386 posts • joined 13 Jul 2007
Needs more clarity...
How does this interact with 2FA? Is that still secure, if it's turned on?
Presumably any attempt to actually *use* these access tokens would generate a 'new login from unknown device' warning from FB? I certainly always see that when I try to login from a device I haven't used before. Is that warning a default, or something you have to set up when you configure security? I can't recall.
Greatly impressed with the Pixel 2, greatly unimpressed with Google support.
Mine, 2 months old. Just failed. Won't charge - and when I unplugged the charger cable after trying for 5 mins, the metal part was so hot it almost burned my hand. Phone very hot too, after just 5 mins attempted charge. Google happy to offer warranty replacement - but not until I'm back on US soil - 'tough, you'll have to do without a phone for a couple of months; we can't ship overseas'.
It's a fairly premium product; it deserves premium service. Does no-one in Google have the wit to stick a phone in a box and slap a shipping label on it?!
Alternatively, Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming...
Re: Another example...
I didn't say or mean anything like that; please don't put words in my mouth.
My primary point (which I thought was obvious from the 'Canute Syndrome' opening) was the sheer futility of thinking national courts can control the borderless internet with suppression orders or injunctions. That entire concept is in its death throes.
What boots it for NZ courts to forbid NZ media (and individuals) from disclosing details of a court case when everyone else on the internet, from Baltimore to Bangalore, can publish with impunity because they're *not subject to NZ laws*? (and everyone in NZ can read the resulting publications of course).
My secondary point was to make a stand against this encroaching... balkanization of the internet. You don't like the 'right to be forgotten'? You want your search results uncensored? Just use the US Google servers - but that shouldn't be *necessary*.
Re: Another example...
I think it's a lot simpler than that, DavCraw.
The legal term for this kind of injunction is 'contra mundum' which means, literally, 'against the world'. Someone seems to have taken that very literal meaning and run with it. What it actually means in practice of course is 'against anyone within the jurisdiction of the court' - and UK courts don't have jurisdiction overseas; the wording simply refers to an injunction that applies to everyone in the UK, whether or not they've been formally served with it, as distinct from a normal injunction against certain named people or organizations.
...of what I call 'Canute Syndrome'. There isn't a little local NZ internet for little local NZ people, and courts are going to have to come to terms with that. NZ has very strict 'suppression orders' at times; not too long ago, a fairly prominent politician went on trial on certain eyebrow-raising criminal matters (historical allegations I believe) which would have been front-page news in any other country. In NZ, the entire case was suppressed; the media could only report on it in the vaguest possible terms (and without so much as hinting about the identity of the politician, or even that he *was* a politician, it was just 'a prominent New Zealander appeared in court...') thanks to sweeping suppression orders that applied before, during, and after the case.
We've seen similar stupidity here in the UK, most preposterously when the then Attorney General insisted that the injunctions issued by British courts protecting the new identity of Jon Venables applied to the entire world, and that they made it a crime for anyone, anywhere to publish any information concerning the matter - which is of course facially wrong and fractally nonsensical; how could he purport to suggest that a British court could override the first amendment in the USA, just for starters?!
(Interestingly, every time the story comes up, every UK newspaper report I've seen mentions that injunction, and continues to parrot the line about it having jurisdiction over the entire world, uncritically. I wonder why; they *must* know it's a load of rubbish!)
Re: And how...
I think you miss part of my point.
This is a case where the company has very publicly demonstrated failure to keep some very important personal data safe; that's _why_ the story has been such a big deal.
I'm asserting that, quite apart from the general principle, such cases are ones where 'severe breakdown in trust' _overrides_ any concept of 'legitimate interests' and would (or should) allow the subject to compel the deletion of data. It's especially egregious in the case of credit reference agencies, as the subject has NO direct contractual relationship with the agency; they're not in any sense a 'customer' of the agency, and they're not free to 'take their business elsewhere' in a free market.
That's why credit reference is an example of a special case where 'legitimate interests' is (or should be) FAR less compelling even under existing law.
Re: And how...
Well if it's possible for anyone to delete their data, the presence or absence of that data can no longer be relied upon; it'll break entirely away from the 'everyone leaves a data footprint' way of thinking that seems to have grown up with remarkably little question or oversight.
