* Posts by Cereberus

109 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Apr 2015


Dumping us into ad tier of Prime Video when we paid for ad-free is 'unfair' – lawsuit


Which one to bin

I have Netflix and Amazon, and am looking at which one to drop. Netflix because of the price increases or ads, especially after the password sharing ban that they previously encouraged.

However, I am leaning towards Amazon, I like the 'free' next day delivery but rarely get anything now. I tend to go to Ali Baba where I can get the same Chinese name items for less money, just have to wait longer for delivery. There is very little I can get from Amazon that is named and that I can't get for the same price or cheaper elsewhere.

The 3 most annoying things are:

1) Here is an additional 'Prime' <service> to justify paying extra, that you don't want and won't use like being able to store photos in the cloud.

2) Here is your Prime video streaming service - sorry if you want to watch that you need to pay £x to watch it as it isn't included in the Prime free to view package.

An example which showed this recently was 'Ambulance' - on Prime I would have to pay extra to watch it, go to Netflix and it is included in the deal. To make it worse this doesn't just apply to new films or shows when they are first released on streaming but can be shows that a years old.

3) I search for something on Amazon, then say sort it into order based on price and it jumps from 20 pages of items to 2, and most of the items shown don't actually meet the search criteria.

The more I think about it the more I think I will drop Amazon.

Ofcom proposes ban on UK telcos making 'inflation-linked' price hikes mid-contract


Option to walk

The contract break exists if the Telco increase prices above a certain percentage (can't be bothered to look it up) without sufficient notice. As ever there is a loophole here as they learned the hard way that people would terminate contracts and the Telco lost money on the deal because a rumour would get out they were putting up prices. People would go and take out contracts with the most expensive phones then 2 weeks later get a letter or email saying the prices are going up and as such you have the right to cancel your contract - you then got to keep the phone with the only cost being to get it unlocked for other networks.

The loophole is that this only applies if you are not informed prior to taking out the contract. If they tell you we will put the price up by CPI + 3.9% every year and you then sign the contract you can't leave because that cost occurs as you took the contract knowing that would happen.

The problem, as other have mentioned, is that all the companies do this, the regulator lets them, and there is no downside as 'where do you go?'

I don't accept that operational costs rise by CPI + 3.9% for a Telco every year so can only assume this is price gouging and they get away with it year on year. Telcos should have to demonstrate their increased costs to justify increases to the consumer and Ofcom should review these and have to sign off on them before they can come into force.

40% of IT security pros say they've been told not to report a data leak


Now I know why fast food is no longer fast

Now the biz, which runs or franchises at least 55,000 eateries employing 36,000 people worldwide.....

So does that mean there are just under 2/3 of a person working at each location?

Or does it mean that the company has 36,000 people employed, then the franchises have their own which aren't included in the 36,000?

If the former, I assume the chickens run the stores and when they die they go to the big secret herb and spice jar before they are broken up and sent to the fiery hells of the oil pit (fryer) where they shall be delivered of their evil by having their flesh 'boiled' before that sinful flesh is consumed so their spirits can move to the big free range farm in the sky.

Google taps Fastly to make cookie-free adtech FLEDGE fly


Re: Just keep it simple

I agree with Tiggity here.

I don't especially mind a few ads if it helps a site stay up. What I don't want is to get suggestions for weeks after I have made a purchase.

I don't see why the system can't tighten up the ads based on navigation. For example in Evil Scots comment I would accept a route along the lines of:

Go to <enter name of> a website - I get ads for general care products of varying kinds

Go to the section on, or search for shavers - I get ads for shavers, razors etc.

Select a filter for beard care - I get ads for beard trimmers only, or the odd one for general shavers including beard trimmers

Go to a site about barbecuing - I get general ads for BBQ tools, rubs and sauces, temperature gauges for food.......

Go to the section on charcoal BBQs - I get ads for accessories for tools, charcoal, rotisseries....

Go to the section for Kamado charcoal grills - I get adds for heat deflectors, lumpwood charcoal, heat deflectors.....

and so on.

What really annoys me though is when I get a cookie alert because my cookie blocker can't automatically respond saying no to all cookies, and then there is a list of different options and you have to go through each one saying no. I tend not to go back to these, ever.

It should be a case of go to site, get a pop-up (if you don't have a cookie blocker) with perhaps 3 options (at most) . Accept all cookies, block all cookies, allow cookies required to use the site that are only valid for the time on the site. If you navigate away and come back then you start again.

Man wrongly jailed by facial recognition, lawyer claims


Am I overly cynical?

After all the incidents in the last few years I have to say I'm surprised:

1) He was only in jail for a week

2) They didn't charge him for wasting police time and resources

3) He wasn't taken out back to be 'taught a lesson' for refusing to admit his guilt for a crime he didn't commit

4) They didn't give him 'more lessons' when he moved after the first set of 'lessons' for resisting

5) 'Accidentally discharge' a pistol during the 'lessons' which had the unfortunate effect of killing him, the blaming him because he tried to stand up which caused the pistol to load itself and jump into the officers hands by magic.

