Posts by dan1980

Re: Lots of criminals in here

Whether you've got something to hide or not really revolves around a big question: "from whom?"

There is information about me that I am happy for the government to have; it is necessary and I think it helps keep everything working well. They need to know my financial and employment details to asses my tax obligations, for example.

Likewise my doctor knowing my medical information. It is to my benefit that he knows my medical history (though I strongly believe this should be 100% in the patient's control, should they wish it) and I am likely to get a more accurate diagnosis and more relevant, effective care if I provide it.

That doesn't mean, however, that I am happy to have any of that information stored in plaintext and (more) vulnerable to being stolen because, while I don't want to "hide" it from the those who need it, I most certainly want to "hide" it from spammers and scammers and identity thieves.

That said, there is PLENTY I want to "hide" from the government because it is, quite simply, absolutely none of their business and I shouldn't have to justify my right to privacy.

@Alister

Yes, he is to be presumed innocent unless and until found guilty but he is no longer to be presumed to be trust-worthy and that means that the defence he provides is of low value.

Re: Nothing will change until this is changed ...

@The Nazz

'And as for free speech, and other amendment "rights", if it's not acceptable to falsely shout "Fire" in a cinema . . . .'

Setting aside the rest of your comment - which I admit I don't fully understand - the above statement is just not correct.

Well, it depends on what you mean by 'acceptable', of course. If you mean that to do so is stupid and irresponsible and therefore not acceptable socially then sure. But if you mean that it is not acceptable legally then you are misinformed - at least so far as the US Constitution is concerned. (The situation is different elsewhere but this story is about the US.)

The simple fact is that yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre most assuredly is protected speech. Moreover, much speech that is far more inflammatory is also protected.

Indeed, the only speech that is excluded from the protections of the First Ammendement is such speech as is both intended and likely to cause imminent criminal action.

How that fits into your argument is another matter - I just wanted to clear up this point as it is repeated far too often.

@Boohoo4u

I've been thinking about the 'false advertising' side of this and I feel that charging such a high price for such a cheaply-made product is a form of false advertising. (Not necessarily in the legal sense, of course, which is really all that matters to Apple.)

One can talk about fashion and perhaps use the argument that Apple sells fashion items and so slapping a funky styling and a prestige logo on a cheaply made set of headphones and charging hundreds of dollars for it is clearly not unique.

The big difference between (say) a $200 t-shirt and these $200 headphones is that, when buying a $200 cotton t-shirt, you are not under any misconception that the item is made from some different material than the $20 shirt in the next store. And, if you are under that misconception, a quick glance at the tag will disabuse you of that. You have likely bought, owned and worn hundreds of t-shirts and similar items of clothing made from the same material and have a pool of experience and knowledge about how such a shirt will perform. You will also likely have a fair idea of the construction as, even if you have never seen a commodity t-shirt being made, you can intuit the process well enough.

A set of headphones is rather different; 99% of consumers do not understand how they actually work or how they are made or even what components are involved. Thus, they do not know why one pair might cost more than another. Also unlike t-shirts, there are large differences in actual, measurable performance beyond simple longevity and comfort - the latter of which can be subjective.

It is possible that a person buying a pair of headphones may have owned many other sets but the vast majority will be buying their first, second or maybe third set of headphones. Thus, not only will these people likely have little to no intellectual understanding of how headphones work, or what components are involved, they also have little in the way of personal experience.

Is that legally relevant?

Probably not, but I think it should be - at least in theory, if not specifically in this instance as $200 is actually not that expensive for a set of headphones. Generally, however, I think it should be recognised that the PRICE of an item carries an implication of the quality of that item, to a certain extent.

After all, if a $20 set of headphones were rubbish then everyone would be quick to point out that 'you get what you pay for' and would agree that no reasonable person would expect good quality at that price. Pricing a pair of headphones at $200 therefore sends a message that this pair is rather a lot better (not 10x, of course) than the $20 pair and it should not be considered unreasonable for an average consumer* - the target market - to say that such a message was conveyed to them by the manufacturer who gave the product that price.

The disclaimer is that I do not think there's a legal case unless Apple are refusing to give refunds. Even then, it's probably not going anywhere. My point is the price of an item forms part of the information being provided about the item and should be a consideration when deciding if the product has been accurately or inaccurately represented.

