269 posts • joined 21 Jan 2008
Capping the ICO's maximum fine to £500,000 makes absolutely no sense when criminal activity abides by no such limitation.
In this case, the proceeds of what appears to be a systematic breach of the law are in the order of £4 million (or more). Deduct from that the cost of setting up the multi-million spam campaign -- say, £30,000 (max) -- and that's £3,970,000. Now deduct from that the ICO's pathetic £200,000 fine and the net total is £3,770,000.
So long as those planning a data abuse enterprise do the math -- and even a dumb-ass with a calculator could manage the task in a couple of minutes -- and factor in a potential ICO fine as just another overhead, there's no disincentive at all.
The ICO should be given the authority to impose a fine equal to the offender's estimated profit plus 50%. And if the estimate's wrong, well, the law breakers can go to law to argue how unfairly they're being treated.
You're correct. It's a pity El Reg didn't update this. The two new directors who were formerly the two old directors are now the ex-new-old-former-current directors. Companies House reports the termination of both directorships on November 2nd, the same day as Companies House reports the appointment of the instantly-terminated directors. Perhaps this could be released in the form of a game for the Spectrum? Either way, the lawyers are feeding well off this: does 75% shareholder voting count? (Answer: most likely it does. But it's when it counts: has there been an EGM?)
Re: Lazy sterotyping
For those of us who have often mused on the cerebral capacity of so many of our Members of Parliament, your revelation that both Oxford and Cambridge run clubs for the pursuit of brain-destroying thuggery could well be the explanation we have for so long sought. Many thanks.
Re: Will of the people my arse
'Putin, Trump and Rupert Murdoch all supported Leave. People should have asked "Why?"'
Er, you're missing the point. The June 2016 referendum was never about "why?" but about "who?"
Thus it was that people did indeed ask who was supporting Remain, and learned that the roll-call included Tony Blair, Bob Geldof, George Osborne, HM Treasury, David Beckham, Goldman Sachs, David Cameron, John Major, Jeremy Clarkson, Jamie Oliver, Lynton Crosby, Simon Cowell, and Tim Farron.
Once that became apparent, so did the Remain campaign's fatal strategic error. Had it prevailed upon all the above to say they were voting Leave, then Remain would have won the referendum with an astronomically high majority.
Re: it's like Vertu only cheaper
Ah: gilt by association. Vertu.
Except that when you decide to examine its wares, you're greeted by an oh-so-posh website which proclaims: "Signature: Powerful Performance. Nearly a decade since it's launch. . ."
Do I really wish to suffer the guilt by association that results from being seen to be a customer of an outfit so illiterate that no-one in its management, marketing, or web design comprehends the purpose of the possessive 's'?
Vertu. The company that say's everything there is to say about the kind's of purchaser wot fork out for it's product's.
Re: The Gnome Underpants have arrived! @Oh Homer
Not sure why your comment has been down-voted. Either it touched a corporate nerve somewhere or the El Reg readership has a greater percentage of the naive and the ignorant than I'd thought.
Truth is, the Vega+ story is -- very obviously -- not a chronicle of "clueless amateur retro gaming enthusiasts" but of the activities of a pair of individuals with significant roles in the life and times of Retro Computers Limited: David Levy, and Suzanne Martin.
I suspect that not a single down-voter (other than someone with a vested interest in nay-saying your post) has expended even a minute's time on examining the background of Levy and Martin: who they are, where they've been, and what they've done. In business, provenance is all. And in this instance, the pedigree is anything but that of the "clueless" or the "amateurish".
Still and all, the description is a nice fall-back for Levy and Martin to cite in future: "if only we'd known what we were doing, we'd never have made so many honest mistakes at RCL ."
Quote: "the PSBs make the HTC almost impossible to recommend."
Actually, £699 makes the HTC absolutely impossible to recommend.
