London?
In this day and age why does it need to be in London? I'd have thought there would be distinct advantages to it being anywhere that wasn't London.
I'm guessing the bosses have their favourite bars and restaurants...
2756 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Jan 2010
When America come knocking with an extradition request for Mason Sheppard, I do hope the UK Government says no.
Extradition goes both ways, Anne Sacoolas is now on an Interpol Red Notice for the death of Harry Dunn, and yet the US refuses to extradite. Diplomatic Immunity is about preventing frivolous allegations against diplomats, it is not a licence to commit crimes. The evidence exists for the CPS to proceed with a trial, the US has been given that evidence in an extradition request, they have actively decided not to comply. I think most people would agree the death of Mr Dunn is significantly more serious than the hack against Twitter.
Attackers had access to the internal tools, and could view mobile numbers. Presumably they could update user details like mobile numbers, and since they're using tools for trusted staff, no further authentication was required. So change the mobile number of Elon Musk to your (burner) number, then issue the password reset request. 2FA kicks in and sends 2FA request to mobile number on file, but it now goes to your number, not Elon.
QED
(I'm not saying this is what happened, just one possibility for a poorly designed process/system)
"the plan is to hold onto all contacts data for 20 years for 'research purposes'"
I hope somebody finds written proof of this soon. This government has already lost the trust of the public, this is another nail in the coffin.
Can we storm Parliament and undertake a revolution? Can't wait for the next General Election, the country won't be here in four years.
"make a decision based on probabilities rather than a few black and white statements"
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
This is EXACTLY the problem with IR35, it is subjective. Law MUST be objective, it must be black and white, or you get ambiguities based on the people making decisions.
Two people being assessed by two different HMRC auditors get different determinations, that is not fair. The same rules should be tested against the same criteria and you achieve a consistent result.
"I'm sure app 'green' screenshots won't be hard to find"
Here in Edinburgh Lothian Buses has an M-Ticket app that When a ticket is “activated”, the app will generate an animated ticket on your smartphone screen.
No "screenshot" will do, it's a moving image pattern background with the current time counting and a four digit code that changes daily. That is not easy to fake especially on iOS where in theory the App must be approved by Apple which takes days if not weeks. Quite sure a digital passport would have similar protections should the government be stupid enough to try and implement such controls.
Big data is brilliant. Centralising all the details of people, movements and interactions allows the greatest range of analysis and could provide the greatest of benefit to our society, even the world. For greatest analytical benefit it should also capture age, sex, height, weight and other health data when first launched (manually I guess, while it could take existing health data from some OS and Apps, not everyone uses those).
And there's not a single person on the planet I'd trust with that data.
Won't be downloading it unless they pass a law mandating it be installed and used, after which I see Parliament burning to the ground.
Excuse my ignorance, but do these speakers not come with a control app that lets you manage who is or can connect? Delete pairings? Or do they need a factory reset to clear authorisations? Or do the connections persist a reset? Don't get me wrong, the Spotify over the Internet connection is a concern, but devices you cannot manage have to take some of the blame.
In theory Dividends can only be paid out of profits, and profits have already been assessed for Corporation tax, so the status was that (some) tax had already been paid.
Up until the recent dividend tax introduction every person in the UK was entitled to an exemption against any personal income tax equivalent to the corporation tax already paid. This meant that there no additional tax to pay until your total income exceeded the higher rate band. i.e. HMRC received the same amount of tax, it just came from two different tax sources (assuming both Company and person are tax resident in the UK).
It could be argued that dividend income should be taxed fully again, however there is evidence that simply leads to businesses finding alternative methods of dispersing profits (e.g. share buybacks to raise the value of the individual share price, or alternative investment).
"#5 The measures impose no new tax, they merely seek to prevent avoidance of an existing one."
Not entirely true. Pension contributions for an employee are made before tax is deducted, working inside IR35 they are deducted after the tax, so yes, a new tax on pension contributions has been introduced. Legitimate Expenses are similarly impacted, for an employee they are deducted before Corporation Tax, under IR35 expenses are covered after the tax has been deducted.