Again, that isn't the way it works, just the way I'd like it to work.

* - As above, I believe that the average consumer for a pair of headphones like this is not one who should be expected to be aware of how headphones are constructed or have a rich experience of audio reproduction to draw on.

Re: Where's the substance?

@Adam 52

"Some people bought adverts to affect the election. Either that's ok or it isn't, doesn't really matter who they are unless there are rules about limited spend or nationality."

That's the thing: it is illegal for foreign nations to do this.

No one (sane) expects that you can haul the Russian government into court for this but that is not the main issue. The main issue is whether US citizens assisted them in these activities - or even whether they knew because that is also a crime.

If, say, Jared Kushner and his fellows knew of these activities and provided targeting information to assist with the efforts then that is, legally, a big deal.

Re: Hmm

@Mark 110

"If normal practice was to run things through approval before publishing and he swerved it in this case then he is rightfully sacked."

Okay, but if seeking approval prior to publishing is required (rather than just a courtesy) then one can infer that Lynn was in the practice of doing this simply due to the fact that this didn't happen earlier.

Which raises the question: why did he (Lynn) deviate from past practice in this one specific instance? The clear answer is that he believed that, had he sought approval from Slaughter, there was a strong chance that he would have had to censor his piece.

Whether that censorship would have happened or not is up for debate but it is clear that Lynn was sufficiently convinced that it would - so convinced that he was willing to risk his job.

The other question that comes up is: why was the response so absolute from Slaughter? She claims that she wouldn't have censored the piece, which implies that the content was not inaccurate, misleading or in breach of their guidelines. So why terminate the relationship over a single* lapse in procedure?

Take a hypothetical parallel - a company employee commenting publicly via social media. Let's say a company is celebrating 5 years in business and a social media drone posts a tweet or whatever saying how proud the team are to be celebrating their 5th anniversary of selling high-quality widgets but, crucially, that drone doesn't get the required approval of the marketing manager before posting.

A response is needed, surely, to re-enforce that all staff must have public statements approved but nothing in the post would have violated any content rules and certainly would have been approved.

In such a situation, is it reasonable to fire someone for that?

Bringing it back to this case, the real test would be what the consequences would have been had Lynn done the same thing (in not seeking approval) but had published a piece that was supportive of Google and their interests.

For Slaughter to be believed, it must be shown that Lynn would have been let go in that situation, too.

* - One can strongly infer that this was an isolated incident and not a pattern as Slaughter would certainly have mentioned this history, painting it as the proverbial last straw. Had that been the case.

I don't think Windows 10 as a whole will be subscription only. Instead, I think that certain features will.

And this is the big issue with FORCED updates. Recall a recent update which removed the group-policy for disabling the Windows Store from Win 10 Pro, relegating it to the Enterprise version, which requires an extra license.

This license will now be available via subscription.

Cue the removal of more and more features from perpetual-license versions, no doubt, perhaps even culminating with the only perpetual-license version being the home edition, with all Pro/Enterprise functionality requiring a subscription.

Re: "are there any 2 or 3 quark particles that are not predicted?"

@Daedalus

"Since all quarks have a charge that is a multiple of 1/3, any three-quark particle has a whole number charge."

You mention the necessity of mesons having one quark and one anti-quark but skip that baryons are the opposite: they must have ONLY quarks or ONLY anti-quarks.

For example, if you start with a strange (-1/3) and an anti-charm (-2/3), you have -1 charge but no third quark or anti-quark you can add will leave the resulting 3-quark particle with a whole charge.

NOW, it is my understanding that the requirement of a whole charge is not what governs the combination of quarks but is instead 'merely' a result of some deeper rule. But that is a layman's understanding and when words like 'gauge' and 'symmetry' and 'iso-spin' and 'group' get thrown around, Dan is sorely out of his depth.

Of course, when you come to the charge of an electron being exactly (so far as is known) the same as that of a proton, things get profounding amazing and I am in awe of this wonderful universe (and those unravelling its secrets). But even then, if there is some 'grand unified theory' then there are real connections between the forces at play and so this is all, perhaps, to be expected.