It's a. . . phone. As is my existing Nokia 6310i, purchased SIM free in February 2001 for £115 and Mrs V's Sony Erickson K750i, purchased SIM free for £63 in December 2006 in a Littlewoods catalog Christmas sale.
I dunno: isn't there supposed to be a recession on or something in the UK -- long lines at the dole office, soup kitchens in the streets, the Brexit vote signalling we're all doomed???
Re: Who do you trust?
@ Fozzybear: What are you trying to say? If you mean that an individual found not guilty of false charges is also somehow in some mysterious way automatically found guilty of lying to the police, that makes no sense at all: an accusation of lying goes to the heart of any prosecution's attack on an accused's credibility. Your weird contention that it's a 'back up charge' is as much a mystery as your claim that individuals found guilty of lying are found not guilty of everything else. But perhaps they do things differently in Australia??
@ Tim99: Thanks for the memories! Mrs V and I have never forgotten that particular route nor ever will. I grew up with The Eagle comic, so looking out of Concorde's window at a sky so deep blue it was almost black and the shimmering curvature of the Earth itself made me feel like I was Dan Dare. Somewhere in a drawer here we have pictures I was allowed to take on the flight deck, plus the complimentary pale grey Concorde wallet, the flight menus -- even the embossed 'Supersonic Flight Certificate' BA gave each individual passenger as a memento.
Not long after our to-ing and fro-ing Concorde was withdrawn from the Washington-Miami sector; the 3-day a week service became Heathrow-Dulles only with connecting flight by 'ordinary' a/c to MIA. The magic was already being constrained by -- allegedly -- concerned citizens objecting to the noise over DC, though how odd it was to discover so many were not merely concerned but actually working as, or related to, Boeing lobbyists.
Looking back, it seems to me the age of miracles was not yet passed at that time. We could walk on the moon and fly high at Mach 2. Nowadays, technology that's infinitely more advanced allows us to be monetized by Facebook and lobotomized by Twitter. Progress, right.
Applicants must be women of child bearing age only
I think I ought to stipulate that, next time my company needs to hire on. It isn't me being discriminatory, but anti-discriminatory, because I'm well aware of the way some small businesses are wary of recruiting women who, dammit, are very likely to get themselves pregnant and then go off on maternity leave.
People running those businesses have privately confided to me -- privately, because ts tst, this is a subject that can never be mentioned publicly -- that the cost of maternity leave salary contributions and the hassle of repeatedly having to find temporary replacements is something they could well do without.
Me, I couldn't disagree more. A responsible employer, like Google, should not only appear to be virtuous but actually be virtuous. From now on then, recruitment of anyone for any kind of work in my company will only be of women of child bearing age who will stop doing the job they were employed for whenever their urge to procreate overwhelms.
My policy is absolutely not a recipe for fiscal witlessness, any more than is that of Google's or of other enterprises of similar manifest nobility. The time has passed -- thankfully! -- when the business of business was to stay in business. Instead, it's all about disregarding experience, expertise, qualification and calibre, because the business of business nowadays is to make the world a much nicer place for all.
Whaddya mean: "suffice to say"??????
Oh c'mon. El Reg going all twee: "suffice to say, despite Windows 10's faults, it has excellent security defenses. You should only stick with Windows 7 if you really, really like it or need it."
What kind of bollocks is that? Half the "excellent security defenses" to be associated with Windows 10 are those a user needs to deploy to defend against Microsoft's telemetry. There's also the fact -- or should the expression be: "Suffice to say"? -- no Windows version has ever had, or ever will have, "security defenses" so "excellent" that such can be regarded as the primary factor in making a choice.
Mrs V has Windows XP on her laptop and really, really likes it and needs it for the stuff she does. It has no "excellent defenses" but it does run with Malwarebytes Premium and WinPatrol Pro and, guess what? No problems at all. And no Windows Updates for, well, years. Ohhh, the shame, the shock-horror of it all.
