Re: Don't underestimate users...
"this is the process we did use for senior management/executives, but we simply didn't have the time and the spare kit around to do this for absolutely everyone"
Putting the effort where it's most needed.
42530 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
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.
"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.
"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.