If we're sufficiently angry about this, can we tell Equifax "I don't trust you to hold my data; I require you to delete every piece of data you hold on me"?
It would seem a reasonable request in the circumstances - but is it possible? If not, data protection laws are worth very little. We need the ultimate sanction, as individuals, of being able to easily compel companies and organizations to delete all identifiable data they hold on us.
Since when does the FCC regulate satellite launches?! Wouldn't that be down to the... FAA or something?
And, there's a space treaty which has been in force for a long time and which places the responsibility for regulating commercial space activities on the country *from which they are launched*.
Americans sometimes have funny ideas about this stuff - I seem to remember a small kerfuffle a few years ago where the US purported to assert the right to regulate the sale of satellite images, even when they were taken from a foreign-owned satellite and offered for sale overseas.
Re: The Bank is RIGHT
You can absolutely buy foreign currency with a credit card in the USA. Just the first result:
So I don't see how, if you can buy Euros with a credit card (or indeed a bank loan), you can't buy cryptocurrencies with a credit card. It should absolutely be possible.
This kinda emphasizes the problem with cryptocurrencies at present.
It's the tulip bulb problem - by which I mean, people who bought and sold tulip bulbs had little or no interest in *flowers* or in *growing the bloody things*; they were simply vehicles for pure speculative bubble investment that had no relation to the bulbs actual utility in the real world.
Likewise, people generally don't buy cryptocurrencies to *spend* or to *use as currencies*; it's mostly pure speculation; their utility as functioning currencies is limited in the extreme.
That's a MASSIVE red flag.
Re: This has been a scandal for years
Surprised it's so slow. The last 2G network was turned off in Australia last year IIRC, and there's only one left in NZ; the penultimate one was turned off here a few weeks ago.
This has been a scandal for years
What are the telcos doing to secure THEIR networks against such devices?! It's their networks that are being spoofed; they should by now have some secure authentication to ensure that phones ONLY connect to genuine cellphone towers, not Stingray and other devices of that ilk.
Google, Apple etc. moved quickly to make communications more secure after the Snowden revelations - crypto on by default, end-to-end encryption, crypto on the backbone etc. But what have we heard from the telcos about Stingray? Crickets. Why? El Reg should be asking them hard questions, and being persistent about it!
So if they can't fix them...
...with microcode, will they offer to replace them as they did with the defective Pentium FDIV hardware?
...getting the developers of - just for starters - Signal - to comply with Aussie law!
Seriously, what are they going to do? Make mere possession of software such as Signal a criminal offence in Australia? Erect a Great Aussie Firewall on the internet to try to prevent people obtaining copies?
They couldn't find their own arses if you gave them a flashlight and a map and let them use both hands *facepalm*
One good reason why...
...I have a US credit card, billed in US dollars, to a US address!
I think that's exactly where Elon wants to be - he wants to be a Belter!
I don't get it...
"Seemingly, a problem with this code causes the OS to flip the wrong configuration bit in a hardware register, and write protect the firmware's data, triggering further failures."
So is this a write-only write-protect bit? Once flipped, a few lines of C code can't simply unflip it?!
If that is the case, I could swallow a few grams of silicon and *puke up* a better design.
Re: Not disputing that a national drone database is a good ideia
Nah. We don't even register guns here in NZ.
Canada gave it a go but scrapped it because they decided it wasn't worth the effort.
If you want a laugh...
Have a read of this. It's long and in lawyerese but your jaw will drop on numerous occasions when you see just how breathtakingly incompetent the FAA have been in pretending they can regulate drone operations previously:
(The result of this brief? Executive summary: The FAA got their arses completely handed to them in court and their case was dismissed with prejudice; they had insisted they could ban commercial drone operations based on illegal improperly made regulations - which would still have been illegal even if properly made because they cited authority that didn't exist! They're deluded and demented; how did they ever think they could get away with this?!)
Re: Oregon is a nanny state
I would honestly run up the skull and crossbones and start opening gas stations with after-hours automatic pumps in more remote areas - and let the law be damned. One of those weird old laws that wouldn't actually be enforced is my bet. What on earth is the rationale behind it anyway?!