Me, I don't use it because XP is (to me) tedious beyond belief so instead have Windows 7 on my home desktop, again with Malwarebytes Premium and WinPatrol Pro. (Yeah: and no AV, either.)
Have I, as an AMD user, ever had a bad experience with Windows 7? You betcha. And the cause? Well, obviously, it could only be Microsoft, Microsoft damn near borking it with a screwed-up "excellent defense" against Spectre and Meltdown that led to failed boot-ups and sundry other problems all because Redmond had no idea that there's more to computing than merely Intel.
"Suffice to say" then that "excellent defense" -- oh dear, do we have to have these hapless mis-spellings? -- is all about defending oneself from Microsoft's secret slurping and blatant incompetence. The day when I have to give up on Windows 7 at home -- if such a day ever comes -- is the day I'll give up on Windows altogether. And probably, not before time, too.
Though I never have, nor ever will, understand the appeal of watching two men courting brain damage in the guise of a public entertainment, I had at least figured that cerebral damage was a hallmark of the watched rather than the watchers.
The desire of the watcher in this instance to contest his case in court demonstrates how wrong I've been.
April 8, 2016. Honestly.
Look up the video which Magic Leap caused to be placed on YouTube in June, 2016:
"Magic Leap Virtual Reality -- Behold The Future"
and this statement appears at 1:55 of the video's 2:35 duration:
"Shot directly through Magic Leap technology on April 8, 2016. No special effects or compositing were used in the creation of this video (except for this text.)"
The wording is explicit. What appears in the video are not simulations contrived "with" Magic Leap technology but an augmented reality viewed "through" that technology.
As the "technology" referred to is the Magic Leap goggles, then on April 8, 2016, a wearer of that device would have seen "through" the goggles' lenses exactly that which is chronicled in the video.
All that was required for that individual's visual experience to be widely shared was a camera to shoot "through" those goggles.
As that was the state-of-play on April 8, 2016, and as the company was so unambiguous in its use of language, one can only wonder why the goggles are still not on sale -- and why, if many thousands of people can see what an individual wearer would've seen all those months ago, there's any need for secrecy (and Non Disclosure Agreements) now?
Pictures of the product exist. Pictures of a wearer exist. That non-enhanced, non-manipulated video exists. The truth is out there. Honestly.
Re: Any of these seem to work in this situation...
@ ""You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." -Abraham Lincoln."
How profound. As indeed is that other famous observation of his:
"Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't mean it's true."
Re: The Man Who Fell To Earth
Most of us here can remember how miffed El Reg was over the refusal of Tesla's PR department to play ball with it on a particular story some time back. Clearly, El Reg is still miffed, to the extent that anything with the word "Tesla" in it is worth chronicling. Perhaps you're not aware of that? And perhaps you're also unaware that an RTA is like any other kind of untoward incident, causality arising not from one or two factors but many?
Your simple-minded rush to judgment is only marginally less irritating than El Reg's decision to publish this non-story in the first place.
Ah well. Must dash. I need to ring Toyota's PR department for a comment on the Prius which knocked over an octagenarian pedestrian in Wigan last week. . . and then put a call into Ford PR about a Fiesta which crashed through a wall in Reading and flattened two innocent gnomes. I expect the representatives of both motor manufacturers to immediately tell me the reasons for these incidents.
Stop the pretence of corporate entities
Where this kind of deliberate and sustained abuse is concerned, the pretence that it's all been done by "A Company" rather than by an individual or individuals running it and benefiting from it needs to stop.
The regulator can "fine" any company it wants but all it's doing is censuring an entity that exists only on paper and until such time as those responsible for it decide to close it down. As was the case with Prodial Ltd., where God knows how much taxpayers' money went into an investigation which culminated with the issuance of a £380,000 fine that the regulator, the company's owners, and every commentard on here knew would never be paid.
