Posts by m0rt 988 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jul 2015
The trick is not to show anyone anything that might upset them.
Hence the ubiquitous search on modern OSes that helpfully fail to show you the location of the files it finds unless you click on the bugger first.
Unless that is just MacOS.
Ever get the feeling we are moving backward?
"Do you expect your car is being built with the same level of reliability of an aircraft? It would cost much more and with far higher maintenance requirements."
I expect the core OS to be, yes. The rest of the software, however, of course not. I was pointing out that what constitutes an OS these days is far overreaching.
This should tell you more about an apparent OS than anything else
If you don't trust it for critical systems, should you even use it at all?
That way it would prevent the kind of useless bloat that seems to be the symptom of some kind of industrial disease infecting large organisations.
Hey, supposed tech companies. Sort your core OS out. Everything else should be optional.
*mutter mutter*apple*mutter mutter*iTunes*mutter mutter*
"it's those stupid flashing lights that some cyclists insist on having 'to make themselves more visible'."
The reason they exist is that if you are in traffic, oncoming traffic will not make out a bicycle light in most cases. The flashing gets attention. As you have proved.
Also having a single source of light being used as a way to estimate movement when coming toward you is prone to massive error. Basically it is safer for the cyclist by far. When it comes to 2 tonnes of steel vs a lone cyclist, I think it is better to err in favour of the cyclist. If you really want to talk about lighting issues, then a far greater problem is the colour temperature of modern headlights causing serious night vision issues for other drivers.
"(lets face it there are dickheads using bikes, motorbikes, cars, vans trucks, mobility scooters, skateboards, feet.......)"
So you get it, yet you still try to start a pointless, silly argument thread?
Yet the important this this brings up is actually that again lack of appropriate installed technology is being used as an excuse for issues not being solved, yet the real issue is attitude in most cases. What next? Same thing for pedestrians? All footware to have a transponder?
This is why we have the age checks being brought in online, pushing the responsibility away from those who should know better to making the State responsble for seeing that everything is 'safe'.
The worse thing is it is the relatively small amount of outliers that cause this lovely 'outrage' that then gets transmogrified into 'something is being done' that affects everyone.
The future is not bright, the future is decidedly grey and ominous.
Yeah. Unfortunately those they deem to have proper credentials say complete shit like this:
"Consultancy Accenture says 81% of executives it interviewed think that within two years AI will be working next to humans in their organisation as "a co-worker, collaborator and trusted adviser"."
From the equally bs article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43259906
Basically, this isn't going to change. The inmates run the asylum. There is no sensibility, there are only gradiose claims and ridiculous deadlines.
We are fscked.
Unless, here is a thought. How about starting a political party?
"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, ... However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.
False logic. ∞ - x is still ∞"
Actually, the false logic is assuming there are an infinite number of worlds. You may postulate that there is an infinite amount of 3d space for things to exist in, but that is not the same that there is an infinite amount of matter.
Assuming we are not getting into dimensional discussions.
Easy way to sort this.
Get management to tell you who the Data Office is. If they feel they don't need one then they still need to nominate someone responsible. (Hint - it can't be a Board member).
Then when you get that person - scare the shit out of them if they don't take the responsibility seriously. Unless they name you as Data Officer, in which case you are now a legal person and you can tell them exactly how it goes down and they have to listen to you or they are breaking the law and you are forced, by law, to inform the ICO.
No.
This has been an issue, regardless of GDPR and the ICO recognise that this isn't always straightforward.
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1475/deleting_personal_data.pdf
See page 4.
So, outside of data kept for regulartory purposes which you have no choice over, and your normal backup policies (you do delete old backups, don't you? You don't keep them forever, do you?).
So - scenario: You go back to back from yesterday beause something nasty happened. Yesterday after the backup was taken a set of records were removed. As long as you know, somehow, that theses were removed you can reapply the deletion. So the deletion process will be need to stay *live* for as long as you feasibly keep backups that may be used to restore from for your day to day running.
It most cases, I would argue this is a week or so for most with Daily changing data. If it is a month, then you will need to keep the deletion process longer than that to ensure you can meet your duty. As long as *this is documented* the ICO should see that as endeavouring to comply with the spirit.
If you ended up using a backup from a while back, which may be the case in some scenarios, and some data was resurrected that shouldn't be, and this got out and the sh1t hit the fan, then it comes down to why, the impact, what procedures were in place etc.
There is no black and white answer to a lot of scenarios. You can't help seeing an IP address. And you can't know if this is a piece of Personal Identifiable Information (eg, fixed IP and you have the name and address of this person) or not (temp IP or company firewall). You can't dump this (if a breach you will need to go over your logs) and you can't anonymise it in most cases, or even be sensible to do so. So it comes down to what you do, how you document, don't generally piss take and *show evidence* of what and why you do.
Personal data should be sacrosanct. It is about time it is treated as such. By both the users of that data, and the general public who are, for the most part, pretty clueless. That isn't their fault mostly, it is just that industry has beguiled them with promises, free stuff and The Shiny™
The business I am in has a lot of contact with other businesses whose primary is not tech related. It is suprising just how many of those businesses are quite blasé considering the fact this is possibly the biggest thing to hit any kind of data processing since the introduction of the Data Protection Act. Or just reel off Legitimate Interest when asked about how they are going to sort out opt-in on their website and the various marketing tools, tracking tools, for starters.
Going to be a fun time. GDPR I am quite for. I think that it re-addresses the balance that has been lost regarding sanctity of peoples data. On the other hand, it is also showing the issues that previously defined terms or situations relating to DP have never really been tested in UK Law and can be interpreted in so many ways. If you have ever approached the ICO for advice on how best to do something and remain compliant.....you will know exactly what I mean.
"As a race, yes. Just look at how many people still read the Daily Mail to see how dumb we are."
Reading the Daily Mail is ok. You can't judge someone for reading it, unless you are as guilty as the people you point fingers at of being quick to judgement based on little substance. I have read it, at times. But, like anything else I read I am able to spot jingoistic rhetoric, sensationalism, and down right innacurate bullshit when I read it.
'Lewis branded the company as "too complex", said it was "driven by a short-term focus", and "lacks operational discipline and financial flexibility".'
No shit. Seems this is the fashion for most companies since the original .com boom/bust.
Remember five year plans? I do. Last one I came across in a business I worked for was '97.
Ads are a necessary evil. I accept that and act accordingly.
But I can not, and will not, stand for adverts that are videos and auto-play sound/video.
They are dispicable. Evil. Threatening our very societies.
Flash ads, well saying flash is bad is like saying Leprosy is bad.
Or rather what we have actually done is fund another private firm whose owners/founders *know* people in the civil service (and in the space of a couple of weeks this will come out ), along with independent tests showing just how crap this 'amazing' tech actually is. Rudd has put her name to it so we should be pretty sure of the outcome.
Wonder how much from Al Jazeera will get incorrectly flagged?
"But, she argued, "there is quite an interesting juxtaposition here, where members of the public will give the most incredible amount of data to a faceless internet company but are suspicious of what government might be doing"."
Annnnnnd this is interesting why? The private companies are subject to laws that exist and get prosecuted accordingly. In theory at any rate.
But it seems here, Ms Susan Williams, that even though the current rentention has been ruled unlawful, the government still decides to .... well carry on as normal. Outside the rule of law, it may well be said. You see the problem? Well stupid question. Of course you don't or this hearing wouldn't be taking place.
So fuck you.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