Hence using the result of whole charges as a rule for me : )

The question I suppose at the heart of my earlier question is: do these underlying rules of combination preclude any combinations that would otherwise create a particle with a whole charge multiple?

Re: Breaking News: Water is wet

@Meph

I'm having genuine trouble believing that the leaders of multiple countries are thick enough to think that stamping their collective feet like petulant children is going to miraculously solve this problem for them.

Depends on what the 'problem' is. So far as our governments and their agencies are concerned, the 'problem' is not having on-demand access to any and all communication. I.e. - their problem is encryption.

They are smart enough, however, to know that demanding consumer software abandon encryption wholesale is not going to fly. They are also observant enough to know that the term 'backdoor' now carries a load of negative press (and rightly so), forcing them to use language that avoids - so far as is possible - any comparison or connection with a 'backdoor'.

They have been fought and, on these points, been beaten by the tech companies in the public mind. So what are they doing? Saying that they aren't going to dictate how the tech world runs itself and how they make their software - they will just insist on an outcome that they can frame in the most positive and reasonable light available to them: the ability to obtain information pursuant to a valid, legal warrant.

I believe that our governments understand that what they want isn't possible without either a backdoor or the complete removal of encryption and they don't care, so long as they can pass the buck.

For them, the problem is the existence of strong encryption - not how to access (strongly) encrypted data without weakening encryption; they couldn't care less about that.

Re: If Only "Professional" IT Staff Updated Their Computer OS Software

Yes, everyone seems to expect agility, stability and security all at once. On the cheap, of course.

Re: Electric string

@0laf

Maybe.

It's always possible (some would say likely) that the politicians are clueless but I suspect there are many the world over who at least accept that securely crackable encryption is just not possible yet still push for this type of legislation.

When they say they are not asking for a 'backdoor', that makes me believe they do accept the impossibility of having such a thing and keeping encryption secure.

What they are doing instead is calling for the end result while wishing to claim ignorance or disinterest in how that end is achieved. I am sure that most know that what they are asking for is only possible by implementing 'back doors' - they are just trying to avoid the blame for that by making it the 'tech community's' problem.

They will say that they 'never insisted on or even asked for a backdoor' and that building them was entirely the choice and decision of the tech companies so they, and not the government, are to blame for their existence. The government, after all, only wanted access to communication as directed by a legal warrant - and that's totally reasonable, right?

It's like directing truck drivers to drive across the country in an unfeasible time-frame and then claiming that they never told the drivers to speed or or take dangerous stimulants to stay awake.

They are trying to insist on a result that can only be accomplished by taking certain actions while wishing to absolve themselves of responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

. . . or, more succinctly:

"Hey, NSA! Nothing to hide; nothing to fear, right?"

@Adam 52

I acknowledge your point but I did take that into consideration. The question I asked myself was: 'what new information has been revealed'? The answer was: 'not much'.

What was revealed was that Russia was actively trying to meddle in the election but were not successful in actually 'hacking' voting machines or changing votes directly. We already new this.

So what about the fact that it shows statements by Trump that there was no Russian meddling in the election to be false? Well, we already knew that too because every relevant agency in the US (and in several other countries) have come out and said, unequivocally that it did happen and yet Trump still maintains it didn't. We already know that he either doesn't trust the intelligence community on this matter or accepts the truth privately and lies about it publicly for his own ends.

The new information is that there were unsuccessful attempts that, were they successful, may have allowed the Russian government to influence the election more directly, but that whatever occurred does not change the agency's previous stance about the Russian influence in the election. They do not view this as changing the nature or severity of what they already know to have occurred.

And Trump does not care one way or the other because he continues to deny it all.

On the flip side, it is possible - though unlikely - that this leak has actually harmed an investigation trying to tie such attempts concretely to the Russian government rather than, as Putin suggests, 'patriotic Russians'. In other words, I think there was little - if any - gain for the public to offset the negative consequences to the contractor herself and the (small) potential complication of any related investigations.

Re: The goal is safety

@DNTP

"So part of the settlement is that Uber has to start doing effective background checks, right?"

I would think not, considering:

"[Uber] will stop using the term "Safe Rides Fee" to describe the surcharge it passes on to customers for the cost of running background checks on drivers."