Scum which sets out to systematically profit from the abuse of others should be as subject to punitive treatment as any common thief or thug, with personal assets seized to fund the cost of the investigation their activities provoked and any balance left over to subsidise their stay in whichever establishment they're then housed at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Google tablet all over again
Supposedly a 'premium' tablet, Google's very own Pixel C likewise provided many of its users with a less than premium experience -- though tech reviewers in receipt of Google patronage prefer not to mention it, in the same way that tech reviewers in receipt of Apple patronage all too clearly prefer not to dwell on the face recognition issue. As ever though, Google is your friend, as a search engine at least, and it's perfectly possible to see the umpteen posts on different forums about wifi connectivity difficulties with the Pixel C. It's also possible to read Google's response to the many complainants: nothing at all.
The authors of the report are correct: it is societally unacceptable that an a/c and all those aboard can vanish without trace. But unacceptability has always been intrinsic to human life. Earlier generations of my family had to contend with the unacceptable reality of polio and diptheria; still earlier, the unacceptable reality of cholera and contaminated water. And before that: etc, etc, etc. Yet that very unacceptability was the stimulus for change, whether over decades or centuries.
What change, one wonders, is going to arise from the societally unacceptable MH370?
Is it really the case that in the 21st Century we're as much reliant on blind faith as people were in the 11th Century? That we have to go along with a lethal reality today in hope that somehow and in some way it might be neutralised tomorrow? Or is it the case that within today's technology there already exists the potential to deal with this?
As things are, I've no idea what happened to that flight. Have no speculation to voice, and wouldn't for a moment pay the slightest attention to repellent conspiracy theorists and the fantasies they invent.
The only invention in which I'm interested, here in my pax seat aboard a civil a/c cruising at 35000 ft through the midnight hour above a vast ocean, is the invention that will mean that whatever fate befalls this flight and I don't make it home, at least my wife and kids will know what happened, and in their grieving will be able to understand the reason why.
My curiosity then is not about MH370 because, very obviously, there are no answers at this time. What's passed from sight is past. It's today and all the tomorrows that are my concern, and the question as to how near -- or far -- is the day when nothing like the societally unacceptable MH370 can happen again.
Shame on TfL
A company but recently headed by a figure of such colossal integrity and charm as Travis Kalanik. A company that has invested heavily in software of a most original kind. A company which pays not a cent into the national purse by way of employer's NI contribution. A company whose managerial ethos has always combined piety and diligence. . .
What on earth is TfL doing, banning it from London? Ye gods, at this rate, Uber may yet vanish from the face of the earth.
@ Hans 1
Your ability to comprehend the user-chooser multiple functionality of CCleaner is obviously as fitful as your ability to express coherent thought. For the record: I wouldn't even trust CHP to tell me anything useful about that particular software, never mind MVPs or MHPs. Or any other Muddled Vacuous Pratt, either.
Not sure about it being typical human behaviour, more like typical Generation Moron behaviour from some commentards trying to show off their intellectual superiority on here and failing miserably.
I too have used CCleaner since the days it was known as CrapCleaner (the name didn't upset its home UK market but was eventually deemed too much for sensitive souls across the Pond) and of course, it isn't malware.
CCleaner started life more than a decade ago as a quick and easy cleaner of crap. It still is. Additional tools have been bundled in over the years, including a 'registry cleaner' whose value (to me) has always seemed pointless, as well as hazardous, but which others seem to like: their choice. The CCleaner version I run is the freebie, not the paid-for, and is old enough to have cobwebs all over it. But it works fast to clear caches, cookies and what have you whenever required, and plays nicely with my Malwarebytes Premium, Panda AV, and WinPatrol. It has always erred on the safe side, and though out-performed, as it were, by the only other utility of this type I've ever bothered with -- Kerish Doctor -- it has, unlike Kerish, never mis-identified any of the clutter.
I'm sorry Piriform has sold out to Avast because it's the end of an era and past experience of Avast has taught me to keep well clear of any of its bloatware. I'll keep on though with CCleaner 5.13.5460 which, as far as I'm aware, is still available on software archival sites, and leave the Generation Moron representatives on here to continue on with their own condemnation of a product about which they very clearly know absolutely sod all.