<sarcasm>End of the day it's his own fault for being in the good old US of A when the burglaries took place, and he deserves everything he got.</sarcasm>

Possibly the worst thing is unless he has a fortune he won't be able to afford to take them to court and be compensated for wrongful arrest, wrongful imprisonment, loss of earnings, mental trauma ...........

Icon - Sherlock would have got the right man in the first place.

India's – and Infosys's – favorite son-in-law Rishi Sunak is next UK PM


Re: You're all smart people (cough cough)

Congratulations Dave, you've just proven the title correct.

Most people - You're all smart people

People like Dave - (cough cough)

If you want to accuse people of fascism, being far right scum et al then you could at least try and provide some tenuous link to the subject in hand? If you just want to show what a proud communist you are then there are probably much better alternatives then El Reg.


You're all smart people (cough cough)

so can anyone explain something to me?

'Murthy used legal but cynical tax minimization practices........'

As I understand it Murthy paid taxes in India on earnings in India, and paid taxes in the UK on earnings in the UK - why was this wrong? In other words she should pay the taxes where she currently lives (where she is based) rather than where the money is earned. The answer because Murthy has sheds load of money is not an acceptable response.

On the basis that a corporation is deemed as a person in law for many cases (such as tax) why should the likes of Amazon or Starbucks or <insert large international company> be under pressure to pay taxes in the country the earnings are made rather than where the parent company is based (USA) or via lower taxation route such as ROI.

These seem to be the exact opposite of each other but because Blighty would benefit Murthy was being cynical by not paying extra taxes here.

Don't get me wrong I think taxes should be paid in the country where the money is earned / made but then why should someone have to pay taxes in the UK on the money earned in another country? What if it is someone who earns significantly less, or does it not matter because it is only a small amount / there is no embarrassment factor ?

Amazon hit with $1bn claim that secretive Buy Box algorithm screws shoppers


Raise a lawsuit or open your eyes and mind a little

Don't get me wrong, Amazon will use any tactics they can to increase profits - they are a business after all however there are a few obvious issues with this from what I can see.

Amazon put forward their preferred company to fulfil an order. Next to the buy it box there is (where alternative suppliers exist) a script that states you may be able to get this cheaper by using a different supplier. If you choose the convenience of just selecting buy it now then you take the risk of paying more, but they do advise this option is there.

The other thing is if you go to a retail park with 2 supermarkets should each one have next to each product (that it applies to) that it is cheaper at the other supermarket? Should there be a person there to point this out to you, or flashing red lights to warn you away from the product?

Ultimately you want to buy a product, the company supplying that product says you can have it for this much money, you then decide if you are willing to pay that amount. If you are they get your money and you (hopefully) get the product in good working order, or means of getting it replaced / refund if there is a fault. If you aren't they don't get the money and you don't get the product. You can then freely look elsewhere for the specific or similar product at a price you are prepared to pay, or hunt for the cheapest option and get it that way. Amazon are under no obligation to tell you can get things for less elsewhere.

Nadine Dorries promotes 'Brexit rewards' of proposed UK data protection law


Proportional security

giving organizations the flexibility to protect personal data in more proportionate ways rather than forcing them to all follow the same processes regardless of their size.

is the bit that most worries me. How can protection of personal data be proportional based on the size of the company? Forget about the overall GDPR implications and data transfer to the EU (bad enough as that is). Is it a case of:

a) Company has 1,000 customers - security is putting that list you printed on the drawer and locking it

b) Company has 10,000 customers - the drawer must be replaced by a safe and the servers have to be unplugged every night and locked away

c) Company has 100,000 customers - the company has to have an anti-virus package installed

d) company has 1,000,000 customers - have every request coming into the company network scrutinised to make sure it is both safe and legitimate. Have security bots on standby to race back down the network and blow up the computer of anyone who tries to access with nefarious intentions, notify the police who will have a special team on standby just to respond to imminent threats of this nature before they cause any harm. Oh, and send a drone to the source location to blow up the source if the police are already busy. Best make the explosive a nuke to make sure they get the miscreants and don't worry about collateral damage. It can't be helped if it keeps the country safe.

If you are a customer that falls into option a or b, don't worry I'm sure the lock will be super duper strong. You're data will still be safe, honest. What do you take me for?

(Can you spot the sarcasm?)

Burger King just sent spam receipts to customers


Re: I'm surprised this hasn't happened more often

But that's the point - give you a choice by all means, but don't assume there is something wrong with you for picking one option over another.

As for spamming not all companies have the same high regard(?) for their customers as John Lewis and M&S and how would you know what they will do with your details prior to them doing it? Are seriously going to ask for, read and digest the terms and conditions in a shop before deciding whether to hand over your email address?

