56 posts • joined 18 Mar 2011
Re: Military levels of security
You're right. It's trivial to disable USB devices to prevent data getting out
...and internet access
...and remote working
...and mobile phone cameras
But do all of the above and just wait for the complaints from staff about how 'their employer doesn't trust them and is making it impossible to do their job'
Re: Worrying level of blame redirection.
Bottom line; it isn't clear how Morrisons could, within normal business constraints, have prevented this
This is the crux of the matter. If a rogue employee wants to get data out they will. Even in military environments I suspect a major deterrent against wrongdoing is the fear of personal punishment rather than any steps the employer may have put in place to prevent them. Morrisons should be responsible for compensating any actual losses but I doubt the majority of the 5000 claimants have taken any action as a result of the breach other than saying 'yes please' to a lawyer who came calling promising them some cash.
consider that the majority of these deals have a big discount on the contract for new customers, and you'd realistically expect the cost to go up
So they offer an initial discount in the hope of making up any deficit once the discount expires. How is that different to mobile networks? Just swap the word 'discount' for 'handset subsidy'. If anything the mobile networks are more honest about it: at least they keep the price at the same agreed level.
I'm struggling to have sympathy for people who sign up to an £x per month contract for 24 months which includes a 'free' phone and don't think to check after those 24 months are up whether they're still on a good deal.
Mortgages, broadband, television, utility bills and just about every type of recurring payment has some provision for what happens when you complete your fixed term and not a single one of them puts the price down automatically at the end of it despite you having paid off the cost of your Sky box or router. The costs of being moved onto your mortgage provider's SVR after your fixed term end will dwarf any mobile bill.
Not all mobile contracts are necessarilly bad deals. My other half recently got a Galaxy S8 on a 24 month contract at a total cost of ownership of only about £100 more than buying the phone alone. It's not exactly a chore to stick a reminder in the calendar to change contracts after 2 years.
The wronged parties in this case are phone manufactures. There are several of those in Europe
I suspect you're right but the point is that with these lockins no one else stands a chance. If I develop a search engine that's 10x better than Google's no one's ever going to know about it because Google are paying the manufacturer's to use their own, quite obviously supressing competition.
You specifically mention search and maps, two areas where Google are justifiably market leaders. They also have an awful lot of other tools which, at best, are distinctly average but they gain an unfair leg up by being bundled with the rest.
Re: " Can't wait to see the MS fine then."
And how did you install Firefox? Through the Google Play Store almost certainly. The point of this is that without access to the play store Android is pretty much useless. Windows* allows you to install apps from a multitude of sources.
*The exception is Windows S on some tablets but Microsoft doesn't come close to having a monopoly in the tablet OS world
Re: Trespass to chattels?
Except Apple advertise performance as well as battery life even if they don't mention how many iops you can expect. If you buy a device advertised as including an A10 processor then it's reasonable to assume it will run at near capacity (if the demand is there) and isn't artifically throttled.
Very few tablets/ultralights come with a plethora of ports. If you need to plug in a large number of accessories then this isn't the form factor for you. Given that then by far the best choice of port is USB3 due to being compatible with just about every accessory out there.
Yeah this dongle's expensive but that will be partly because Microsoft knows no-one will buy it since it serves no purpose whatsoever. Want to only carry a single charger to charge your tablet and mobile? Well carry the surface charger and charge your mobile off the tablet. You wouldn't be able to charge both devices at the same time from the USBC charger anyway.
'Household' spending. The average household is 2.3 people. Even with 2.3 mobile bills and home telephone/broadband it seems a little high. Some people must be spending an absolute fortune to skew the numbers.
What's in it for Ecuador?
I really don't get what's in this whole episode for Ecuador. They're spending a large amount of money harbouring Assange and having him around must be interferring with day to day operations of the embassy. To top it all he's now allegedly hacked into their computers. I understand they're not on the best of terms with the US but damaging your relationships with the UK, Sweden and most of the developed western world seems pretty extreme just to spite America.
There are serious privacy implications of this technology which don't sit well with me but that's not what this article's about. This article seems more interested in making the point: 'look at the stupid police using a system which is wrong 98% of the time'
I'm still waiting to hear the alternative. This system's not perfect. In fact it's pretty poor but still better than nothing. The decisions on where to trial such technology (and any racial implications thereof) lie wholy at the feet of real people. This AI is probably far more race agnostic than the people administering it.
Why is it a massive waste of police time? What's the alternative? Hundreds of real police officers scanning crowds looking for known trouble makers? That would cost an awful lot of money and I'm not even sure they'd be more effective than a 2% positive match either.
Re: Surely though
People really seem to be missing what these numbers mean. Imagine the police were searching for me. This system would identify 50 people, one of which would be me. A real person looking through those 50 photos will probably be able to very quickly discount the majority of them leaving only a small number requiring investigation. The alternative would be a massively larger and more expensive investigation.