Punitively yours . . .
Oracle is not contending that its employee didn't -- by her own hard work -- win this contract. Nor is it disputing that she worked on this deal for two YEARS (and six months) to achieve it. On which basis, then, Felicity has been a model employee.
In response to that, Oracle has sought to breach the contract it had with her; intimidate her with legal action which Oracle can easily afford but which she could not (because no-one can ever be certain they'll succeed against a deep-pockets corporation's lawyers); subject her to sustained stress in consequence of that deliberate intimidation.
I don't know enough about the Law to know what she can do now, but were it me, I'd be looking to bring an action against Oracle for punitive damages.
Re: And that, ladies & gentlemen ..
Fair's fair: mental healthcare in the USA is better resourced and prioritised than it ever has been. Not too long ago, the deranged and dysfunctional were shunned by Society and forced to exist in cardboard boxes beneath railroad and highway bridges. Now, however, Society reaches out to such individuals and, in the case of the most severely incapacitated, provides attractive accommodation in Washington and a salary too.
If you knew anything at all about North Korea -- which you all too obviously don't -- you'd know it was a new Reich dressed up in Communist Party clothes controlled by a viciously mad elite which terrorises its citizens into submission and consigns entire families to punishment camps (aka concentration camps) from which they're unlikely ever to return. Like Nazi Germany, and Hitler in particular, its contempt for its own ordinary people is exceeded only by its adoration of military might. It is not merely the lunatic in the global room but the homicidal lunatic in the room, one which believes it can do and say anything and, indeed, does precisely that.
Your question : 'What could a well funded capable nation achieve in terms of havoc if this is what we can expect of North Korea?' manages to betray your own epic ignorance whilst answering itself at the same time, because North Korea, lunatic state thought it may be, is 'well funded' and is 'capable' -- capable, unfortunately, of anything.
For now, the lunatic is waging cyber war. It needs to be neutralised before its madness takes it from the virtual to the real because the lesson of history is that if you want to protect your future, you don't sit on your arse doing nothing in the present. Capable, well-funded, and dangerously deranged though it is, North Korea is one against the many. The many should be hitting back. Hard.
The preening pomposity of this grubby software company as well as its CEO's delusions of adequacy continue to amuse. Generation Moron knows no better than to accept -- and dutifully parrot -- the Redmond vernacular, but for the rest of us MS English is exactly that: MicroShite. How entertaining it is, then, that the latest news from the 'campus' is another 'deprecation', this time by its 'Creator' tat.
It'll certainly be a loss to the world of comedy when 'Apocalypse' overwhelms.
Absolutely right. The Law does allow for the full discharge of all guilt and the wiping clean of the slate. Google's double-click. . . doesn't.
What also escapes the attention of many is that surprise, surprise, history did not begin with the Internet. The overwhelming majority of those whose crimes or conduct resulted in public penalty or public vilification before Google came along are well out of reach of online memory banks, whereas those penalised / vilified in a post-Google world are less advantaged.
There was a time -- ah: I remember it well! -- when not everyone was famous for 15 minutes, still less -- if Facebook users are anything to go by -- forever.
I always thought Uber had been set up in order for its stock to be shorted. I can't think of any other explanation for a pattern of corporate disasters that would adversely impact a disgusting enterprise run in disgusting style. One or two, maybe even three, disasters could be accidental. But a seemingly unending series of them?? The ludicrously valued $68 beeellion Uber gives every appearance of this being all programmed in.
AC Law . . .
The names of founding partners were sufficient enough, once upon a time, to appear on the shingle. But then TV came along and every grubby little legal outfit suddenly wanted to be an LA Law, a Boston Law. The proliferation of firms with 'Law' in their titles was exceeded only by the proliferation of posturing practitioners.