Big Brother

I'm surprised this hasn't happened more often

I always get a weird look when I buy something in a shop these days and say no to giving my email address so they can send me a copy of my receipt. It's as if I should be ashamed to be perfectly happy with a good old fashioned paper one.

I even had an argument at one shop when I was returning an order (click and collect return) for my wife and was told I couldn't get a paper receipt, it had to be emailed and it was only resolved when another shop assistant came over whom I'd dealt with a couple of weeks earlier who calmly picked up the scanner and printed out a receipt for me.

There should be no pressure when making a purchase in a shop to give them more info that they can use to profile people, beyond what I choose to give or not give them.

Bloke robbed of $800,000 in cryptocurrency by fake wallet app wants payback from Google


Re: Pearlman

It isn't that clear what the reporter is talking about but I have to disagree based on the comment

and notwithstanding Google’s obvious notice that it was offering fraudulent 'Phantom Wallet' apps for download

To be fair to Google ti sounds like they identified a problem and were dealing with it (arguably ineffectively) but whilst getting the filters, systems or whatever sorted they put up a warning. If you choose to ignore that warning is it really their fault?

As an example you go to the zoo and they have signs up saying do not feed the lions. You put your arm through the bars to give the lion a <food item> and the lion bites your arm off. Is it the zoo's fault that you ignored the warnings because the bars are wide enough you can get your arm through?

Generally Google are no saints but at some point people may start to realise again there is such a thing as personal responsibility.

I've been fired, says engineer who claimed Google chatbot was sentient


Firstly our company policy is now to refer to they, them, theirs and not use he, she etc.

Back to the main point, all these people talking about being on the back of the Great A'tuin should be ashamed of themselves. This planet is round - it is called Roundworld for a reason - and can be found in a crystal ball, probably on the Arch Chancellors desk, if he hasn't given it to Rincewind for some reason.

Russian ChessBot breaks child opponent's finger


it just me or .....

did anyone else have the thought 'Is the child Ukrainian?'

Break their trigger fingers early so they can't fight later on. Hope the youngsters finger mends without any problems, and he / she continues playing chess into the future without and trauma from the incident.

British intelligence recycles old argument for thwarting strong encryption: Think of the children!


Google* Golden Opportunity?

since non-governmental organizations could be used to moderate the scanning of personal information and

Her Majesty's Government has no intention of picking up the tab for this project, nor overseeing its operation

Company x is now going to monitor all encrypted communications, since the government will not oversee the operation it will be an entirely private company affair - think of all the additional data a company such as Google* could get for marketing opportunities as a result, which would of course be acceptable as their revenue stream for doing all this work.

They definitely would NOT abuse it in any way of course.

* Other companies are available to abuse your personal data

Twitter sues Musk: He can't just 'change his mind, trash the company, walk away'


Re: Why aren't Twitter happy

I think comment They really are a very strange company... would be truer if they were happy.

End of the day the board accepted an offer in good faith and agreed a contract for the purchase of the company in the interest of Shareholders (which will of course include them through share schemes and options) which they are required to do.

Elon comes along makes an offer which is refused and comes back with a better offer, which is accepted.

He waives the right of due diligence as part of the agreement.

He then makes all kinds of comments through social media which has a negative impact on the 'real' share price.

He then comes up with a spurious objection of spam bots being rife.

Twitter explain how they come by their figures on the number of bots, although they technically didn't need to due to waiving of due diligence by Elon

Elon uses the Trump clause - ' I don't believe them, it's fake figures' - to get out of the agreement

Twitter call his bluff and sue for the contract to be enforced

I think at the very least Musk should be made to pay the $1 billion as agreed in the contract, plus the difference in share price between his offer and the price at the time of a legal decision being made due to his blatant attempt to manipulate the market share price.

The SEC should then launch a full investigation into his actions and comments from the view of attempts to illegally influence the value of a company.

UK signs deal to share police biometric database with US border guards


I know Scotland has traditionally not been best known for it's healthcare - hence all the jokes about fruit and vegetables (or lack of) from other areas of the UK, but I didn't think it was so bad that a generation was only 8 years.

The last referendum was based on a once in a generation vote, not a once in a generation vote unless those who want independence lose and so get another vote every few years (based on the Sturgeon harping since the last one) until they get what they want, then stop any further votes no doubt to re-join the union.

As a regular traveller to Scotland to see family I suggest instead of spending shed loads of money demanding then (legally or otherwise) running Indyref2 Scottish Parliament spend the money on things that matter - healthcare, economy etc. or even fix some of the potholes that plague the country. It is amazing how even on the A74(M) there are potholes that have been there for months that still haven't been repaired.

I joke with my wife that it is just as well the Scottish get free prescriptions. They need them so they can save money up for the repairs to cars going to pick them up. It would also be useful if Sturgeon explained how she will pay for it all since Indyref1 was all going to be paid for by oil money, then the oil prices promptly collapsed.

