Re: upgrade' the PC's to run ChromeOS
"So.... where are all the myriad of VB6/VB-Net applications going to run then?"
I see you've spotted the advantage.
40485 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Would it not be simpler (and cheaper) to standardise all IT equipment across all NHS trusts directly from Whitehall? Think how Maersk dealt with NotPetya, by replacing all servers and desktops/laptops."
Either (a) Maersk had a very small variety of tasks for their IT estate or (b) they didn't update anything with a very specialised control function.
If you look at the NHS you'll find a lot of machines that could be updated to a current version of W10 and a lot running lab and other diagnostic kit that depend on specific drivers that either aren't going to be available for W10 or possibly not for the H/W on which W10 will run. Identifying those that couldn't be handled like that will not be a trivial project.
But take it a step further. If a lot of PCs are simply running office suites, email and browser why not introduce extra resilience? A monoculture of Windows PCs of any single version could be taken out by an exploit of some zero-day*. So for such tasks add a mixture of Mac, Linux and xBSD, say 25% of each, to minimise that risk. And Linux and BSD for servers.
* This also applies to Maersk of course. They may be protected against the last variant of NotPetya. But what about the next?
"24 hours isn't enough time to do it properly. To do that you'd need a team, all properly trained and kept up to date on every database change across an entire organisation, with an on-call rota."
As far as I can make out this isn't about routine subject access requests. This is about ICO investigations and the week-long stand off at CA. Even 24 hours is long compared to being able to roll up at 5am with a sledgehammer.
In fact, I'd go for the ICO being able to turn up at 5am with a sledgehammer.
"Making what is clearly covered by existing statutes for fraud, perverting the course of justice or other serious criminal offences into something you can get away with using a good lawyer."
I don't see any rush to bring CA to book for deleting data, nor is it clear what basis there may have been under existing law for doing so if the only thing affected is an ICO investigation.
Nor do I see the ICO's remit overlapping much if at all with what's covered by existing law (statue and common) so why should adding provision for prosecuting destruction of evidence for investigations within that remit affect existing criminal provisions.
Then we have to craft an ever-fscking "vision" statement in yet another demented "all-hands" group grope.
Insist on working some - no, make that all - your gripes into the "vision". Even if they're off-topic. Eventually I found manglement got a good idea about what it was best to leave me out of.
It's a great pity that successive DPAs haven't included an offence of misusing data protection as a convenient excuse because this is just another attempt at it.
GDPR allows data to be kept as long as it's required for its original use. Assuming that the records' original purpose was to prove legality of residence then they remain a required document for the life of the individual to whom they apply. If they were needed to prove that legality for a dependent then they're required for the life of that person too. There's anecdotal evidence that they were still being referred to which should have clarified the matter.
One aspect that's not been mentioned is whether these were statutory records. If they were not only might there have been a statutory requirement to keep them but GDPR wouldn't apply, at least not until any statutory requirement had lapsed. Perhaps this aspect should be looked into further as whoever took the decision to destroy them might have committed an offence.
"That's because UK administration is still stuck into the Doomsday Book era. In other countries were the X century ended many years ago, you need a single ID document."
I assume that you're not from these parts or are very young because a few years back when a previous Home Sec wanted to introduce ID cards it very quickly became clear that this was politically unpopular. Even the disk drives used for the pilot scheme had to be destroyed.
We don't like such things. It smacks too much of population control.
By the way, it's the Domesday Book. Same root as "domestic".
"There is no scenario where such an individual is suitable for such a position."
The HO would disagree. Someone as deeply ignorant as that could repeat anything they told her without showing any signs of disbelief because she didn't have the knowledge that would have caused her to disbelieve.
"In which case, all of the Remaniacs who would ordinarily be highly critical of the moronic Rudd will suddenly declare her a saint."
Personally I'd have liked to have had David Davis replace Rudd as Home Sec and then Rudd appointed to take his place..
"She's got the support of that nice Mrs Foster of the DUP, and her other 9 stout hearted Ulstermen."
For as long as it lasts. She's made contradictory promises on the Irish border question. At some point she's going to have to resolve that one way or another. If the DUP don't like the choice she has to make then the No 10 gardeners had better start planting fruit bushes so Corbyn will have something to make jam with.
"They usually last about a year regardless of whether they are from the Blue, Red or Yellow parties."
The HO manages to shed those it can't house-train. Those who are house-trained are usually suspected by the PM. In Rudd's case the last didn't apply as the PM is also a house-trained Home Sec.
"breach of contract"
That was my thought. Possibly those who signed the contracts for the customer are reluctant to involve their legal department on the basis that if they were to look carefully they might find a brief clause around page 288 that lets IBM do this and legal will send them back with their arse in a sling for signing such a contract.
"It's going to be a mess, and there really does need to be some kind of grace period where companies can get caught and told to sort things out, but not necessarily get stung for the fine, because those fines could cause some serious damage if they're doled out to every offender from day one."
In practice regulators aren't going to be able to follow up all complaints so they'll have to make choices. Hopefully it'll be a case of chase a few particularly egregious examples first and have a warning letter system for the small fry. When they have the resources they can then follow up on the warning letters and see if they've got into compliance.
But on the wider issue of not being aware etc. companies, charities, societies etc. generally have a good idea of the accounting, statutory reporting and other rules that apply to them. When you ignore the hype this is just another of those rule sets to be incorporated into BAU. As with the other rules some organisations will fail, deliberately or otherwise; of those that fail some, as with the other rules, will get lucky and not be caught while others are penalised. It will all become the new normal.
"Guys please come down to us from your EU Olympus and explain how to implement what you've invented."
It's very simple. You do one of two things. One is you look at the rights it says data subjects should have and give the subjects those. The alternative is that you pay the fines.
If you weren't abusing the data subjects in the past option one isn't that onerous. If you find it difficult it says a lot more about the operation you run than it does about the EU being out of touch.
"While that allows EU citizens to look up EU addresses, .eu would cease to exist for the rest of the world"
Who said anything about EU-only root servers? The rest of the world would be free to use them. And why would they set themselves up as just for EU domains? If the rest of the world decided to treat a non-US server as the definitive global root then either the US follows suit or .com etc, as you put it, ceases to exist for the rest of the world.
"BT offered back in 1997/98 time frame to fibre up the whole nation if only it could get out of the restriction of doing TV early."
Look back earlier than that to when cable franchises were handed out but BT was excluded as a matter of policy. The cable cable companies cherry-picked than and no doubt this current development will simply represent more competition in the cherry-picking industry.
"At 15 microns ... of the scale of a human hair"
Not quite that scale. A grain of hazel pollen is more or less triangular and about 25 microns per side. Hazel's fairly typical so 15 micron is about the size of a smallish pollen grain. You might see it with the naked eye as a point of light. If you wanted to see its shape you'd need a decent microscope.
But certainly bigger than what quantum physicists work on.