* Posts by Cereberus

88 posts • joined 23 Apr 2015

Page:

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

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

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.

*https://www.t3.com/news/watch-out-third-party-iphone-13-screen-repairs-can-break-face-id

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

Cereberus
Devil

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

Cereberus
Pint

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?

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

Semantics

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

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

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

Cereberus
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

Cereberus

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

Cereberus
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

Cereberus
Joke

Simple Answer To The Problem

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

https://www.theregister.com/2001/04/11/bofh_my_mate_automate/

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

Cereberus

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'

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

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.

Cereberus

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?

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

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).

Trump issues toothless exec order to show donors, fans he's doing something about those Twitter twerps

Cereberus
Happy

Re: Hitler, literally

Can I show them the difference between Hitler and Trump, using practical examples?

Cereberus

Re: Hitler, literally

I really don't see any comparison, and you denigrate the memories of all those who died from Hitler's policies by doing so - I've also tried to find your sarcasm tags but failed.

Trump is just a poor (in my view) imitation of what POTUS should be, who likes to shoot his mouth off with total disregard for how true his comments are, providing evidence to support his comments or appreciation of the impact of his comments. His basis for his tweets appears to be purely based around what he thinks his base wants to hear.

Hitler on the other hand had specific calls with the aim of removing certain groups within the human race.

But lets take a look at some of your points supplied without evidence:

<Some sarcasm>

First he locked up all the blacks and transsexuals

When did this happen? There have arguably always been racial issues / LGBTQ issues but how many of these people have been locked up?

put all the women back into homes and kitchens

Again, when did this happen. More importantly how did it happen. Did he pass an executive order or something? Is Ivanka really a man in drag and what is she doing out of the house? Should she not be in jail as a possible transvestite if she shouldn't be in the house?

by killing more than 100.000 Americans with Clorox injections

I thought it was Covid-19 which had killed these people, or at least contributed to their deaths. Did Donald personally go round and inject each of these people with Clorox? How did he disguise it as a virulent disease that results from Coronavirus. How did he get around all these people without someone realising?

</Sarcasm>

Annoying..........................Yes

Childish name caller ........Yes

Proven liar........................Yes

(By his statements) the best at everything in the entire world........debatable

Worse than Hitler, literally.....Very much not

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

Cereberus

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

Cereberus

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.

Cereberus
Facepalm

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

Cereberus

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?

Royal Navy nuclear submarine captain rapped for letting crew throw shoreside BBQ party

Cereberus
Joke

Re: Same property?

<SARCASM> (shouted just to be safe)

But they left the confines of their backyard / garden / home for the last 9 months or so.

How dare they be so blase about the risk they have put themselves and the rest of the country under by being definitely free of the virus and in the open air near nobody else.

Don't they realise that they were putting nobody at risk including themselves and the public - such shameful behaviour should result in them all being keel hauled whilst the sub is at sea after being made to climb out a torpedo tube.

And what about future risk - they may get the virus and not realise then go back to sea and dock in a port in another country and spread the disease there - it's not like it is already a pandemic or anything.

Who do they think they are anyway - just because they finish a tour of duty they think they can then just relax and enjoy themselves - they should be protecting our country not resting from a long tour.

</SARCASM>

Dixons Carphone top brass take 20% pay cut as swathes of Brit workforce furloughed

Cereberus

Re: What is this furloughing?

After the useful comment from the ever so friendly AC furloughing generally is unpaid leave, whilst still remaining technically employed by a company, and not doing any work for that company.

In this case it is a little different as if an employee is furloughed they are not allowed to do any work, and will receive 80% of their normal annual pay (not including extras like overtime as far as I know) which the employer claims back from the government - this payment being restricted to a maximum of £2,500 per month.

The idea is that when the lock down is lifted and businesses can get back to work they have the staff still in place and in the meantime haven't gone bust due to the cost of wages, operating cost (to a greater or lesser extent) etc.

