"How do I give the Reg a generic thumbs-up for its reporting of this case? It's become something of a gripping soap-opera!"
Seconded.
42420 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"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.
'we may share your data with third parties in order to enhance our product and improve your experience'
We, of course, may share their EULA with the local data protection regulator, at least on this side of the pond. I wonder if they'd argue in defence that the EULA for a consumer device isn't worth the paper it's not written so they can't be bound by it.
"The government responded ... saying that it had no way to speed up the process because the CIA officer in charge of reviewing the material is independent from its prosecutorial team."
I strongly suspect that if the court ordered that if the review wasn't completed in, say, 6 hours the material would be handed over anyway they'd suddenly find it possible to review it in 6 hours.
What, BTW, happens if the reviewer decides the material is classified?
The biological features of lettuce and chicken are very different. There are plenty of internal places for bacteria to hide in a chicken after it's been externally washed. If it needs to be washed externally it's a good indicator that the interior might have problems.
"So has the software in use at the time, as verified by some decent code versioning system, been subject to a proper audit and found to be trustworthy or not?"
There are expert witnesses involved but there are also mentions of the original version, called Legacy Horizon no longer existing. I'm not sure exactly what this covers. There's a comment about relying on memory and original design documents. Given that the reliability seems contentions from the start you'd expect that original code should have been preserved for reference.
"Doctor Syntax, be honourable and admit that you got it completely wrong!"
In case you hadn't noticed, when he skipped bail the bail was from a warrant for extradition to Sweden. There was never any mention of a US extradition from the UK. There never any mention of a US warrant for extradition when he was in Sweden.
The report cited near the top of the comments was dated Nov last year and mentions prosecutors being told "over the summer" to go ahead. That's a long, long time after he holed himself up.
It's been complained about many times that the US/UK extradition treaty is extremely one-sided and that accordingly he stood much less chance of being extradited from Sweden. If he really was concerned about extradition to the US he was hardly likely to make the UK his first stop on leaving Sweden.
"I'm thinking possession is kinda the law, but something of a political hot potato as well. And isn't he an Ecuadorian citizen now?"
I suppose it's up to the Home Office to decide how to handle the queue. I wonder how many people will get copied in on their emails. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47855428 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47888214
I suggest you all do some more reading, unless you are offical typists just doing your job, in which case "well done men, now he can go and get Trumped!"
And in what way does any of this change my oft-expressed opinion (including an earlier comment below) that by acting thoughtlessly he's put himself into a corner he can't get out of? He ran from Sweden. He jumped bail. He had cases to answer in both Sweden and the US neither of which were political and there was no indication at that point of any proceedings planned in the US. My view was that the then current US government would be smart enough to punish him by refusing to stroke his ego by pursuing him. An evolution of that position was that the current bull-in-a-china-shop administration would lack such finesse and that he'd missed his opportunity long ago. I find the report which you link verifies that view.
Good try at shilling, A/C, but you really need more cogent arguments if you come to this forum.
"This is what he was afraid of: the USA, somehow or another, finding a way of getting him over the pond."
In that case he shouldn't have done a runner when he was (a) out of reach of the US in Sweden and (b) when the US had a government with enough wit to realise that treating him as not worth attention was the biggest punishment they could impose.
I'm not quite sure of the age but our son picked up reading PDQ from the Ladybird books. Our daughter had much more of a problem and turned out to be somewhat dyslexic. However I think her misspelling of sulphur on a poster presentation was more due to her post-doc supervisor than dyslexia.
HMRC sent us a statement:
"As we did during the pilot, HMRC is continuing to work closely with developers to ensure our service is smooth and that teething problems get resolved quickly."
Alternative version:
HMRC did not send a meaningful statement. Instead they tried to fob us off with some anodyne boiler-plate which did not properly address the issues raised and with which we will not insult our readers.
Go on. Bite the hand which feeds the pap.
"We take the privacy of our customers extremely seriously and our privacy policy is aligned with the latest legislation."
Where have I heard that "aligned with the latest legislation before". Oh, yes, Paypal justifying, as they think, sending your login ID to every merchant you buy from. A carefully crafted phrase to mean nothing but look, as they think, persuasive. Neither of their thoughts are convincing and it doesn't read any better coming from Sonos.
"The government wants the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business."
That's the kiss of death. "The government wants the UK to be the best..." is the ritual prelude to just about every failed "initiative" that a govt. has come out with as long as I can remember.
"we'd be very surprised if the idea of finding individuals executives personally liable make it through the legislative process"
I wouldn't. After all it's in the current DPA and GDPR on which the DPA based. In fact I could quite easily see chunks of the DPA being cut and pasted into this, or maybe the DPA being a framework onto which the domain-specific bits of this and any future legislation get pasted.