If I understand that correctly, Uber can simple collect the surcharge and change nothing except the name. Which seems the likely course of action for them. Maybe they change some part of the checks or who does them but any such changes would more than likely be cosmetic.

Re: Clever Chap, Einstein

@Bazza

"It's remarkable how well both relativity and quantum mechanics describe the world around us."

As i understand it*, the modern theories of the fundamental forces (excl. gravity) are a synthesis of quantum mechanics and (special) relativity. In other words, the Standard Model arises when one takes quantum behaviour and constrains that with relativity.

At least that's a lay-person's interpretation of an exceedingly complex subject.

* - Imperfectly at the very best.

Re: Work time

@Ole Juul

"Not being able to do that will add an hour or two to the time spend working, either before or after the flight."

And, as you have to send your laptop off with your checked baggage before you got through security screening, you won't be able to get that work done while waiting for your plane either!

"The fact they didn't suggests to me that it might not have been fully legal in the first place."

. . . or that this was a problem that didn't exist used as atest case to attempt to set a precedent which, if they were unsuccessful, would be a catalyst for exactly what they are doing trying to do now.

The point is that they insist that what they are doing and want to do is right so having a court tell them they are wrong only sees them claim the courts are now wrong and need to be, effectively, circumvented by new powers.

@AC

There is another dimension to this, which is the rhetoric or blaming the overseas tech companies and thereby attempting to frame this as big, rich, multinational corporations fighting against the UK. They are trying to instill an 'us-vs-them' mentality, with the absurdity that 'us' is the UK people and the UK government and 'them' is the easily-hated power of 'big tech'.

In fact, the opposite is far closer to the truth - it's the government vs the people with the tech industry, taking a stance that is for the good of people.

Sure, most of these big tech companies are doing it for selfish reasons because they are worried about losing business but that's fine by me - that's how the free market is supposed to look: companies that offer services people want make a profit and prosper while those who don't lose money and fail.

The reason is, really, beside the point - in opposing the government, it's the tech companies taking a stance that protects the people overall and in the long term.

Re: Now showing

@Winkypop

Yes, I expected the down-votes.

I am all for being (highly) skeptical and anyone familiar with my posting on this site would know that I strongly favour freedom over security and am extremely critical of - as you rightly call it - "security theatre".

BUT, the simple truth is that there are threats to our safety and some of those threats require security responses to mitigate. The questions we have to ask are, first: how credible are the threats and, second: what measures are suitable to combat them.

As citizens, we should be skeptical and critical of alleged threats and proposed security responses but that doesn't mean that every such threat and response is false and merely 'security theatre'.

One thing I feed into the equation when I attempt to evaluate issues like this is how popular the move would be. In this instance, the new regulations are getting large amounts of negative coverage in the US and UK and they are - understandably - unpopular with passengers.

This is an unpopular move that will cause real disruptions so I feel that, if it is a distraction, it's a poorly chosen one.

Of course you are correct.

But that is really my point - trying to prove they are wrong is impossible because they will ignore evidence or move the goal-posts or pretend that black is white and white is black.

That's why it's important to ask them, point-blank, what information would change their mind.

Of course, you'll probably get an evasion or an answer like: "we are open to all possibilities" or "well, I don't believe that is the case" and so on, but people (interviewers, etc...) really need to push the question: what testimony would convince you that the solution you are after doesn't exist?

In a way - not to start a war here - it's like those who say "where's the evidence" when it comes to man-made climate change. The problem is debating such folk is that they dismiss whatever evidence IS put forward, accepting only that which works for them. They, like these politicians, must be nailed down: tell us what would change your mind.

If the answer is 'nothing' then they should have the strength of their conviction and just bloody well say so.

Re: Credibility gap

'Advertisers seem unable to see the difference between "we can" and " we should".'

I disagree. I believe advertisers are very cognizant of the difference; they just use rather different criteria for 'we should' than you might.

There is an issue that cheap, beginner-usable drones coupled with cheap, high-definition cameras and cheap, high-capacity storage.

It's just not really a big 'danger' - it's a potential invasion of privacy. That - to me - is the real problem with drones. Unsurprising then that the government doesn't address that.