Privacy implications aside a system with a 98% 'false positive' rate is still hugely useful to the security services.
Re: re: At least Google are upfront about the data they collect and what they use it for.
Likewise for Apple. Sometimes it's 'better the devil you know...'
Personally I'm looking forward to GDPR. Journalists all over Europe will be asking tech companies to divulge exactly what they're storing about us. I suspect we'll be horrified (if unsurprised) at the results.
"The Apple "tax" is the price you pay for privacy"
If you genuinely believe that then you've really drunk the kool aid. iPhones track 'significant locations' just the same as android does. Siri has the ability to listen constantly as well. Apple (and Microsoft if anyone had their phones) are just as invasive to your privacy as Google and that's even before we start considering that most people have Facebook and a whole myriad of other tracking apps installed. At least Google are upfront about the data they collect and what they use it for.
I don't understand this new obsession with politicians wanting to grandstand in various hearings. It was the same with UK MPs interviewing bigwigs from Google and Apple about how little tax they pay. It achieves nothing. If Facebook have done something illegal then investigate and punish them. If they've done something which you think should be illegal then change the law to make it so. If you just want to appear tough on TV before everything goes back to how it was before then save everyone's time and money and don't bother.
I'm not really sure what the aim of this exercise is. Can women in the tech industry now march into their boss' office and demand an 18.6% pay rise? Not really since even though the median pay may be lower that doesn't mean that one employee's is. Without any analysis into why there's a difference this seems rather pointless.
A very detailed analysis of the gender pay gap between Uber drivers was published recently and non of the reasons are what could be considered discriminatory.
"Er, no it's not reasonable that people subsidise rural broadband. Not unless the countryside starts sending me fresh air, lower crimes rates and less congested roads in return."
I think you'll find the countryside is already sending you your fresh air given that's where most of the trees are
All depends on how the original question was phrased.
"If you had a faster internet connection could your child do more online research to aid with homework?"
I don't think anyone could disagree with that. If only you'd bothered to link to the original article we could see.
Re: Guardian article
The most amazing thing about this whole revelation is that people seem to genuinely believe that the other side weren't up to exactly the same
Maybe we should ban motorised vehicles and move back to horse and carts? Think of the number of jobs that would be created!
Re: "not economically feasible"
And spending £100+ billion (and counting) saving a few minutes on a train journey from London to Birmingham is...?
While I don't disagree that the price of HS2 is excessive the purpose isn't only to make journeys between London and Birmingham a little faster. It will also free up capacity on the existing lines making for a far nicer experience on them.
But they never have an issue with the terms 'unlimited' and 'up to'. Come on ASA
You forgot the adverts in banners over the top of the actual program
Re: If you have issues with the Telly Tax...
I find it bizarre that people are willing to pay Sky a minimum of £25 a month (and still have to watch adverts) yet complain about paying the BBC less than half that. I also have a hard job of believing that across the TV channels, iplayer, the website and radio there isn't some content to suit absolutely everyone.
It wouldn't just be a case of scrapping the license fee, allowing advertising and everything else continuing as now. There's only so much adversiting money to go round and the BBC would be likely to hoover up most of it. ITV and C4's revenues would plummet with a corresponding drop in quality of programming. Several of the smaller channels would likely disappear altogether.
Those campaigning to scrap the license fee should be careful what they wish for. Whilst the BBC is far from perfect the entire entertainment landscape of this country would be worse off without it.
If Uber are as ubiquitous as you say and STILL not making any money then heaven help them when their competitors finally get their act together
The value of the property has nothing to do with what's in it. If I fill my house with gold bullion I don't have to pay more council tax than if it was filled with cabbages.
If the value of the property hasn't gone up then the tax won't go up
I really want streaming services to work but the fragmentation is killing them. To be able to see the shows I like I'd need to subscribe to Now TV, Netflix and Amazon at a monthly cost of £20.50. The latest season of half of the shows I watch aren't available on any of them. Other than limited Amazon titles I can't download any shows so I'm reliant on my by no means exceptional broadband. I'm also certain that once they become popular they'll move the way of subscription TV and have just as many adverts as regular broadcast television.
Offer me a single service with no ads, all shows, the ability to automatically download a few episodes of each show at the best quality that works on multiple devices and I'd be a buyer at a higher price than the three services combined now.
Re: Less than £2k per person
Given that the vast majority of people only make use of the health services in any meaningful way in the first and last 5-10 years of their life the cost for only those years of need is considerably more.
Really it's no different to any other insurance. The huge majority of people won't get back what they pay in but you still pay during the good years just in case you're unlucky enough to need it. A rare condition could easily cost millions to treat.