Bose shouts down claims that it borked noise cancellation firmware to sell more headphones

Cereberus

Re: @EVP

All I can say is follow the link:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/07/bofh_2017_episode_9/

UK judge gives Google a choice: Either let SEO expert read your ranking algos or withdraw High Court evidence

Cereberus

Re: Hobson's choice

I thought the same thing, then I thought some more and came up with:

Surely it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that someone who no longer works as an SEO could be appointed by Foundem to review the code independently, (could have moved to a different field or retired) and who could also be subject to an NDA so they can't pass info to another SEO to make use of any info they see.

Google would then either have to adhere to the judges decision (either way) or show how he code is of commercial relevance 14 years later in such a fast moving area.

Resellers facing 'months' of delays for orders to be fulfilled. IT gathers dust on docks as coronavirus-stricken China goes back to work

Cereberus

Re: Just an FYI

Whilst the figures may be correct it still feels to me like you are scare mongering..

The figures quoted are confirmed cases as reported by the various countries, health agencies, etc. and does not include any kind of margin of error which is quite an important factor when throwing these kind of statistics around.

Firstly the quoted mortality is believed to be around 2% overall.

Not 1%

Not 0.1%

Not 3.6% either

There is a reasonable position that the actual mortality rate will be less than this. Take the UK for example, just over 596 confirmed cases with 10 people having dies so far so slightly over 2%. It is believed there may be 5,000 to 10,000 people infected without realising who think they have a cold or flu. Taking the lower figure that would mean the mortality rate would be something like 0.2% of those affected and not of the population

Globally it will obviously differ due to the effectiveness of dealing with the problem, and the local health services capabilities but throwing out unsubstantiated figures doesn't help.

Also quoting the increase in cases as a major issue won't help. Anyone following the details will be more than aware the figures are expected to ramp up to potentially extremely high numbers.

Whilst this is a serious issue, it should not be made into something it is not which can cause fear and panic (including panic buying) which could end up making things worse.

It's official: In May, Microsoft will close the door, lock the vault, brick over the entrance of dreaded Windows 10 1809

Cereberus

Cant update, won't update

and holdouts still using the operating system version, for some reason, will be advised to move to at least the November 2019 build of the operating system.

I had 1809 and was in the position the updates were failing completely due to an error.

I tried everything I could think of or find on the net including resetting the updates, stopping and restarting the service.....

I then started getting page fault errors before finally hitting the point when shutting down the machine went into super hibernation and wouldn't wake up without a full power down by pushing the off button for several seconds the switching in back on.

I then started being unable to use other functions, such as a headset in the 3.5mm ports, but still able to use it via the USB port.

At this point I gave up and did a full re-install to 1909 and had no problems since.

How many people are in the position the updates are failing and they don't know, or they don't know how fix the problem / re-install the OS, and so are stuck on 1809 without support or updates, leaving them open to all kinds of malicious behaviours through no fault of their own - owning and using a Win 10 PC doesn't count as being their fault.

Tech can endure the most inhospitable environments: Space, underwater, down t'pit... even hairdressers

Cereberus

Taking it literally

My favourite was working for a mobile telecoms company, helping train and support the wonderful phone support staff.

One trainee complained that the computer wasn't doing what he wanted and my instructions were stupid - the instruction being use the mouse to click on the <program> icon. Everyone else seemed to be fine so I was thinking it might just be the mouse was faulty or had become unplugged.

I tried it and everything worked fine, although the trainee was too busy telling his neighbour how bad my course was to watch what I was doing. Anyway I closed the program and said to him to try again whilst I spoke to another trainee who was having fun playing with different menus.

2 minutes later he shouts up again. I went back over, tried again without any problems and asked him to open the program as I had asked whilst I watched to see if I could identify the problem. I quickly did. He picked up the mouse put it on the monitor and pressed the button. 'See, it doesn't work' - I then had to explain how to use a mouse without laughing or making him look stupid in front of the other trainees.

He did apologise though for saying my instructions were stupid so I didn't reply that they were written for people with basic computer use knowledge which he claimed to have, and weren't aimed at people who thought a toaster was a complex piece of equipment. Funnily enough he didn't stay with the company long.

