Re: Why do they host ads?
It's the purpose of business to make money within the law. That's a significant limitation.
40471 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"it seems that to a manager, having the backups is sufficient to tick the box."
This is where the Holywood Protocol comes into its own. The surprise auditor comes along and asks the manager for the ticked box for the last successful restore from backup. Extra points for the last successful full-scale DR exercise..
"It will only catch dumb criminals who can't imagine using a product that Apple does not control."
Not quite. The insecurity inherent in any back door makes every innocent users' data accessible to any agency, criminal ot nation state, that finds it. That is what the US discovered only a few weeks ago but what with moving fast and breaking things that lesson has already been forgotten - to the extent that it was ever learned.
"I (and colleagues) work to deliver the will of the secretary of state, no matter how misguided, malformed, or simply stupid their wishes are"
Th HO's core competence seems to be house training Home Secs (apart from the few that don't need it). So effective was it that one of them wrote an account of it in the Times, quite oblivious of what had really happened to him.
Start with Yvette Cooper's.
In fact, she and the rest of the government should publish their own encryption keys, and access credentials for any other online services they use, including banking. And no politicians to use the likes of Whatsapp. Anything else is hypocrisy.
It's not supposed to be implemented if it's not feasible so why would they demand it now.
If they think it is feasible to implement a secure back door all they have to do is commission a proof of concept to be picked over by industry-recognised experts. If they can do that and get approval of the experts then they've proved it is feasible. Until they've demonstrated that it is so it remains infeasible.
It sounds as if there needs to be an agreement that it's up to the Rust team to maintain C API changes with some means of coordination to ensure the Rust team have notice and an agreed time period to make their changes so that both can be merged together. Martin might have had a good point but went about it in the wrong way.
Having said that, surely the whole point* of an interface (the I in API!) is that it can remain stable whilst the code that implements it changes. I'd have thought that changing an API means that everything** that uses the API, the Rust wrapper being one will need to change with it.
* All too often forgotten these days, especially with GUIs.
** Depending on the extent of the changes
I suppose it could be commercialised along the lines of the Teasmaid which will shuffle the eggs between boiling and tepid water. Set the time for breakfast and the eggs are started and then at appropriate times later the toaster and kettle are switched on. The deluxe version can butter the toast.
I still worry that after a few of the 2 minute boiling phases it's going to be something the size of a goose egg that isn't hard boiled.
The data we use is already commercially available data collected via smartphone apps, purchased at scale by data brokers or aggregators, then licensed to Gravy Analytics and other organizations like ours."
It is high time people like this were made to regard such data not as valuable but as toxic. If a business like this is sued so many times it's likely to just be bankrupted and nobody gets adequate redress. The senior management and directors should be personally liable for civil suit and also criminally liable. Perhaps that should also extend to the aggregators who licenced it to them. Make the whole supply chain liable.
Don't be sceptical. OpenReach will keep rolling out upgrades to those with a decent service. It postpones getting everyone up to a reasonable standard of service irrespective of where they live.
To they that hath shall be given, from they that hath not shall be taken away that little they hath.