Jolyon Maugham has fallen into the trap that every person performing a role is on an equal footing when the reality is they are not. Employees and Contractors are engaged on different terms, and receive remuneration on different scales.
Employees have protections contractors do not, and employees receive a range of benefits that a contractor must account for out of the gross payment they receive (holidays, sick pay, etc is all part of the gross payment, contractors still receive them, just not from the client as part of the package).
IR35 specifically targets the little man, forces them out of the market and paves the way for the large consultancy companies. Take the money away from the people and put it back in the pockets of the rich.
"the Treasury made an official announcement in February, it said the rules would be reformed, rather than reviewed."
IR35 needs scrapped completely and the entire Income Tax system overhauled, it is no longer fit for purpose.
National Insurance is an anachronism that should have long since been buried as it no longer "pays for pensions and the NHS" - all tax from all sources covers all government spend so stop pretending to people that certain taxes are of more value than others.
A simple set of bands of income tax for all income is a much fairer system, less loopholes that need stupid subjective assessment such as IR35. And that is IR35s major problem - it is a subjective view of an engagement, an opinion formed by HMRC based on how some wooly questions are answered and how the assessor feels on the day (have they made their quota this month?). Simple banding is objective - "Did you have £xxxxx income last year, then you are due xx% in tax"
Much as I'd love to see Billions ripped out of Facebook I have to question why it has taken the IRS 10 years to reach this conclusion. They must have assessed the deal at the time and didn't raise any question over the valuation at that point, or in the immediate few years afterwards. I hope someone at the IRS gets sacked for this fuck up too.
"..which is then reclaimed by your client."
VAT is not reclaimable if your core business is VAT exempt products, such as banking. HMRC is going to lose all that VAT from every contractor being forced down the PAYE route in the Financial Services sector, a substantial proportion of all contractors if the government figures are to be believed. From my own experience that VAT is more than the Tax and NI I would pay if I was PAYE. Net loss to HMRC.
Seems to have been very poor work from everyone on the HP side from the very first day it was suggested they buy Autonomy.
Either that, or someone on the HP side is burying the good work done by some experts in order to protect someone else in HP.
There is a LOT of investment in a namespace, so while a new domain in and of itself might be cheap, moving one's internet presence to a new domain is not cheap.
There then remains the "who will pay for the .org"? Example. children.org moves to children.nac. children.org is not renewed, goes on the market, and is bought by nefarious people who pretend to be a charity.
This is non-profit organisations who are typically using all their money for more worthwhile causes than lining the pockets of ICANN, PIC, and whoever else is involved.
"Signing up to pay someone else to take of things for ten years at a time is a waste of money and resources,"
Sometime it isn't purely about the immediate money.
I worked for a large organisation where the IT support budget was a black hole, an expense the business had to pay without understanding what they were paying for Project changes were constant and true costs were obscured in the project/maintenance/operations mashup.
By outsourcing IT Support it was possible to demonstrate just what, or more importantly, what the business was not getting for its money. It took many years for the business to agree up front exactly what it wanted and stop changing the goalposts every six months. 10 years outsourced and support was brought back in house under control.
I'm not defending outsourcing, its a shitty experience for most people, but it is sometimes the best was to achieve a business outcome.
Here's what google can do...
You can have an ad-free experience when searching, but you must be signed in to google.
Google can harvest what you search (as they do today) but instead of directly placing ads in the results, they can sell those results to the other ad-flingers who paste every other page you visit with adverts (see <-- left and --> right)
OK, I appreciate this isn't the "environmentally friendly" option, but why don't they just keep pushing until the fuel runs out? Isn't that the least dangerous option?
A parking orbit is a great idea if you make the assumption that in the future someone develops the technology to undertake the recovery. That's pretty much the world of cryogenics, gambling that someone in the future wants to spend money to get you back.
While the unintended consequences you point out are a risk, in each case the "staff" were incentivised to commit their crime directly (i.e. they could make a personal difference to their remuneration).
I don't think with something as fundamentally different as major fines for corporations issued by a body that there is the same opportunity for an individual in the ICO to "line their own pockets" in the same way as your Cop or Security Guard.
You need to trust the integrity of your staff to an extent, and have audit controls to monitor compliance.