Five years in the clink for super-crook who scammed Google, Facebook out of $120m with fake tech invoices

Cereberus

Re: Bad speech

There are 2 mainly (not exclusive) accepted theories referring to what was a pommie. Now it basically refers to a British immigrant to Australia.

1) Short form for pomegranate which is believed to have been rhyming Aussie slang for immigrant

2) Pommie refers to whinging pom which in turn related to British (primarily prisoners who were deported) immigrants to Australia who complained about the living conditions there - in this case pom referred to Prisoner of (his/her) Majesty.

We lose money on repairs, sobs penniless Apple, even though we charge y'all a fortune

Cereberus

No comparison

Your local back street repair person buys the screen glass for about $5 including shipping from Ali Express and does the repair for $80. The $75 margin allows them to cover their costs and make a reasonable living out of it.

<sarcasm - just in case> How dare you. Don't you realise that the fanbois doesn't just want a screen replacement, they demand a genuine Apple screen replacement. Yes they could replace the screen for $30 but it wouldn't then be an Apple iPhone - It would be a cheap knock off because it wasn't 100% Apple and they didn't need to give up their first born as part of the deal to get the new screen. A fanbois would prefer to be hanged, drawn and quartered than be accused of using non-genuine parts or not having a 100% genuine Apple product.</sarcasm>

EE customer: Creepy ex used employee access to change my mobile number, spy on me

Cereberus

I worked for their counterpart T-Mobile. There were different levels of access so normal staff couldn't access 'VIP' customer accounts.

I also had to investigate a colleague who was 'playing the system' to get cheap phones to sell on Ebay. The bosses were a little upset when they asked me to do it and my first response was send the request and authority on email. I certainly wasn't going to do it based on a word of mouth request which could be later denied.

Ho ho ho! Washington DC sends Zuckerberg a sueball-shaped present

Cereberus

Re: There is morality and there are laws

I think there are 2 main problems.

1 - If you sign up to Facebook, it is pretty much understood that they will take every last bit of information they can to sell on - that is after all how they make their money. Yes it could be perhaps clearer and yes you should expect that if you want everything kept private it should be private but only to a point. I think it would be reasonable for Facebook to say 'Here is a free account but you are limited on what you can keep private from us. You do have an option to pay a nominal amount to use the service at which point private is truly private and we won't collect information because you are paying for a service.'

2 - Collecting 3rd party data should just be banned. I haven't given permission for data to be collected on me by accessing John Smith's account which is free, especially if I don't have a Facebook account.

I do have a Facebook account which I use only for a small fishing syndicate. I have never posted anything, or read any feeds, beyond relating to this syndicate. I don't use Facebook to log into other things so they will have 'relatively' little information about me and I accept that what they get they will use.

Part of the problem is people expect 'free' to mean free and these companies should provide a totally free service for their use. I use free programs on the PC in a lot of cases because they do what I need but I also pay for the 'enhanced' program in other cases because I use the extra capability. That it how the business model works. If 10% of people pay for the fully working product the company is making money and can carry those who use the free version. I wouldn't complain that I can't use a particular function that is available in the paid for version when I am using the free one if I choose not to pay for the full version. If the software is good and does what I want I have no problem paying for it, if it isn't I don't. But I have full control over what I decide to do. With Facebook that seems not to be the case and someone who doesn't want their service should not have their information taken without their express permission.

Apple cops to iPhone 8 production oops, offers to fix borked phones

Cereberus

Am I being over cynical?

I sometimes wonder if Apple deliberately build in faults (hardware or software) so that they can offer a repair but only once any other issues have been fixed at the customer expense, especially since the make it so hard for 3rd party repairs to be done.

It's as if they treat it as an additional revenue stream. I wonder how much they make on the additional repairs compared with how much these recalls cost.

Surely a company that makes as much as they do wouldn't think of doing such a thing though.....

Devon County Council techies: WE KNOW IT WASN'T YOU!

Cereberus
Coat

Re: Thanks, Labour

So much for "Education, education, education".

