Weasel words alert
In general, data is anonymized and generalized.
40485 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
I also note that some people showing users ( or running training) will omit steps, because they are "obvious."
I used to find this was a problem with schoolteachers. If it was a subject that fitted your thought patterns, no problem. If it wasn't you got left behind trying to puzzle out one thing when they'd moved to another.
"Could just shove that down the back and take a photo, then enlarge it - and get something readable."
Our gas service man tried that with the pilot assembly the other day. Still couldn't read it and went to get his torch. Took my glasses off (short sight) and found it perfectly readable by Mk 1 eyeball. Sometimes you can go over the top with technology.
"But I've lost count over the years of how many times he's handed me his computer and only half a browser window is visible below all of the various add-in bars and other shite he's managed to install."
In my case it's SWMBO and tabs. "I keep on clicking [the close tab icon] but nothing happens". That's because there are way too many tabs open for the one with current focus to be seen closing.
"Adults have the intelligence and experience to think this out of course"
Sometimes. Not always.
"Slowly showing them how to do stuff"
The key word is "slowly". Far too often people demonstrate stuff too fast. The watcher needs to be able to watch what's being done, what the consequences are and also take in the explanations of what and why. That's a lot of information to assimilate and it takes time.
"Or the user disables it and then demands IT come down and fix it"
Laptops are portable. Perhaps a rule that for all laptop issues the laptop should be brought ti IT, not the other way around. It might have a substantial effect on the effectiveness of telephone support.
"have a 'Plan B'"
Plan B? A plan A would be a good start.
That's a plan A for the whole sorry mess.
Plan A should involve a feasibility study, a list of requirements and a project plan to have the whole thing in place with "Trigger Article 50" set well down the list so that everything else would be sufficiently advanced to be ready for the go-live date.
Did they do that? Of course not. The Leavers were handed the job and as they were convinced it would be no problem at all they charged straight ahead.
Fail to plan means plan to fail.
"The European data protection bods couldn't care less if they managed to wreck the entire internet"
How would it do that? If the data concerned were essential to the operation of the internet it wouldn't be affected. All that's affected is the publication of certain data fields and, if you bother to read the article you'll notice that some TLD authorities manage this perfectly well. Could it be that ICANN has had its head up its arse for the last several years whilst it gets on with its own governance issues which have been amply reported here?
"Hopefully this won't encourage other governments to pass local laws to demand world wide changes."
What other governments did you have in mind? The US for instance?
"Don't they need to get all registrants to sign a waiver?"
The authors of GDPR saw that one coming. One aspect of the regulations is that you can't tie provision of a service to a waiver on data that GDPR covers. Breaking that one would just bring bigger fines.
"This is possibly true – but only to an extent. Congressmen and women did push him on whether GDPR rights – such as the right to data portability or to object – would apply to everyone, but he slipped out of those questions just as he did the ones on shadow profiles or tracking logged-out users."
From a purely European PoV that's something FB will have to work out for themselves. A better question will be what they plan to do to satisfy GDPR rights in Europe, including those of non-account holders.
If - and it's a big if - they can achieve that then they need to work out whether it's easier to simply apply them system-wide. That must be a question a lot of corporations will have to decide once they've taken on board the fact that the EU means business over this. And, if EU politicians didn't mean business before, FB and CA between them have definitely raised the profile of privacy.
"I frankly doubt that the EU courts will have the balls to force Facebook to balkanize its data into independent units."
I don't think they have the power to do that. It would be a legislative requirement.
What the courts do have is the power to do is to react to specific claims that might arise from that and issue fines against the companies concerned or even take action against senior officers of the companies and I can't see why the courts would have any compunction in doing that. It's ip to the companies to decide whether they can accept those sanctions on a regular basis or whether they need to find a means to avoid them. If they choose the latter course, and it seems likely, then they have option of setting up some arm's length operation which may be what you mean. They also have options of quitting the European market altogether or of ceasing to be US corporations.
Whilst I can't see the courts being reluctant to take such action where cases are put before them the willingness of the regulators to play their part is a different matter.
It may be an obvious question but it's not a question at issue in Schrems' case against Facebook. If you want that question to be asked you need to find some body against whom you have a specific claim relating to that and raise that claim with the regulator in whose jurisdiction it falls. Then it will become not only an obvious question but also a relevant one and it's relevance to the case in hand that determines whether it can be raised at the ECJ.
By the time the ruling comes along the legislation applying at the time will be obsolete and the whole thing will presumably have to start up again under GDPR although it probably would have done anyway.
In the meantime recent events should have concentrated the ECJ's minds. Perhaps Zuck & Co will be wishing they'd got it settled earlier. Sometimes dragging cases out doesn't pay.
"And as well as describing the method that works it would be kinda handy to know what other approaches were tried and rejected."
Probably from Dr Dobbs or the like, the rubric went something like this:
Apprentices' comments say what the code does.
Journeymens' comments say why it does it this way.
Masters' comments say why it doesn't do it some other way.
"They have an office in town, I sometimes wonder what nastiness I could post through their door and stay on the right side of the law."
We used to get mailings for a former tenant from a college he attended. As he was studying for the church it should have been fairly straightforward for them to check the relevant directories for an up-to-date address. When I got fed up with returning them I rang them up and told them that in future I'd keep returning them but there would be a £10 handling charge each time and I'd go to the small claims court if it wasn't paid. They stopped.
"And if data are truly physically deleted is something that should require an independent audit. EU laws requires it - but is FB compliant?"
I'm not sure of the exact EU laws on this but what's needed, and needed to be used, is legislation that allows regulators to be able to pro-actively audit businesses. They need teams entitled to and capable of turning up at reception with not prior appointment able to go through systems to account for all the storage in use, reconcile it with schemas, samples of data and not leave until either they've satisfied themselves that there's nothing underhand or that they're in a position to bring charges.
"Surely anything that replaces Android would have to be able to run the millions of Android Apps or else it will become another Windows mobile, Firefox OS, Blackberry etc."
That's an instantiation of a generic class of comment. You could replace the names with CP/M, MS-DOS and any other formerly popular OS you care to think of.
Right now we need a mobile OS that doesn't allow apps to poach each others' data. Will Google deliver that?
" Slipping shipments therefore indicate slower replacement cycles and the fact that buyers now have a choice of smartphones, phablets, tablets and detachables for their computing needs."
And all the losses at the margins through refusal to produce what some purchasers are looking for because "there's no demand".