'Prenda Law' never worked that well though as a title, so will soon be forgotten. The British version of a sleazy scamming lying low-life scumbag shyster outfit was, however, a bit more memorable: AC: Law. Cryptic. Authoritative. Makes you think of a big outfit rather than the one-man band operating out of a London accommodation address that it actually was.
As to what happened to that, its repellent toad of a proprietor Andrew Crossley, was in 2012 finally subject to the full sanction of the UK's Solicitors' Regulation Authority, this after a shit-storm of complaints to the SRA about Crossley's nationwide pursuit of alleged illegal file downloaders. To its lasting credit, El Reg was amongst the most vociferous of Crossley's critics.
It took the SRA more than two years to decide that Crossley was a disgrace to the legal profession. The SRA was so totally and completely. . . appalled by Crossley's behaviour that it suspended him from practice. . . for all of two years. The reaction then of many here in the UK was the same as the reaction now of many in the USA to the John Steele situation, viz: that nothing short of barring the scumbag from ever practicising law again is appropriate.
But where disgraced lawyers are concerned, 'punishment' doesn't really happen. Look at AC:Law. Look at Andrew Crossley. The 'profession' which the, uh, fearless SRA once said he had brought into public disrepute has long since looked after him. Because it always looks after its own. As in the UK then, so, too, in the USA: there's no reason to think that John Steele will be treated any differently. Like Crossley. . . he'll be back.
Re: FBI in turmoil -- you know that, I know that--
Slightly OTT, I know, but BBC journalism is an oxymoron. I've just Red Buttoned the Sunday news index and found in 'World News' that a, uh, 'tourist bus' fell off a cliff. Fell off though, presumably after a failure of equilibrium a la The Italian Job. Anyway. Large vehicle, overwhelmed by gravity.
Read on though, and 23 people in said large vehicle are dead. Oh. Read even further though, and it will be discovered that (a) the crash happened in Turkey and (b) 'no foreign tourists' are amongst the dead. Now, had this been in the UK:
'Dozens Killed In Bus Crash Horror As Cyberspace Attack Continues'
or, in the USA:
'At Least 90 Dead In Bus Crash Terror Attack As Leaderless FBI Reels In Shock'.
Heigh-ho. To think that, back in 1929, Claude Cockburn's attempted (but unpublished) Times headline of "Small Earthquake In Chile, Not Many Dead" was journalistic humour at its most mordant, whereas now 'Bus Falls Off Cliff But It Was Only Full Of Turks' is BBC journalism at its best.
At £340,000 a year, BBC news supremo James Harding clearly deserves every British penny stumped up by UK licence payers..
Very sad . . .
'Tis always sad news to hear of a longterm relationship busting up. Sadder still to hear that the bust-up involves a human being on one side and a machine on t'other, because anyone resorting to a keyboard and monitor screen in quest of attention and/or affection and/or respect must be truly desperate. The fact that there are many millions of 'em in Generation Vapid only makes the situation more distressing. And yet, and yet . . .
. . . Who cares? And why should we? Fodderbook is for the fodder of this world in much the same way that turkeys are for Christmas and Thanksgiving, the only difference being that turkeys have more intelligence.
Enough to shake your religious belief . . .
Please say it isn't true, that The Creator doesn't know what It is doing. That God the Almighty Nadella is fallible. For verily, the tribes of the XP and the Vista and the Seven -- though not the Eight, put quickly to the sword of the Profit Balmer, and definitely not the Nine, as it was never begat -- verily were those tribes led into the Land of Ten, whether they wished to abide there or not, and were told that it was good, more milk, more honey, more telemetry than humankind had ever before seen.
But now. . . Now? The Creator is having problems, creating? Un-be-liev-able. For it is writ that though the waters of the Red Sea shall divide, never will the house of the Red Mond come apart, nor all its works from version 4.5a on. The Creator dwelleth therein. And all is good, and will so forever remain. . .
. . . At least until it's so fucked up that the heathen are at the Gates, and all profits have fled.