Sheesh, I remember my dad telling me about a station with an automatic petrol pump on the A9 in Scotland back in the 1960s - a long and, at night, notorious dry stretch of road in terms of petrol. Saved his arse on one occasion when he miscalculated his fuel consumption at 2am! This was in the days when credit cards were still fairly exotic and rare - so it took pound notes! If Scotland could do it 50 years ago, America can do it today! :D
Re: I wouldn't trust his second opinion on a medical issue, so why roads?
"he's arguing that HIS information on how traffic and traffic signals work is just as valid as that of an actual certified Professional Engineer"
No, he's arguing - **with evidence** - that the engineers who implemented the system left bugs in it.
Re: Oregon is a nanny state
Eh? That's bizarre! What about after hours service? They must have an automated 'stick in your credit card and pump your gas' mode for after they close for the night!
And what exactly...
Are the telcos doing to protect their customers from such devices?
After the Snowden revelations, various companies - Google, Microsoft etc. - moved publicly to help protect their customers privacy from the spooks - encryption on by default, encryption on the backbone, end-to-end encryption etc etc.
What are telcos (and indeed phone manufacturers) doing to combat Stingray? The square root of sweet fsck all as far as I can see. Do they have ANYTHING, or anything in the works, to ensure that customer devices ONLY connect to, and exchange data with, genuine cell towers???
It's THEIR networks the spooks are spoofing; they have both a right and a duty to secure their networks so they can't be spoofed! But over the years since Stingray has been known about, what have I heard? Oh, crickets. El Reg should be asking the telcos hard questions.
Re: I've never understood...
Why? What's the point in taxing electricity differently according to the use to which it's put? it's _electricity_! There is NO logic to that.
Re: I've never understood...
Increasing general taxation isn't very popular - unless it's perceived as very FAIR.
Abolish fuel tax. Increase income tax fractionally to make up the shortfall. Poor people will pay less. Average people will pay about the same. Rich people will pay more. People will see the fairness in that.
I have triple citizenship (long story!) including US. The US healthcare system in a soundbite: "Never in the field of human healthcare have so many paid so much for so little" - me!
Re: I've never understood...
The unfairness is that it's paid by the same rate by rich and poor alike! That's not how a fair tax is supposed to work and I'm astonished so many people don't see it! Poor people should pay little or no tax; rich people should pay a lot of tax. Who would object to that as a principle? Why has it been ignored for many decades when it comes to fuel tax?
I've never understood...
I have no idea why Brits (and to be fair many other countries) tolerate the confiscatory levels of taxation that currently apply to fuel. I suspect the 'boiling frogs' analogy applies. It defies all logic; roads are a common good; a necessary service best provided by government. Since they benefit all (directly or indirectly) they should be paid for by all, in a fair manner - paid for by revenue from taxes such as income tax where the poor pay little or nothing and the rich pay their fair whack (at least in theory). Taxes and charges HAVE to be related to ability to pay to be fair.
Fuel taxes (and things like the ridiculous 'congestion charge' or road pricing) are paid at the same rate by rich and poor alike; that's bad and wrong and evil; ALL products sold at retail shouldn't carry any more tax or duty or charge beyond basic VAT or sales tax - and that should be kept low. And, as Mr. Khan indirectly points out, it can cause a big problem for government revenue when people switch to an untaxed fuel! But the fair and correct solution is the opposite to the one he proposes; put a penny on income tax and abolish all fuel taxes.
No. I checked. They have only two rules:
- it must be a UK address
- you must be able to receive mail sent there
You don't have to be the owner of the car, you don't have to be a UK citizen or even hold a driving license, you don't even have to be resident in the UK; you just have to supply a UK address where they can write to you.
And THIS is exactly why the DVLA haven't had my actual real home address for many years, and never will have again. I register my cars at an address which is entirely 'air gapped' from my real life, so to speak - and anyone obtaining the address from the DVLA will learn precisely *nothing* about me, other than that I can receive mail sent there. I would urge others to pursue a similar course of action.
It's the Pak!