UK's Post Office shells out for SAP software it thought it had


Re: Nice business you've got there squire...

So you are saying it is all due to shady practices by SAP?

I'd argue it is the Post office at fault for not doing due diligence on the contract.

If I am spending that kind of money I make sure I know exactly what I am getting, and will go out to site to make sure what is delivered is to spec.

The story quotes they were 'significantly under licensed', had significant negotiations to significantly reduce compliance costs, which only meant they reached compliance and no other business benefits were included. Shame they didn't spend any time significantly reviewing what they got from the reseller to make sure everything they needed was included but left as an expectation that the reseller would provide additional services, so obviously not checked.

You'd think they'd be more careful in how they operate, especially after the significant impact they had on employees with the Horizon failures.

Concerns that £360m data platform for NHS England is being set up to fail


Am I being stupid?

Whilst I like to keep up with IT issues generally I am only good at dealing with issues at a single local PC level, so bearing that in mind am I just being stupid with the next question?

Why do Palantir (or whoever ends up building the system) need access to the data at all? I can understand them needing dummy data for testing purposes but why can't they build the system and hand it to the NHS groups who then have people trained on the system to provide ongoing support from within the NHS itself. That way the data is kept integral to the doctors, hospitals etc. who need access to undertake their role but it centralised with no access by a 3rd party.

Worst case a major system fault appears and Palantir' specialist engineers' need to be drafter in to provide additional support resolving the problem, but they shouldn't need to take live data off the system, and shouldn't be allowed to.

Salesforce staff back an end to its relationship with NRA


Re: Or to put it another way ...

Good old BombAStic misplaced CAPITALS for THE sake of IT Bob

On the bright side after they kiss your '.....freedom lovin' buttocks' they are already at the right height to go straight to Trumpy Wumpys orange behind for a bit of extra lovin'. If either of you are unlucky though they might just shove a rifle up there instead since Republicans seem to love there guns so much.


Re: "How do we protect our 2nd amendment & our kids at the same time? "

I agree with John on this. Jake you need to look at the context. The basic premise is that more and more bad things are due to mental health or wellbeing so 'It isn't my <the perpetrator not the victim> fault that I just killed all those people'.

On general principles there are 2 arguments being made:

1) Limit the sale of assault type weapons, increase background checks, increase the age at which a gun of whatever type can be purchased.

2) By guns, buy more guns, buy as much ammunition as you can, then buy some more guns.....

The premise of option 2 is that if you have guns you can defend yourself (theoretically at least in line with the 2nd amendment), however the more guns that are available without reasonable controls, the more likely it is someone who is mentally unstable will acquire one and go on a shooting rampage.

Jake, your argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people is correct as far as it goes but the argument can't stop there. Ultimately making guns freely available leads to more of the bad (define this how you wish) guys getting those weapons and using them, they can break into a house and steal them then use them etc. This only works if people have guns available to be stolen.

The counter argument that if you take peoples guns away from them means only the bad guys have guns is also a valid argument, but again taking it a step further if you have a gun then you are a bad guy. It is easier to identify you as such and then take the relevant action to prevent you from doing harm.

I can see the American need to hold to the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, but it is an amendment so why can't it be further amended?

The Republicans are for more guns as far as I can see, don't want to allow more checks to take place, etc. This doesn't make sense. If you don't want to infringe on the normal persons rights to bear arms fine but why stop or restrict background checks which would stop at least some of the people who want to go a mass killing spree?

As has been mentioned above the UK only allow guns (primarily rifles) for certain activities such as pest control by farmers or sports shooting in controlled circumstances. Anyone else would have to explain why they have a weapon of any kind - this includes knives. If you get stopped and searched by the pollice you better have a good reason for carrying. Having said that you can carry a knife for example if you have a valid reason. I occasionally carry one for specific task at work which is legal, but I can't legally carry that knife at any other time. Rules also apply to the type of knife and it's use.

A bit of a rant, but I think Americans need to take a long hard look at what type of weapons they can access, how easily, and the devastating impact those weapons have when used for the wrong reasons by people who have 'issues' of some type and whether your personal right to live and bear arms outweighs the right of other people to be able to live at all.

Google Russia goes broke after bank account snatched


Re: Seize Russian ships

If it wasn't for this being a rant against the GOP I'd almost think it had been written by Bob, although there probably aren't enough words IN CAPITALS just for the sake of it.

Anyway as far as See the new Ted Cruz/GOP Supreme Court ruling is concerned my understanding is that it allows the politician to recoup essentially up front costs. There are a lot of potential problems for fraud etc. but that is to be seen,

The idea is that someone who wants to go into politics but isn't well known is at a distinct disadvantage - this law allows them to front load the costs themselves, then claim the money back later from donations. You still have to have the money upfront which will stop most people from coming forward but it allows you to enter the election cycle. If you aren't well known (in political circles especially) you won't get donations from people, until you become well known. How do you become well known? By spending lots of money on advertising, except you can't until you get the donations to pay for it, which you can't get because nobody knows about you. By fronting the costs yourself you can become well known, get donations and pay of the early costs.