Should that not be:

"Educaion, eductino, eduaction"

Swiss cops will 'tolerate' World Cup rabble-rousers – for 60 minutes

Cereberus

Being sensible

Personally I think this is just the Swiss applying sensible precautions. It seems to me that they are saying that people can celebrate or commiserate but try not to make it go on too long so it upsets other people, and so they have decided on a time limit for use of horns and a request not to interfere with traffic flow if possible. Any time limit could be said to be too short or too long so they have tried to pick a reasonable length.

On another point they don't say you can't cut your lawn on a Sunday, they say you can't between the hours of 20:00 and 08:00 on a Sunday or public holiday, which is reasonable to allow people to enjoy a lie in without being disturbed by someone insane enough to want to cut the grass when they get home from a back shift at 02:00 in the morning.

The bath one is a little strange but taken into context with it's counterpart example suggests that water pipes can be quite noisy and not to take a bath at night (which I would assume does not refer to the evening) so that additional noise from water pipes occurs.

Can't pay Information Commissioner's fine? No problem! Just liquidate your firm

Cereberus

Re: I'm confused

Thanks Aladdin, I need to get new reading glasses.

Cereberus

I'm confused

But the highest fine given out under both is £400,000, which is a fifth off the £500,000 maximum the body can dish out, although this will increase to 4 per cent of global turnover or €20m under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Since when was £400,000 a fifth of £500,000?

That might explain why so little of the money is recovered.

Does Parliament or Google decide when your criminal past is forgotten?

Cereberus

A legal judgement?

This is a complex issue, and whilst the focus is on one particular person and his actions the consequences of the judgement could have much wider implications.

As has been mentioned certain offenses will always have to be disclosed, as they should be whilst others could be seen as irrelevant. Should somebody suffer after being in the papers 20 or 30 years ago after stealing a bar of chocolate when they were 10 years old? At the same time should a company have to take the risk that they have someone guilty of fraud employed in a financial / senior business capacity?

On the other hand should someone who has been punished have to suffer the stigma for ever ore of what may be a one time mistake (whatever the reasons they did it)?

The more I think about this the more I feel there should be a statute of limitations which would be declared based on the offense and the level of offense. The RoO should then take this into account and it would work along the lines (purely hypothetical based around the case in point).

You defrauded the company of £1,000 - the offense is linked to your name for 5 years after serving time

You defrauded the company of £1,000,000 - the offense is linked to your name for20 years after serving time

alongside would run the following

You committed one offense, the above applies

You have committed the offense more than once - no statute applies and your name will forever be linked to the offense(s).

Essentially this means you make a mistake and after a period of time based on the seriousness and impact your name search does not show against the offense, but if you are a repeat offender you give up that right. This means that a mistake / poor judgement does not impact the rest of your life but if you are shown to be a repeat offender your impact on others is reduced as it is demonstrably no longer a mistake / poor judgement.

The details would be issued as to length of term as part of sentencing.

Irony's lost on old Pope Francis: Pontiff decrees fake news a 'serious sin'

Cereberus

Re: Have you guys read the 10 commandments

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.

Think how many blasphemers there are though. The commandment (excerpt above) doesn't state you shouldn't make yourself an image and bow down or worship them.

So does this mean that anybody who has ever made a cuddly little rabbit, painted a picture of a dog, used a photograph with of anything ever is a blasphemer? It does say an image of anything in heaven, on earth or in the water.

Just asking, a proper response from a religious point of view is welcomed, but not the old get out clause of it being a story to represent......and isn't 'strictly' true.

Investigatory Powers Act: You're not being paranoid. UK.gov really is watching you

Cereberus

Re: sort of confused ?

I think you are confused.

but how does this impact on the likes of Google et al, whose entire reson detre is to slurp up EVERYTHING about EVERYONE ................

People know they record the data and choose to use the service with that knowledge. Same with Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc.

At the end of the day you have an option not to make use of these services and prevent them collecting the data. It may be inconvenient to not contact people using Facebook but you still have the option.

The government want to collect the data without your (or at least the general public) knowledge, then potentially use it to support taking punitive action which may or may not be warranted.

