worst for collections. Their collection site is a 38 mile round trip taking about 1:20 hours."
Ours is only a couple of miles away but only open until midday. Fortunately our posties are aware of the us/daughter addresses (about a mile apart) so sometimes the problem's solved that way.
"the backup disk money"
Tape?
It was probably a financial decision. The bigger risk would have been loss in transit rather than H/W failure during transcription. Anything from rough handling via over-zealous customs official to a crash, and not forgetting the packages that disappear into a warehouse and are never found again due to theft or incompetence.