Some people, like the orange one, would probably say this is the bestest idea in the world, and he thought of it before anybody else and was going to have the biggliest discussion about it when he got re-elected, except he didn't - he lost, threw his dummy in the corner and still complains how he was robbed. Now he would almost certainly try to use it to feed money back to himself for his own personal debts. Implementation will be, as with so many things, key and law makers will need to be vigilant that the idea isn't abused - that doesn't make it a bad idea though.

Good luck America, I think you'll need it.....

Microsoft, Apple, Google accelerate push to eliminate passwords


It's just you that's an idiot

Sorry you did say - have a pint as an apology ----->

I thought exactly the same how can systems access be more secure using a numeric password with each position having 10 options than one that has 36 lower case, 36 upper case, 10 numeric and whichever special characters may be allowed - so a minimum of 82 possible options for each position.

Also how many people (general public) will just use the same 'pin' number or worse default to 1111 or 1234 (extending to the number of characters needed - i.e. six being 111111 or eight being 12345678)

Brocade wrongly sacked award-winning salesman who depended on company insurance for cancer treatment


Make the company pay

The company should be made liable for any and all ongoing costs for medical treatment.

If he is unable to get cover himself because of the condition which was covered at the time of employment, and he is unable to reasonably replace that cover then the company should pick treatments costs up, or pay any health insurance payments (regardless of how excessive ) to provide him with the same level of cover.

UK.gov emits draft IoT and smartphone security law for Parliamentary scrutiny


How will it work?

It's a nice idea, if it could made to work. There are 4 main pitfalls I can see:

1) How to undertake enforcement with the Chinese manufacturers

2) You move the goal posts and say it si the sellers responsibility to ensure the IoT toy complies - How many of these sellers will even be aware of the requirements? How can they in turn force the company to implement proper security at point of manufacture?

3) How do you backdate this against the millions (billions?) of devices already out there. If you can't are the manufacturers subject to fines, and if you can how to get all the users to update the devices?

4) When it comes to phones etc. will there be a time limit to push out security updates? How long would a company have to offer support - to be truly effective it would have to be until the last device stops working, and how would they know? It can be hard enough to get an update now, because each company has to work the code into their version of Android (Apple obviously only have themselves to deal with) which they use to justify delayed security updates now, and then they only provide updates in many case for perhaps 2 years.

Google swats away £3bn Safari Workaround ad-tracking cookie lawsuit in Supreme Court victory


Re: You fucking liar

If she kept a straight face I definitely want to play poker with her.

I nearly choked when I read this bit, just because it is such a bare faced lie*

*Unless of course she was referring to all those 'other people' who would collect and abuse your data. Google of course wouldn't as they are such a responsible company.

*Choke* *Choke* Silence.................

Apple says it will no longer punish those daring to repair their iPhone 13 screens


Who is right

Commentard A states 'Apple repair costs are cheap'

Commentard B states 'super-expensive official Apple repairs'

Could both be right because one has money to burn and thinks anything less than the cost of a new phone is 'cheap', whilst the other has a better appreciation of the value of things.

T3* claims the cost of replacing the screen is between £216 and £316 depending on the iPhone 13 version - how can anyone consider this to be cheap for what is one of the most likely parts of the screen to get damaged?

I know you can protect it to some extent by using a screen protector or fold over case, but neither of these are fool proof and if you do break the screen the cost of replacing it is anything but cheap.

Anything that can be done to challenge these kinds of costs for anyone who is happy to be locked into the Apple eco system can only be a good thing.


Facebook sues scraper who sold 178 million phone numbers and user IDs


I think you missed something. If you print out the full T&C's then go to:

Page 382

section 163

sub section 8

part iv

sub section 2

clause a

it clearly states

The person of the 3rd person is hereby notified of the person in the 1st person by way of section 86, sub section 12, sub sub section 15 clause D that the permitted use of data is subject to paragraph 83iiii where activities that meet section 181 where it does not conflict with section 14 unless exceptions as listed in Appendix R, part 15a, will be classed under the 4th person justification of authorisation by notification of the 3rd person relating to the 2nd person under section 199 subject to clause 23a part xiv of section 99 excluding conflict under the 5th person position against the 3rd person in accordance with section 118 of the codex of standardised field excavation operational impacts on clause 55 of section 87 of the 2nd person prioritised solution based incentivising of the 4th person except where prior exclusions apply where accompanied by supporting evidence in the agreed format according to Appendix V.

That should clearly let you know your position with regard to how we are able to use any data that becomes available to us.

