Posts by Doctor Syntax 40557 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Not changing the spec every week/day/hour."
For anything Brexit related the real spec isn't going to exist until well into next year. What, if anything, is presented as a spec is going to vary wildly depending on which wing of the party (and anyone else) ministers are trying to placate this week - or just today.
"Well, anything we can source more cheaply elsewhere, we will - there's mostly no chance of us simply producing it ourselves - we'll simply change where in the world our money goes."
"Simply" is probably an exaggeration. If the only existing component is for some product is sourced in the EU then going elsewhere might involve a redesign. And that's not including the more convoluted supply chains where stuff goes backward & forward.
"Yep can negotiate, they just cant come into force until we leave the EU."
You're probably right on this one. Negotiate, yes. Succeed when everyone knows we're over a barrel?* It depends on the definition of succeed.
*The same applies to negotiating leave terms. Apparently nobody told HMG that beggars can't be choosers.
"The MPs don't need to worry about the local elections."
Although not necessarily reliable they're pointers to what the electorate is thinking. MPs must already be looking a few years a head, even without the prospect of the DUP throwing a wobbly and there being another general election shortly afterwards. They'll be worrying.
These include a motion to quash or modify the legal process if it believes the customer isn't a US citizen and that disclosure "creates a material risk" that the firm would violate the laws of another government.
Who's going to be responsible for this? If it's the data subject they're not going to be told until after the event if at all. Even then it means having to defend themselves in the US when they live elsewhere.
"Surely the fact that he is still being persecuted/prosecuted long after removal of disputed facts, is grounds enough for reasonable cause that justice has not and is not being served and servered by judges?"
Skipping bail is an offence in its own right. The magistrate lays out the law quite clearly in the judgement.
"Home Office bods have denied that retaining millions of custody images of people who were never charged falls foul of case law, while asserting that automatic deletion is not technically possible."
No problem. Just delete the lot. If they can't do it whilst keeping within the law they shouldn't do it at all.
"Nobody much complains about human Police spotters identifying trouble makers at football matches. So is this just luddite objections?"
I have no experience of Police spotters at football matches as I've assiduously avoided football for my entire adult life. So I'm open to contradiction in this. But as I understand the comment spotters would be looking for known individuals who shouldn't be there. If that's the case then their visual identifications would be subject to more robust checks on identification. If automatic facial recognition is being applied to the lousy images from typical CCTV as the only evidence then it's far from being a Luddite objection. The initial ID, human or AI, needs to be tested and distrusted until it's tested. A violent arrest as in the Denver case linked above really shouldn't be conducted on the basis of such ID.
It's really like the blood test kits we used to give to SOCO - and used in the lab as well. The technical term was a presumptive test (it worked by detecting peroxidase activity which haemoglobin shares with several other substances such as fruit juice). The presumptive test highlights something to be followed up to decide not only is it's blood but also what species.
Facial ID seems to be at the presumptive level - useful to tell you what's worth looking at but too liable to give false positives to be used solo.
I see from the linked article that the FBI have ditched hair evidence. I never could understand why they were keen on it. It always seems hopeless. In 14 years I only ever used it once and that was to give an ID of a body where there were 3 alternatives; fortunately I could exclude 2 as couldn't be and that left one that could have been.
"the headline percentage of UK exports to the EU has gone down"
The main nonsense in this is that the UK doesn't export to the EU. The EU is part of the home market. It's a hell of a chunk of the home market to be losing and the Home Sec of Downing St has just said that that's what's going to happen. Of course as soon as she needs to placate the other wing of her party or Ireland she'll say something else.
"This would skew the stats."
It will also skew the stats against people who don't download and run random bits of Javascript. In fact use the things which will skew the stats about users showing up on Statcounter will be expected to show some correlation with use of blocking the enforced W7 > W10 downgrade.
"its not as bad as everyone on here makes it out to be. I think you all have watched The Shawshank" etc.
If you want people to read what you write do the work of starting sentences with capital letters. If you can't be arsed to take that amount of care in writing why should I be arsed to put in the extra effort to read it.
Paragraphs are useful too.
"Charging him in the UK would require evidence which the US does not need to supply for an extradition."