If the expected returns are going to be 'significant' then why isn't Virgin or any other provider chomping at the bit to lay fibre. Despite appearances BT aren't stupid. If they thought there was money to be made in replacing copper cables they'd be doing it.
The truth is that for the majority of people their current copper-based connections are 'good enough'. Certainly good enough to not be willing to pay much more for fibre. There will always be a small number of people (and links posted above show that this is a small number of people) who do have very low speeds but these are likely to be the most cost-prohibitive to lay fibre to anyway.
Finally you mention 'paying through the nose' for broadband. As it happens the UK is pretty competitive for broadband prices compared to the rest of Europe (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2015/10/mixed-uk-results-in-eu-study-of-broadband-speeds-price-and-coverage.html)
I suggest you read up on your history. Nynex, C&W, NTL and just about all of the other cable providers went into massive debt to lay their fibre and all went bankrupt when the expected returns just didn't materialise. No one was going to pay a huge premium for cable TV/telephone when over-the-air TV and BT provided a decent, cheap alternative.
Virgin cable only survive because they didn't have to pay for the cost of rollout. They picked up the bankrupt carcasses of everyone else who did. There's a reason Virgin haven't extended their network in any significant way in the last 20 years.
Re: it amazes me..
Indeed. It's slight unfair to compare the UK to other countries in this respect. We've had fixed line telephones for coming up to 150 years! Many (most) other countries have never had a universally connected populace so when they have a choice now of rolling out fibre or nothing then it's a no-brainer. The UK's choice is between rolling out fibre at a massive cost or keeping it's copper based network. For most people VDSL/ADSL2 is 'good enough'. Very very few people would be willing to pay much of a premium for fibre broadband and certainly nowhere near enough to pay for the cost of rollout.
In 10/20 years time that situation will probably change but who knows what copper based technologies will be available then. If wasn't that long ago that 56kb/s was considered the maximum bandwidth copper could support.
Re: Down with surge pricing in India!
As you say 1000Rs to a tourist is still relatively cheap and no one's going to spend hundreds on a holiday to India and then refuse to pay another tenner to see one of the wonders of the world. But if it's ok to charge certain groups more than the norm "because they're willing to pay more" how is surge pricing any different? People may not like it but they're clearly willing to pay surge prices otherwise no one would and the policy would disappear overnight.
Re: Down with surge pricing in India!
Indeed. 1000Rs for a westerner to visit the Taj Mahal. A local can get in for 40Rs. The same is true of most government-run tourist sites across India. I've got no problem with paying more but 25x more?
If the Indian government's able to ask people for more money than usual for a service why shouldn't Uber?
Re: Small claims court
And you'd prove to the court that your specific losses were caused by the Talk Talk breach how exactly?
Don't get me wrong, TT have been grossly negligent and should be fined a huge amount by the regulator/government and some high level executives should see prison time but there have been data breaches before and I'm not aware of a single case of someone linking a financial loss to the breach.
The chances are that it's pure coincidence this gentleman had £3500 nicked a couple of days after this breach but that's not really the point of this article. To charge him, and any other customers who want to leave, an early termination charge is shockingly bad PR from Talk Talk.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the new guidelines will they also apply to professionally produced films and TV due to the liberal use of product placement. Having 'advertising feature' on screen for 50% of the next Bond movie could be rather distracting
Re: I wonder what this will do to the mobile phone market
I see it the other way round. 5-10 years ago (when Google first tried) this would have been great due to the state and expense of high speed mobile networks. Nowadays mobile data connections are (for the most part) fast enough and reliable enough that when I get to a location offering free wifi I just don't bother.
Free, ubiquitous wifi only works if it's just that: present absolutely everywhere. If you're still going to need a backup mobile network for the times you're in a park, the countryside or just any black spot then why not just use it everywhere?
I can understand some concerns about privacy but smart meters? "Oh no, the powers that be will know exactly how much gas and electricity I'm using!!" What possible nefarious use could anyone have for that information? Contrast that with more accurate bills, not being hassled for meter readings and potentially innovative products/pricing based on time of use.
But Microsoft didn't get in trouble for forcing Windows to be the de facto desktop OS. They got in trouble for using their (fairly won) OS monopoly to try to create a second monopoly.
The situation with Google is pretty much identical. Their search monopoly is legitimate and no-one is saying otherwise. The issue comes from using that search monopoly to push other products. You can argue that it's trivial for users to go to other price comparison sites but the truth is no-one bothers because there's a big shopping button right at the top of any Google search.
Should Google be punished because users are a bit lazy? Possibly not but it's exactly the same rationale behing Microsoft's fines over the browser wars.
Re: 3 TV's
The device that sits in the same place all the time, connected to the wall by a cable, or two cables?
And how many of those cables attached to the three TVs mentioned are gigabit ethernet?