Totally hypothetical, and (using relatively minor breaches of the law) extreme example: You go on Facebook at 10:00 then put your phone down and drive 140 miles to another location and then pick up your phone and send a text exactly 2 hours later. Your are now guilty of:

a) Using your phone whilst driving

b) Speeding

This is because nobody could drive exactly 140 miles in exactly 2 hours since you have to spend some time on other roads with a speed limit below 70mph so you had to use the phone whilst traveling or have exceeded the speed limit to some extent to reach the average 70mph over the 2 hours. They also know you were alone in the car because of CCTV cameras.

Yes it is a little silly but the theory is sound to show that lots of little bits of info can lead to a conclusion when you have not knowingly done anything wrong - in the above example you might have been doing 70.5mph but it is still over 70.

In a surprise to no one, BT and TalkTalk top Ofcom's whinge-list

Cereberus

Re: Regulator needs to damn well regulate.

Make the worst provider each quarter refund all customers 50% and the second worst 25% (and no hiking the prices to compensate). If that doesn't bring about some improvement, nothing will.

Or it could just send that provider bust as by fining them you remove 50% (not taking into account profit share etc.) of the funding to make improvements so they will consistently under perform due to lack of funds to solve the problems making them the consistent worst performer.

A better option would be to enforce a restriction on profits, dividend payments and so on and make the provider spend more on investment to improve the service.

We have targets set by a government agency, which if missed result in potentially millions in fines. All this means is we have less to spend on infrastructure and keeping the service we provide running, which leads to more problems, which leads to bigger fines, and so on.

By forcing investment (overseen to ensure it is proper investment and not just a paper exercise) the result should be an improved service, which results in happier customers, more customers joining that provider due toa better service (hopefully) leading to more income leading to higher profits leading to happier investors - theoretically.

The mechanics of doing so I will leave to others to work out. :-)

Apple's 'shoddy' Beats headphones get slammed in lawsuit

Cereberus

Re: No opinion on the headsets

What the fuck could the headphones have done so badly that caused $5 million in damages?

That's easy. The breakdown is:

$200 refund because the product wasn't as advertised - $1,000 total as 5 claimants

$10,000 dollars each for the inconvenience of having to attend court, buy new headphones, etc. - $50,000 total

$800 each for the time explaining why they no longer use the headphones - i.e. they are stained with bodily fluids and the battery needs recharged after 4.3 seconds of use* - $4,000 total

$9,000 each - pay for the iPhone XI next year when it is launched, and headphones that are compatible with the faster than light connector that replaces the lightning connector - $45,000

$980,000 to help with treatment for PTSD caused by being seen with such crap Fanbois 'Fones'. - $4,900,000 total

What they should get is electroshock treatment for being mad to buy the headphones in the first place.

*Running time will vary depending on amount of use and how recharges were applied, including duration, initial charge level.....

Google bins white supremacist site after it tries to host-hop away from GoDaddy

Cereberus

My concern is.....

Where do you stop? I have no idea because I either don't have enough information or don't have the clarity of thought to make an informed decision.

Banning far right (or far left for that matter) extremist groups on the face of it is justified because they are a loathsome group who shouldn't be given the time of day. However, if you remove these groups completely then the next group towards the centre become the extremists, and so on. Who will decide when you have come far enough away from the existing extremists for it to be allowed?

By removing these groups you drive them underground much like, as has been mentioned earlier, with pedophilia. It doesn't stop them but makes it harder to monitor them. The aim should be to stop this level of thought and moderate peoples views to improve interpersonal / group relations.

Finally, free speech should be about being able to express your views 'freely' without fear or favour so long as they don't hit certain criteria such as incite violence. There are already laws in place to deal with such issues so use them. If people aren't able to air their views freely, you can't state a case against those views to hopefully persuade the people with them to change.

I think these days of global instantaneous vitriol, trolling and general attacks against people, no matter how justified you may feel, or how many people agree with you just adds to the problem as it causes greater polarisation between groups. People are scared to make a comment in the public domain because instead of a reasoned debate* they are attacked and threatened.

*I realise that trying to have a reasoned debate with some of these right wing groups is a contradiction in terms.

Page:

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021