Computer and data scientists should be as highly regarded as 'warriors' says top UK cybergeneral


Re: More window dressing as specialist personnel get pushed out of posts

Thank you, have a beer on me. ------------->

I've just won the team B*llsh1t Bingo off one post by a commentard.

My previous best was 3 posts.

Why tell the doctor where it hurts, when you could use emoji instead?


I rarely use emojis (only on messages to my wife or she thinks I don't love her enough xxx just isn''t the same :) )

I didn't down vote the original post as I could understand what you meant, but have an up vote to offset the down votes you got.

Apple didn't engage with the infosec world on CSAM scanning – so get used to a slow drip feed of revelations


Pot Kettle Black

If you are going to pull somebody up on their spelling, essentially on their English language skills, I would make 2 points:

1 - Show some tolerance. People make mistakes, and due to how the brain works could re-read what they have written several times and not notice the error. Alternatively English may not be their first language.

2 - Before commenting on others skill perhaps you should brush up on your English grammar?

why does this need to be done on device, if its only for photos uploaded to the icloud, why not just scan for the photos when they hit Apples servers and leave the privacy in place on the device?

FTFY version - Why does this need to be done on device? If it's only for photos uploaded to the iCloud, why not.......

Google staff who work from home might see pay cut under corporate policy – reports


Re: Childcare

The office worker has commuting costs that the WFH doesn't.

The WFH has additional heating, lighting and general power bills (including the company supplied laptop, printer etc.) the office worker doesn't.

So on that basis should there not be an assessment of additional costs per person that include ALL incidentals.

For example I still work on site or in an office (depending on what I am doing). I have a company vehicle so no commuting costs. My wife is currently WFH - last winter we used around 30% more electricity than usual, and around 3 times more heating oil (doesn't help that she likes to be warm whilst still having windows open for fresh air). Her company uses mainly drop in centres so only pay for when they are used. Should I (and my wife) have to pick up the extra costs incurred whilst she works at home, when the company is saving money by not having to pay for the drop in sites that aren't being utilised - and then she take a pay cut because she is working from home?

Apple is about to start scanning iPhone users' devices for banned content, professor warns



Apple will not hold an unencrypted copy of the database:)

Apple will have the ability to remove files from the database and decrypt them, but the database itself will remain encrypted.

"Only to the usual Apple haters and the terminally paranoid"

Does terminally paranoid mean you aren't paranoid enough? After all you were paranoid and thought everyone was out to get you. You were right but didn't take enough precautions and they got you.

Happy 'Freedom Day': Stats suggest many in England don't want it or think it's a terrible idea


Re: Well?

If this were Facebook I wouldn't be here.

NHS England staff voice concerns about access controls on US spy-tech firm Palantir's COVID-19 data store


Re: blah, blah, blah

What has that got to do with Palantir?

The only reference to Brexit is 'Palantir was named along with fellow providers Microsoft, Google, and AWS, as well as Faculty, a UK analytics firm with links to the Vote Leave Brexit referendum campaign.' which just shows that it an analytics company which is one of a group of analytics companies - one of which (Faculty) was involved with Brexit. I don't particularly see why they put this in as I don't see any relevance to the story but there is no suggestion of any vote cheating or rigging mentioned.

I was fired for telling ICO of Serco track and trace data breach, claims sacked worker

Big Brother

Re: Avoidance of responsibility

I agree with the umbrella POV but not the direct employment bit, and it isn't all bad news - there is a reason people use umbrella companies, usually for short term gain.

I work for a large company and in the area I work in we have at the base level 2 people who work through an employment agency. This is to provide flexibility in the workforce, and in over 10 years I have only seen 1 person on that contract lose their job which was because they didn't give a damn. Extra support was put in, extra time spent with the the person and after 6 months we gave up and let them go then took on someone else from the same agency. On average they are with the agency for 12 months (max 2 years) before being offered a permanent contract with us as people move roles.

The agency gives people an option of 'working' directly for them or through an umbrella company. If they go via the umbrella company they get a load of tax breaks, some of which I think are legally dubious. These include a meal allowance every day of £5, tax relief on travel because they work at different locations - this ignores the fact they travel to the same start location every day and then use a company vehicle to travel to whichever sites they are working on.

Personally I think that umbrella companies should be banned as best case they screw the tax office or their employees. Worst case they screw both.

Campaigners warn of an 'algorithm-driven censorship' future if UK Online Safety Bill gets through Parliament


Re: just a fucking moment

It's always nice to see a well reasoned argument, based on facts, even if I disagree with the posters view.

Unfortunately an anonymous poster spouting a load of swearing abuse just for the sake of it isn't nice to see nor does it add anything to the conversation. I am trying to work out if I feel more sorry for the OP or the people who up voted the comment.

I could just be feeling sorry for myself for having wasted part of my life reading and then responding to this rubbish.