"But the company that built it purposely designed the operating system so that we cannot access it."
No you gibbon, it's not personal; they purposely designed the operating system so that NO-ONE can access it.
This is bad and wrong. Before you get all huffy and grumble about 'Apple' and 'Billions', think about the *principle* here.
Apple complied with all Irish laws. They paid all the taxes that were due under Irish law. They did nothing wrong and nothing illegal.
The EC now says those laws themselves were illegal - laws made by the Irish government, which has sovereign and complete responsibility for the laws in their country. THEY made the mistake; why should Apple pay the price??!! If there's any penalty to be paid, it should be paid by the Irish government - NOT by Apple.
If the EC can do this to Apple, they can do it to ANY company - big or small. Think it through.
It looks like...
A bedside Nest.
Can I hack it and put Linux and Hercules on it and run MVS on it? Time will tell!
Re: We don't DO second-class citizens
Talk about pedantic; you entirely ignored the second part of the sentence referring to AJA internment - which made it bloody clear exactly what I was talking about.
I fail to understand how punishing criminals equates to 'second class citizenship' anyway; all countries do that in some form or another. UK has 'second class citizens' by your definition too - like that chap in the news not so long ago who got an 'order' requiring him to inform the police before he had sex despite the fact that he had never been convicted of anything!
Re: We don't DO second-class citizens
You pick the *one single exception* which is written into the constitution; yes the president must be a natural-born citizen. Otherwise this is slam-dunk illegal. Government can't treat natural-born and naturalized citizens differently.
The disbarring voting thing applies to felons and doesn't distinguish between natural-born and naturalized so that's a complete red herring.
"The new rules apply to naturalized citizens of the United States and new immigrants"
I'm a naturalized citizen and best of fucking luck; you'll need it if you try that with me. We don't DO second-class citizens; that last time we tried that was when we put Americans of Japanese ancestry in internment camps. All citizens are equal - natural-born or naturalized - and have an absolute right to enter the USA. Try this and SCOTUS will tie you in a pretzel.
Massive DING there. And one of the biggest and best examples of why that should be is... internet censorship. Long ago the government outsourced the creation and maintenance of a secret list of 'banned' websites to the Internet Watch Foundation; almost all ISPs use that list to block websites. But since it's in the hands of a private organization the list is exempt from FOIA requests and cannot be independently investigated to see what's on it. That's absolutely bloody scandalous. Censorship is bad enough (IMHO) - but secret censorship is revolting.
"Some publishers even specify a fine – up to $25,000 in some cases"
I hate it when every jobsworth with a clipboard and a yellow waistcoat pretends they can 'fine' people.
A fine is a form of punishment which may be imposed by a court after a criminal conviction as an alternative to prison.
What these people attempt to do is issue *invoices*. Only the nature of the paper used makes them unsuitable for toilet paper.
Re: There's an infinite number of monkeys at the door
Paging Mr. Hilbert! Mr. Hilbert to the front desk urgently!
I fscking loathe PETA
This case for starters - but perhaps more importantly, this entire fscking thread:
Put a small screen and a numeric keypad on the front...
...and you've also reincarnated the Nokia Communicator! Now that I would also go for.
An UPLOAD FILTER?!
Is this fscking CHINA?!
What an appalling law!
This smacks of trying to police something that every single person concerned knows is utterly unpoliceable and unenforceable - but nevertheless gives a handy charge to pull out of the folder on occasions when the government decides it wants to make an example of someone; that's clearly the reason it's on the statute book at all.
"Criticizing the police, while technically legal, will often turn out upon investigation to be linked with other offences..."
Re: a matter of pride?
Big DING there. Nail, head, BANG.
A large part of the reason Japan is so determined to continue whaling is - IMHO - precisely because most people are pushing them so hard to stop! No-one likes being told what not to eat! Especially not in such a bullying judgmental way. Ignore them, leave them alone, and they'll probably give it a rest within a few years. Keep pushing them and they'll only get more stubborn.
Re: I don't get it...
I tried it in Iceland. Wasn't bad at all; would definitely eat again. Tasted oddly exactly as you might expect - bit like a cow that had lived in the sea!