Posts by Doctor Syntax 33022 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Back in forensic days my fire investigation colleagues had a case where fires were started on several occasions in the same house and were looking at possible means of arson. Then they traced it to a large silver bowl. Which years later led to a large gulp when I realised SWMBO's makeup mirror had put a long scorch mark on a the side of a chest of drawers. Luck escape. These concave mirrors are dangerous.
Unfortunately the pros and cons of encryption only get debated by proxy via this cat and mouse game of the usual suspects introducing such bills.
As the US is so keen on its written constitution and amendments perhaps its time they debated it explicitly by deciding what rights their citizens should have to privacy and security of communication.
"My experience is that the better educated people are, the more they tend to understand that some problems are very complex and require a lot of consideration."
It depends in what they were educated. An education at Eton and Oxford in classics, PPE or whatever doesn't seem to encourage that understanding.
"Having checked with companies house there seems to be no exception to UK Law as one of the articles."
The Companies Act has a section of on directors' duties. I can't remember the exact wording on fiduciary duties but it makes reference to Common Law. Presumably a director causing or allowing the company to do something contrary to Common Law would be failing in this duty. There is also a concept in law of "piercing the corporate vei"l which seems intended specifically to prevent the hiding of criminal acts behind a limited company; otherwise you'd have every thief in the land incorporating and trying to pass off their thefts as those of the company.
See points 6* and 3 respectively.
* No matter whether it's spoofed or not the originator's telco knows the originator and if a telco is passing on a call that originated elsewhere it still knows the telco it got it from. They need that for billing. They'd have a problem if they were obfuscating the origins of the calls in which case they'd be - deservedly - on the hook themselves.
OK, here's this once again:
1. Allocate a number such as 1476 (nicely away from miskeying 1471.
2. Dial that after the nuisance call.
3. Until a threshold of reports has been reached your telco holds a record of your report.
4. Once the threshold has been reached your telco credits your account with a few, say £1 for each call or £2 if you're registered with TPS.
5. The telco charges whoever originated the call to them and adds a handling charge. If it's the actual caller it goes straight on their bill, if not it's up to the telco who forwarded to yours to keep records and charge their source, along with their handling charge.
6. If some telco along the line didn't keep track they're on the hook and won't be doing it again.
7. The telcos are given notice to prepare for all this.
8. The telcos realise there'll be upfront costs plus even if they don't kill the practice stone dead with credit control to protect themselves the costs will kill the rogue-calling industry and their upfront costs won't e recouped in handling charges.
9. The telcos suddenly discover previously unknown ways to stop the problem at source so there's no need to incur those costs.
Requires only will on the part of government to empower the regulator.
"My brother went for a job, in the late 90s I think. At a listed company. And was told his CV had to be hand written. Turned out they employed a graphologist to spout bollocks about what your handwriting said about your suitability for the job."
The interview is also your chance to evaluate the company.
"I mean, you could."
Ultimately the internet runs an a mutual agreement to trust a particular root service and sync all the mirrors to it. That implies that a mutual agreement to distrust it and trust one of the mirrors would be possible. If that were to happen the US would have the options, after all the shouting, of accepting it or cutting itself off from the rest of the world.
“We at Rotherwood Group take the protection of personal data very seriously. Once we became aware of a security issue affecting some data held on our cloud-based system, we took immediate steps to rectify it."
Rectifying after someody else finds your mistake is not taking protection seriously. Taking protection seriously is not making such a mistake in the first place.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