Amazon warehouse workers are seriously injured more frequently than those at similar companies – unions

Big Brother

Re: It’s the whips

See, it's that kind of liberal minded lily livered thinking that let's everyone down.

The answer of course is to use the whips more and more. What they need to do though is take the spikes and hooks off the ends so the workers don't bleed as much, then they won't have people slipping and falling all over the place.

Alternatively they could get some robot floor cleaners that dry the floor as they mop it, although knowing those stupid clunky humans that are so inefficient they would probably fall over the floor cleaners instead.

/Sarcasm (just in case)

Waymo self-driving robotaxi goes rogue with passenger inside, escapes support staff


Simple Answer To The Problem

BOFH had Waymo better ways of dealing with a problem like this 20 years ago


Trump's overhaul of Section 230 stalls, Biden may just throw the web legal shield on the bonfire anyway


Re: Dear Chief Justice of the USA...

It would be better if Mike Pence were to read out all the votes then look at Trump and say'

That concludes the tally of votes, you're fired'


Missing the point

I'm no fan of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram.........

Having said that I would agree that protections need to be in place, if for no other reason than to allow free speech whether in the good old(?) US of A or elsewhere. They could be modified to require more stringent reviewing and removing of posts that breech certain guidelines, but the Trump would need to permanently shut down all his media feeds until he could show he is able to actually behave like an adult and not a spoiled brat. The problem is Twitter et al are trying to do a reasonable job by not banning him, and just reporting his posts as being disputed by referring to fact checking info. For someone who lies more often than I speak that is a major stumbling block.

Ultimately the best thing may not be Biden as President, but that will be sooooooo much better that trump having another 4 years with the constant lies and vitriol that comes out of his mouth and fingers. His whole thought process seems to be I said it so it is true. What do you mean you want proof? I just said it so it is de facto the truth. If you disagree you are fake news. I won the election because I said I did. I keep telling everybody about the large scale fraud, except in court hearings where I have to (or my lawyers speaking on my behalf) legally tell the truth so don't mention it there because they are complete bastards, all of them and will want us to show some kind of evidence. Why don't they just accept my word for it?

It would be so much easier if Section 230 was repealed then I could say what I like and nobody could stop me in any way, and certainly not refer people to those lies others keep coming out with. What's the name for them again.............oh yeah now I remember - FACTS.

Then because he has the backing of what appears to be the dumb and stupid of America he has the Republicans bowing down to him in case he says they are bad people and they lose their next election. The total lack of culpability is astounding in what self proclaims to be the greatest democracy in the world.

As Uncle Sam flies spy drones over protest-packed cities, Homeland Security asks the public if that's a good idea


Re: I submitted my comment

Its such a shame you descended into abuse of Europeans as I agree that the 2 sentences are not mutually exclusive.

I can give my opinion anonymously, but I can waive that anonymity if I so choose is not the same as I have to give identifying information in order to give my opinion.

The only caveat is that if you do give any information you might as well give it all as it will all be linked on some database somewhere so it is arguably an all or nothing proposition. Using Tor is irrelevant as soon as you give your email address, but that is again a choice.

I would like to know if they filter the responses so that any that can be identified as coming through Tor are ignored as they could have come from another country.

Creeps give away money to harass recipients with abusive transaction descriptions on bank statements


Re: Three months early

I take it AC you are anonymous for a reason so you can do a bit of trolling - answer the below points if you would be so kind:

1) How is it anecdotal tripe? As I stated these are things I witnessed personally, not heard about specifically around the area of Hoppers Crossing

2) Where did I state domestic violence was greater in Australia? Where did I compare it to Europe or N.America?

3) Where did I make any comment about Aussies being wife beaters or red necks?

That's right I didn't make any of the comments you ignorantly suggested I did. I also clearly stated this was the situation I witnessed 10 years ago, not how it is today.

Please be careful you don't choke on your own tripe as it slithers back down your throat.


Re: One solution...

The only reason I can see for down voting (which I didn't do as I agree with the underlying principle) is that the vulnerable person doesn't see the middle account. It is highly likely that the alleged abuser already has the persons real bank details.

I would suggest you idea holds if the vulnerable person is given a new account which mirrors the existing account so any activity is matched on both saving the person having to update bank details with others unnecessarily as payments continue to go in and out the original account.

The original account would then have a flag on it for any inappropriate references which could allow money to go through but block the sender details which are then referred to the police who would possibly have a case file that could be used to then chase the abuser down.

2 problems - Would the bank want to take on the extra complexity and costs first of all as there isn't any real benefit to them beyond a customer service aspect (shouldn't be underrated)

The second problem is the referral to the police where experience suggests it will fall flat on it's face.

I have a friend who separated and then divorced her husband. He has then failed to pay any maintenance for their son but continues to drive around where she lives, sit in the car park where she works (out of town shop) hours before the store opens,send abuse from and his new partner etc. etc.