Wired is undoubtedly, and will always be, faster and more secure than wireless but very few people have ethernet cabling throughout their house. Through constant, small improvements (such as this) wireless will eventually become fast enough for the vast majority of uses and at a hugely cheaper price than running new cables through all your walls.
The ability to stream three UHD video streams seems like a reasonable benchmark for now.
Re: The Size of My Package...
I believe they have their own infrastructure, it's the same one with which the drivers can keep in contact with the controllers I think.
Given the lack of announcements by drivers on Great Northern trains and the fact that when they do happen more often than not they're to say "I don't know the reason for the delay" it doesn't bode well for the performance of any new wifi network.
"especially for those making lengthy journeys to the North"
Except all of the train companies mentioned only operate short distance commuter lines into London?
I don't see the need for this. Who doesn't have a data package nowadays on their phones which will be at least as fast as any free wifi used by several hundred people per train would be? Commuter services are also so packed that there's no chance of getting a laptop out to do any meaningful work. This just seems to be a massive white elephant which will no doubt be used as an excuse to justify ever higher fares.
There are several reasons. I'll leave it up to you as to whether they justify the cost of the rollout
1) More accurate bills. The days of estimated readings will be gone. You'll pay for what you actually use and won't have to worry about getting a massive bill after having had your usage under-estimated.
2) Fault monitoring. If your electricity or gas usage increases or decreases hugely it could point to a fault. With smart meters your supplier will notice
3) More flexible pricing. This is where some people will get scared. Suppliers pay more for energy at times of peak demand. Currently they smooth that out over a year to give everyone an average price. With smart meters they'd potentially be able to charge different prices based on the time of day. I don't think it's unreasonable to pay more for your usage at times of peak demand (and less off peak), others may disagree.
And right now you can make up readings to give your energy supplier effectively 'hacking' it so things won't be any different. Even after smart meters are rolled out someone will still come round to your house to read it manually every year or two to make sure everything's working so any 'hacking' will only get you so far. The automated smart readings will also be validated against your expected usage so report zero or very low usage for too long and your supplier will want to know what's going on.
No-one's pretending smart meters will be perfect but in the huge majority of cases they'll be at least as good as what we have now whilst also leading to more accurate bills. I don't understand everyones hatred of them here. So what if your supplier knows you tend to use most of your electricity between 5 and 6pm. They still won't know what it's being used for but it will allow them to potentially bring in more flexible pricing. We accept that you pay more for phone calls, holidays and transport at times of peak demand. Why should energy be any different? Sadly the government is not going to be building many new power stations any time soon so we're going to have to get smarter in how we consume a (soon-to-be) limited resource.
Whether that justifies the massive cost of the rollout is another matter.
All true unless:
You're somewhere noisy
You're somewhere you have to be quiet
You're somewhere without network connection
You don't want to look like an idiot by talking to your phone
Also, whilst getting better, the mobile PAs aren't 100% accurate. Would you accept a keyboard which got what you typed wrong 5% of the time? Or even 1%.
Apps aren't going away anytime soon.
Re: Working hard to resolve it? My £5k bill says otherwise
I wouldn't necessarilly expect moving energy suppliers to fix the problem. I shifted from nPower to SSE around the time these problems started. SSE have been great but nPower are a total mess. They're still billing me for electricity despite me now paying SSE. They're still billing me for a second electricity meter in the house which SSE had removed.
After spending about an hour explaining all of these problems to a very paitent nPower guy on the phone I was told they'd investigate but that this could take 90 working days. Almost 5 months! In the meantime they still send me incorrect bills every now and again and I have to ring up and spend half an hour on hold just to confirm that they're still investigating and I can ignore the spurious bill.
I have both a Nook HD+ tablet and a Nook Glowlight eReader. They're both lovely bits of hardware, certainly way better than the competition at those prices so it's a real shame they never took off.
Sadly I think Amazon/Kindle have the eReader market sewn up simply due to the Amazon brand being synonymous with books so much so that other manufacturers may as well not bother.
B&N never marketed their tablets as 'tablets'. They pushed them as gateways into the B&N ecosystem which no one really cared about being a part of. Had they done this differently and left it up to users to discover that they had access to the B&N store alongside the expected tablet functionality I suspect they would have done better.
Missing the poing
So will they then be displaying similar notifications to Firefox 23 users advising them to upgrade to a more 'modern' browser?
The various Google apps are likely to continue working in IE9 as well for many years to come. Despite being much maligned IE has moved on considerably since IE6.
The purpose of this policy is to scare users into changing browsers to one which is more Google friendly (Google is the default search engine in both Firefox and Chrome).
Google can't have it both ways. Either this is an anti-Microsoft (and anti competitive) policy or they have to treat Firefox 23 the same as IE9. Obviously Google would look very foolish for suggesting a 3 month old browser is not modern enough for them to bother supporting though.