Whether it needed to supply evidence or not, look at the judgement; link in TFA. There's a brief summary of evidence in paragraph 9. It includes the mention of the fact that some of the evidence was gathered in the UK. And look at paragraph 126 where the judges bat the whole thing back at the CPS & US to provide a full case for a prosecution.
"However, given that he has not been prosecuted here"
This case was essentially about where. Without that being settled it's irrelevant to go on about him not having been prosecuted here. Follow the link to the judgement & make your way to no 126. Th paraphrase it for you the judges are telling the CPS to get their finger out with a Uk prosecution and the US to put up or shut up - all in legal language, of course.
If they're trying to extradite from here, then ALL they need to do is to SAY that they have evidence sufficient to generate "reasonable suspicion" (without presenting it), and in the absence of unusual circumstances (as, fortunately, in this case), that is enough for us to bend over, and take it from behind.
The later Register article has a link to the judgement. Paragraph 9 outlines the evidence which seems to point to there being a prima facie case with some of the evidence coming from the UK police:
In October 2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked the National Crime
Agency [“NCA”] for assistance in its investigation, which led the NCA to begin its
own investigation. Its purpose was to “gather evidence with a view to mounting a
potential prosecution in the UK, whilst being equally aware of the US investigation,
should material relevant to their investigation become apparent....” The investigation
obtained evidence linking Mr Love to the hacking offences. On 25 October 2013, the
NCA executed a search warrant at Mr Love’s parents’ house. He lived there with
them. This is explained in the witness statement of Mr Brown of the NCA dated 29
March 2016, made in connection with proceedings which related to the return of
property taken during the search. One of Mr Love’s computers was logged on to an
online chat room using the nickname “nsh”. A preliminary review of some of his
computers revealed that some of the data stolen during unauthorised access was on his
computers, and these intrusions had been discussed in online chats. Mr Love was
arrested on suspicion for offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, made no
comment in interview and was released on bail.
Reading through the rest of the judgement it seems clear that a UK prosecution would be a possibility and this seems to be a factor in the decision. See paragraph 126:
The CPS must now bend its endeavours to his prosecution, with the assistance to be
expected from the authorities in the United States, recognising the gravity of the
allegations in this case, and the harm done to the victims. As we have pointed out, the
CPS did not intervene to say that prosecution in England was inappropriate. If proven,
these are serious offences indeed.
In other words CPS & the US are being told to put up or shut up.
"And surely, one barrister not turning up, even if he was certain he was going to lose, is pretty much the definition of contempt of court?"
There'd be a junior there. In this sort of situation I'd expect it to be business as usual. Why would the leader need to be there?
"Wonder why this was?"
Probably he was in another court earning a fee there. Even if he'd won he wasn't going to have to get up on his hind legs and present an argument about sentencing. If he wants to appeal he will have to work out the grounds for that and it's something he'd do in chambers anyway. There'd be no reason not to just send a junior along to court.
"So there will be no UK court case."
Why not? The US must have provided sufficient prima facie evidence for the extradition. The CPS could then use that as the basis for a prosecution here. It would then be up to the US to respond to the resulting witness summonses, provide additional evidence or even withdraw the complaint. Their choice. If they don't enable the CPS to produce a credible case in court he gets found not guilty.
So the credit card companies admit that they can control what people buy or don't buy with their productmoney?
And for avoidance of doubt "their" refers to the credit card companies. Until you clear the account it's their money loaned to you. When it's stated like that does it seem a little more reasonable to you? If not maybe you'd let me buy some Bitcoin with some of your money. At your risk, of course.
"When did banks get to tell their customers what they can and cannot buy?"
They're not. They're just saying you have to use your own money. A credit card is an unsecured loan. Until you settle your credit card bill it's the bank's money. It's not unreasonable to say you can't use their money to make what they consider a risky investment.
"Basically, it is and always has been the case that for Google or other search program to find a web page containing the information you're looking for, some human being has to create that web page."
That's fair enough. But the problem arises when, instead of simply telling you it doesn't exist, it persists in throwing up thousands of pages of "hits" that are misses.
"Not found" is a perfectly valid search result. A search engine that can't return this when appropriate has failed.
"SEO companies are literally the only thing where if you do a search for one you are presented with a list in the order of how good they are."
They never include the ones who email you to tell you how good they are, primarily because although "we are a company" but never manage to tell you their company name or domain name. Let alone the URL of your web site they're emailing to tell you they can optimise.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