The Creator. A delusion not now coming to a theater near you.
How to ensure a bad departmental boss becomes an even lousier CEO . . .
. . . do exactly what happened here.
The worst boss I ever encountered was an aggressive moron who knew nothing, did nothing, and was well on his way to the top of the organisation when he was stopped in his tracks. Or, er, by his tracks.
He was stupid enough to leave his office unattended at the precise moment when a localized excess of gravity overwhelmed and some documents in his in-tray fell to the floor and had to be retrieved by an employee who happened to be passing by at the time. One of the print-outs was the moron's CV, which he'd been updating. It included:
'I am an individual whose leadership has always had at its core the nurturing and encouragement of others. I firmly believe that all employees have within them the potential to achieve more, both for themselves and for their employer. My commitment to bringing out the best in them has been good for them and good for business.'
In other words: though I'm a dickhead who knows feck-all, I am bright enough to have pliable idiots working for me who'll make sure everything runs properly so long as I occasionally pat them on the head and say good boy or good girl.
The guy's file was safely restored to his in tray after determination had been made that no further material of value to him had been squeezed out of a drawer or disappeared under the desk. Realizing, now, how much their boss believed in nurturing the talents of others, those others were encouraged to see what else they might do to fulfill their own potential.
He was fired soon afterwards, it being the case that Local Government is especially sensitive about departmental heads upon whose office computer is found copious amounts of non-municipal adult content. Moral of the story: forget de-bugging. Try destroying.
Re: I realise it's simplistic but....
It's not "a few more quid" you'd be paying, but a LOT more Euros. Or, in old money: pesetas. Because British Airways is about as British as paella. Same way that energy supplier Scottish Power is anything but an outstanding regional enterprise, rather an outfit with the worst customer service record of any large company in the UK.
Spanish Airways and Spanish Power are infused with an identical corporate culture, which is to slash costs, treat customers with contempt, and in the event of formal or informal censure, issue a grovelling apology then set off and do the same thing all over again. And again.
Spanish Power's most noticeable tactic has been to 'adopt' a leading charity, shove some money into it, and then run full page newspaper ads extolling its nobility. I now await a similar advertising campaign from Spanish Airways.
Put down your coffee and admire the sheer amount of data Windows 10 Creators Update will slurp from your PC
Re: Self inflicted wounds well earned
If you re-read the quote you've used, you'll realise it can't be attributed to an asshat CS rep. Because no asshat CS rep spends 2 years creating an Internet of Shite device and a forum for the discerning to engage in polite discourse about the opening, and closing, of garage doors.
That's what an entrepreneur does.
Or in this case, a power-crazed entrypreneur who fancies himself as an exitpreneur . . . before becoming an ex-entrepreneur.
Call out the cops . . .
@ TheVogon: You certainly have some odd notions about the role of the police:
"Sure, but I would also expect them to be arrested for assault and criminal damage and the court to order them to pay to fix said damage. They should have called to police to address the original issue..."
They should also have been prepared to wait for, let's say, two to six weeks whilst the police were busy dealing with other unambiguous crimes, after which time a nice community relations officer would've dropped by to say that, amazingly enough, we can't find anything in Law which stops you from blasting to smithereens the means whereby a possible paedophile gets off on viewing under-age children to their inevitable distress.
The LastPass blog referenced by El Reg is notable for the company's inability to describe how its product can be managed as well as uncritical eulogies from LastPass users oddly sanguine about the way things have gone. But perhaps they pay for the 'premium' edition.
Nothing in my LastPass 3.3.4 installation allows for updating. Nothing in the LastPass security blog article describes that installation: "please check the LastPass Icon > More options > About LastPass to check your version". But "More options" doesn't exist.
If LastPass can't even get that right in a security post, God alone knows what hope there might be of it getting anything else right of rather greater complexity. I note that The Register has re-christened this as 'LostPass'. Well said, dear vulture -- and in my case, how apt.
