Re: Round these parts ...
"Neither, we blame the weather."
And it looks as if we'll have to wait until Monday for traditional BBQ weather: rain.
42408 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
A few years ago I used to see two or three unsecured access points from home. Occasionally I'd wonder why network performance seemed to have gone down & then discovered the laptop had latched onto one of them. Nowadays they're all secure but mostly showing the default SSID. I'm still wondering about the brief appearance a few months ago of an SSID that seemed to belong to a farm a good mile away across the valley.
"I recall the old days at uni when documents would be sent to a print server - a desktop next to the printer which you would log into and release the print job, with the appropriate payment docked from your account."
Those weren't old days. Old days were when your print came out on 14" sprocket-feed paper and placed in a pigeon hole along with the cards you submitted the job on.
systemd-free Devuan hits stable 1.0.0 status
"For those small retailers who are being screwed, one can only hope they or crapita are insured against the lost revenue."
Being insured doesn't help much it your business has gone down the tubes by the time the claim goes through.
"The fact they didn't suggests to me that it might not have been fully legal in the first place."
It sounds as if either they didn't have a prima facie case or that they were worried about showing their hand. Or maybe they just weren't aware of what the proper route was and now don't want to lose face by backing down.
There's certainly no need to start thinking of new procedures if you can't take the trouble to use the existing ones.
"A brand that has invested in advertising is more likely to care about quality and more likely to fix problems, out of brand protection."
A brand that invests heavily in advertising may assume that that's all it needs to do. In fact it may not be able to invest in quality because all the money's gone on the adverts.
How do your data mining algorithms obtain figures on people who've gone elsewhere because of the ads? Occasionally there may be strong negative feedback - e.g. my complaint to the MD of the car sales firm - but mostly people will go quietly elsewhere. It will be an enormously difficult thing to measure.
" No rolling your own."
That, of course, would be illegal. And people already hell-bent on breaking old laws will shy away from breaking new ones. I can't quite put my finger on it but I get a sneaking suspicion that there might be something wrong with that line of thinking.
"Until a crime is committed there is still the presumption of innocence, otherwise you're simply advocating that we have lifelong monitoring of every person who has ever been reported to the authorities"
The Home Office attitude, as exemplified by the recent Home Sec and Prime Minister pro tem, is that (a) there is no presumption of innocence and (b) they want life long monitoring of every person irrespective of having been reported. As this results in their spreading resources too thinly they've failed all too often to pay sufficient attention to those who should have been monitored..
"Well, the next obvious question is whether they choose to ignore the information, or do not have the resources to handle it?
Discuss"
OK, let's discuss. Maybe they don't have the resources to handle it and undertake mass-surveillance of everyone else as well. I which case, wouldn't it be better to focus on those they're aware of?
"The first question I would ask is how they justify that MP's comms data is exempt from ICR collections."
That is justifiable. Not well thought out but justifiable. The justification is that you should be able to discuss matters confidentially with your MP. The not well thought out bit is that it's only actually exempt if your communication is also exempt.
"Seriously? Taking away your encryption is worse then massacring children?"
What do terrorists want to do? They want to remove our freedom under the law. So when a government decides to remove some of that freedom anyway then the terrorists have won a substantial victory. Is that what you want?
"Of mainstream apps, only WhatsApp would be completely banned"
Did you join up today to astro-turf on behalf of the Home Office?
Lets look at what you forgot:
Online banking.
Placing orders online with Amazon, eBay, Tesco etc etc.
Paying for anything via PayPal
Securely sending your password to your email provider to get your mail
Logging into pretty well any other service.
All these things require end-to-end encryption between one user (the customer) and another (the service provider) in order to work securely. If you don't thing this security is important then I challenge you to post all the IDs and passwords that you use for such services here in public.
But first, have a look at the T&Cs of these services. You'll find every one requires you to keep this information confidential. Your government wants to make it impossible for you to abide by those.
And for what? For nothing as far as the stated purpose is concerned. Because any organisation that wants to use encryption to facilitate law breaking is concerned will source encrypted communications from outside the government's remit. The only ones to suffer will be law-abiding citizens.
"If they had a chance, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat."
Then do so for two reasons.
Firstly in pretty well every election the number of people who don't bother voting is greater than the majority and if those not voting do so because their choice "hasn't a chance" that attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Give them that chance. Vote.
Secondly, although they don't stand a chance of forming a government they do, in the event of a hung Parliament, stand a chance of exerting a degree of control. They would have influence. All it takes is people like you to vote for them.
"Given the way the FPTP system operates then a hung Parliament is not unthinkable."
A hung Parliament is eminently thinkable. Farron, unfortunately, has been stupid enough to rule out a coalition in advance. A LibDem participation in a coalition is about the only thing that would stop this nonsense as Labour would do the same. I suppose just possibly a very slim majority might result in a change in PM - if May finds herself weakened Hammond would probably move next door.
If any Conservative candidate comes calling for your vote ask them if they've published all their banking, ecommerce, farcebook, twatter and other log-in credentials. When they ask why explain to them that this will be the net effect of removing encryption and you don't see why you should be asked to vote for someone who hasn't tested such a stupid policy on themselves.
Or simply explain that forcing HMG to abandon the centuries-long presumption of innocence is a major win for terrorists who wish to destroy British values. (Make that English values dependent on your assessment of the candidate's degree of rabidness.)
As Magritte would tell you, it's not a car, it's a picture of a car.
And I wonder what the self-driving car would make of this: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.571895,-1.6610001,3a,15y,14.84h,76.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shgFY-Sgpy7aPBcFLra-3Tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
It's not a sheep. It's not even a picture of a sheep.