The police have taken all the evidence promising action would be taken, including an arrest, warnings and possible court action for harassment then decided they couldn't do anything despite all the evidence and it would need to be a civil action. When another incident occurred the police comment was they didn't know how no action had been taken but couldn't find the ex-husband, then got an address and didn't take action. The cycle still continues.

Child maintenance charge my friend for guaranteeing payment of child support, they have investigated the ex husband and worked out he owes over £5,000 back payments. In 2 years they recovered exactly zero but when he does make the odd small payment they take their cut for 'handling it'.

If the authorities took proper action then the banks might review it and decide there is a basis for putting in protections as there would be action at the end of it, otherwise why spend the money / investment in systems when nothing else will be done to stop the alleged perpetrator continuing what they are doing?


Re: Three months early

Having lived in Oz for several years I feel I can give a qualified response (10 years since I was there) that there is a lot of abuse and domestic violence there. Around that time it was in the news a lot about the misogynistic attitude of male politicians.

Part of the problem I witnessed was that they still had attitudes found in the UK in the 60's. The 'Sheila' at home bringing up the kids and doing the chores whilst the 'man of the house' earns the money, then drinks most of it.

If politicians think that attitude is acceptable would it really be that surprising if the voters do?

I don't know if it is still as bad - hopefully not - but I would like to know why the investigation ended early, only for a new one to be set up.

Tech set responds in wake of American protests, police violence and civil unrest


Re: "Sons of Obama"

I'm not sure which is worse. The comment made by EDE, or the fact that it has been upvoted 4 times (at time of writing).

Broken your new Surface Go 2 already? Looks like it's a bit more repairable this time


I suspect not

I think this should have read something like:

"The MicroSDXC reader can be removed easily enough. Along with the cameras, the USB and Surface Connect ports remain soldered in place."

Or a slightly less wordy option:

"The MicroSDXC reader can be removed easily enough. The cameras, the USB and Surface Connect ports remain soldered in place."

Based on these interpretations I would say they can't be removed easily.

UK COVID-19 contact-tracing app data may be kept for 'research' after crisis ends, MPs told


Re: No chance

What is a government department doing sending a mailshot to just one party's members?

Except if you bother to read it, it wasn't sent by a government department. It was sent by Matt Hancock as a member of the Conservative Party, specifically from bulletins@updates.e-mail.conservatives.com not H.M. Government

Arguably it shouldn't have been sent with the name of a government officials name attached to it, but it doesn't change the fact it was sent by the Tories to their party members not from the government to Tory party members. It could be said his name was used as the person defining the policy on testing - personally I still don't think it should be sent in his name but perhaps cut to the chase and comment on how the Tories should have sent it just from a generic email account.


Re: No chance

Disclaimer: I am a key worker but not a Tory. I am eligible for testing at any time but have not received an email from the Tories telling me this.

What you have described is typical distortion of the facts for political ends, I would even go as far as it being a good example of Trumpism. From what I can see it is a notification sent out by a political party to it's registered members to inform them that testing availability has been expanded and that they may now qualify.

It is the same message the government has been reporting through daily briefings, and hence through other source such as the news and news papers.

There is nothing stopping other political parties, or other interest groups for that matter, doing the same.

There is no preferential treatment offered or suggested, just information which is very much in the public domain being sent directly to people who have registered to receive information from a particular interest group.

Alternatively people would complain they received an email like this without having given express permission to be contacted - and how did the government get my email address anyway..........

Things could be better, they could be worse but comments like yours only come down on one side of the balance.

The Great British anti-5G fruitcake Bakeoff: Group hugs, no guns, and David Icke


No win possible?

As Roo states the WHO are a coordinating entity and based their comments on available confirmed information. Can they really be blamed for not saying it is China human to human transmission at fault because Taiwan said so.

Arguably China could have been assumed to be lying but the WHO explicitly stated that China had advised there was no evidence, they didn't say definitively that there was no evidence.

The same with the Pandemic status which iirc basically went through a process of x number of reported infections, something to be concerned about, now we would class it as an epidemic but not enough confirmed victims over a large enough area to be a pandemic, those criteria have been met and it is now officially a pandemic. They not only set their criteria for each stage but explained why a stage hadn't been reached at a given point in time.

The there is the whole 'Shouting Wolf' syndrome. If they had gone earlier with the pandemic status more live almost certainly would have been saved and number of infections would have been reduced. They would then have been accused of over reacting then in the future when they call a pandemic they would be ignored, except as a result the wolf and all his / her friends turn up and have a jolly good time ripping everyone's throats out because everyone thought it was just another false alarm and not as serious as was being made out.

America is a perfect example of this. The number of cases and deaths are lower than expected due to lock downs but a number of Republicans are saying the small number of cases show the lock downs were an over reaction rather than an effective method of dealing with the virus spread. Next time a lock down is called how many people will take it seriously?