There seems to be something wrong with your computer . . .
Wife and I had an outlook.com email address in our names. Like gmail and ymail, it was synched to deliver to us whenever called upon by our desktop client. The way Microsoft had it working was as follows:
Monday morning, outlook emails are delivered. Tuesday afternoon, they're not: no server connection possible. Wednesday lunch, everything OK, Wednesday night, oops, big red X plastered over the outlook account, no server connection possible. Thursday: no server connection all day. Friday: everything working all day. Saturday: working half a day. Sunday: big red X, 'please check your configuration'.
This state of affairs occurred throughout November. December. And January. Microsoft's considered advice was that something seems to be going wrong somewhere on your computer. Told that actually, it isn't our outlook.com address configuration on this computer which changes by the hour but Microsoft's ability to actually deliver anything which changes by the hour. Why might that be, Mr Redmond? Microsoft's response: check your configuration, re-install, re-test, blah blah etc blah. If you require further help, please visit our forum.
We no longer have an outlook.com email address, though still keep a barge-pole to ensure that any contact with any other of Microsoft's superb services is pushed resolutely aside.
Re: The modern way?
Pretty freakin' useless at making hardware products, too. The Google Pixel C tablet remains so supreme an example of moronic engineering that owners have flooded the company's support threads with complaints since the day the crap was issued. Google's response has been to call upon a Partner to provide advice on Flower Arranging In The Home.
Disney's tale of the Beauty of a brave do-no-evil Internet search engine being devoured by the unthinking Beast of monetization is fun for all. And while we're on the subject of your day and your family, did you know that DuckDuckGo fucks up Google? (This isn't an ad, by the way, but news selectively sourced from one of our partners which we believe is of great relevance to you and your entire life.)
So if it's in the papers, it must be true???
The ICO is investigating a company . . . because it read something in The Observer newspaper? Because everything anyone ever reads in a newspaper has to be true?
And especially, The Observer, sister paper of The Guardian, famous for its World Exclusive report on how Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn couldn't get a seat on a train and only afterwards realised that not only was the story entirely untrue, but that the "reporter" it so innocently by-lined on the story was actually a Corbyn aide hiding behind a pseudonym (apparently, anyone can get anything printed on The Guardian's front page; you just submit whatever you feel like, under whatever name you like, and, er, that's it: you're A Journalist.)
Ah well. The ICO's faith in the printed word is really. . . touching. It might, however, be better all round if the ICO paid less attention to crap newspaper articles and more to actual facts and actual figures -- in this instance, the facts and figures held on file by the UK's Electoral Commission, a body which -- surprise, surprise -- is the official watchdog on UK elections (as distinct from, er, The Observer newspaper.)
The Electoral Commission will be able to pass on to the ICO a detailed, audited statement of accounts received from the Leave campaign which shows that AggregateIQ, a small, specialist Canadian company based in downtown Victoria, was paid £3m for its research and marketing services.
This, of course, is in complete contrast to the firm cited by The Observer and now being investigated by the ICO: Cambridge Analytica, whose spokesperson, says The Register, told The Register:
"Cambridge Analytica did not do any work (paid or unpaid) for the Leave.EU campaign. In 2015 the company was in discussions to potentially work with them. That work did not go ahead."
So: Cambridge Analytica says it didn't do any paid work for Leave. Cambridge Analytica says it didn't do any unpaid work for Leave. AggregateIQ says it did £3millionsworth of work for Leave. The Electoral Commission confirms that. But hey: no need for the ICO to take any notice: if a newspaper says something quite different, then it must be true -- so let's go spend a few £100ks on an investigation. . . into the wrong company.
Be interesting to discover from El Reg how that investigation progresses.
Be even more interesting to learn from El Reg just what is the aggregate IQ of the UK's Information Commissioner's Office -- many of us have already made our own assessment, based on the ICO's glorious track record, but further evidence is always worthy of consideration.