I engaged an unnamed "pro-family" organisation in an email discussion on their pornography statistics, that 12-17s were the largest consumers of Internet pornography. When pressed for the source, they cited "Internet Filter Review".
A quick google confirms that there are still 260-odd references to the frankly ludicrous claim that a child can outpr0n an adult, although to be fair to the organisation I corresponded with, they did change their web site to reflect the update. When I did some digging into the sources for the stats overall, they included the 1986 Meese Commission Report (in and of itself considered unreliable), and Top Ten Reviews themselves (who do clearly have an interest in over-stating the scale of the problem) disclaim everything with:
"Statistics are compiled from the credible sources mentioned. In reality, statistics are hard to ascertain and may be estimated by local and regional worldwide sources."
A quick google for "Discordia Limited" turned up jzip.com - "Based on 7-Zip technology by Igor Pavlov" is the strap line for the site (its a Winzip-style compression tool). Is this another occurrence of their appropriation of open source products?
A small amount of measurably good protection is, to be sure, but badly implemented protection is worse than none, because you think you're safe when you're not. Two businesses I inspected lately...
- one used some cockamamie patch management tool, which told them that "SYSTEM1 - PATCHED", when in fact system1's patch deployment agent was identifying the successful "return=0" of the deployment script, not the (failing) installation.
- one boasted of their comprehensive AV coverage, and were horrified to discover that - as a small business - their (unmanaged) AV coverage was sketchy at best, relying on internet-based updates which were falling on their collective rear ends more than half the time.
Decisions are made on these flawed beliefs, which in turn magnify actual business risks by many times. In the case of #2, they opted for "unfiltered" (i.e. unscrubbed by inline AV) internets, on the basis that "we don't need it, so let's not spend the money".
One piece of WELL-MEASURED AND MANAGED protection is worth ten unmeasured and unmanaged pieces.
Just to echo this comment, this is a very good thing.
The legal definitions of "personal data" in the EU are quite clear - it's not the articles of data itself that counts, it's the usefulness is *identifying* a living individual from that data that makes the difference. For example, a name is a public identifier (and known to most people who browse a reasonable corporate intranet, let's say), and a residential or business address is clearly public information. You wear a name badge at a trade show or conference, big deal - and most people in a given area will know that 24 Acacia Avenue exists (from walking past it to the bus stop), in isolation these items are not noteworthy. It's when you can put the two together that an individual is identifiable (in the scope of directive 95/46/EC), and that personal data begins to need protection.
IP numbers in and of themselves are predictable (based on finite multiples of 4 numbers up to 255) and obvious, but when you put a name to an IP number, the state should provide some basic protection from the free dissemination of that couplet of information. Even more so when one includes - from the ISP, say - the subscriber's residential address, or employer's name and address.
That the EU is now extending this protection to IP addresses *in the context of identifying people and their actions* is a step forward - let's just wait for the UK government to accidentally cock it up --- http://www.out-law.com/page-4717, or just lose it --- http://www.out-law.com/page-8649.
The ten connection limit was IIRC introduced into the NT codebase during NT 3.x days to stop people using NT Workstation as a very capable file server.
O2 being a "a wholly-owned subsidiary of Telefónica S.A." http://www.o2.com/, the Spanish telecoms company with one or two other international arms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telefonica#Key_operat ions (.es.cz.sk.ie.de.mx.cl.vz.pe.ar.br.ec.co.pr.cn.ma.us) doesn't make it "international" enough?
There's a saying in British mobile (US: wireless) telco-land that the most profitable letter of the alphabet is "K" (as a diminutive of "OK"), as customers cheerfully shell out ~35 pence (65-70 cents US) millions of times a day to send an SMS message containing this one affirmative character.
You can SMS someone whilst walking in the street, or covertly whilst driving (is technically a no-no in GB, although my ex-gf seemed to not care), or talking to someone else. SMS is (still) the biggest consumer mobile technology in the UK, and all-you-can-eat tariffs are still on the expensive side. Correspondingly, the mobile networks don't really see any pressing reason to try to push people away from this highly profitable, low revex stream of money.
3G uptake is not great either (despite the £30bn+ spent by mobile telcos on access to the spectrum), because:
- there's no "killer app" for mobile interwebs - interwebs apps tend to be focused activities that can't be done when walking in the street, etc - GPRS and its ilk provide better device battery life
The other significant barrier to 3G acceptance is the extortionate pricing/usage models for 3G data traffic. T-Mobile have a basic nearly unmetered data service for £7.50 per month on top of your line rental, but don't do anything than smurf the web (i.e. no VOIP, IM, etc) - if you want "nearly" unlimited application choice, your monthly add-on more than quadruples. Vodafone operate a similarly high priced model. O2 and Orange still charge metered - often up to £4 per megabyte.
Unless there's a revolution in charging structures, the data-centric iPhone will struggle simply because using a "mobile internet communicator" (or whatever it's called) is too damned expensive for the masses.
This is aside from the fact that:
- Brits are big fans of camera phones, and with 3MP resolution being near standard these days, a 2MP emerging at the end of the year will be very out of date. - the web looks toss on a mobile device, most of the time
Slashdot Mirror
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959 refers to the 1985 FTP spec, itself obsoleting 1980's http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc765, so "disco-era" would be fair.
Lies beget lies.
I engaged an unnamed "pro-family" organisation in an email discussion on their pornography statistics, that 12-17s were the largest consumers of Internet pornography. When pressed for the source, they cited "Internet Filter Review".
The cached version of this page http://web.archive.org/web/20070103225905/http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html cites: Largest consumer of Internet pornography - 12-17 age group.
Whereas the current version http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html has the more plausible: Largest consumer of Internet pornography - 35-49 age group.
A quick google confirms that there are still 260-odd references to the frankly ludicrous claim that a child can outpr0n an adult, although to be fair to the organisation I corresponded with, they did change their web site to reflect the update. When I did some digging into the sources for the stats overall, they included the 1986 Meese Commission Report (in and of itself considered unreliable), and Top Ten Reviews themselves (who do clearly have an interest in over-stating the scale of the problem) disclaim everything with:
"Statistics are compiled from the credible sources mentioned. In reality, statistics are hard to ascertain and may be estimated by local and regional worldwide sources."
A quick google for "Discordia Limited" turned up jzip.com - "Based on 7-Zip technology by Igor Pavlov" is the strap line for the site (its a Winzip-style compression tool). Is this another occurrence of their appropriation of open source products?
A small amount of measurably good protection is, to be sure, but badly implemented protection is worse than none, because you think you're safe when you're not. Two businesses I inspected lately...
- one used some cockamamie patch management tool, which told them that "SYSTEM1 - PATCHED", when in fact system1's patch deployment agent was identifying the successful "return=0" of the deployment script, not the (failing) installation.
- one boasted of their comprehensive AV coverage, and were horrified to discover that - as a small business - their (unmanaged) AV coverage was sketchy at best, relying on internet-based updates which were falling on their collective rear ends more than half the time.
Decisions are made on these flawed beliefs, which in turn magnify actual business risks by many times. In the case of #2, they opted for "unfiltered" (i.e. unscrubbed by inline AV) internets, on the basis that "we don't need it, so let's not spend the money".
One piece of WELL-MEASURED AND MANAGED protection is worth ten unmeasured and unmanaged pieces.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_5#pt4-l1g36
says that "domestic purposes" are exempted from the Data Protection Act, so no, I'd not bother the ICO right now, I hear he's a bit busy.
Just to echo this comment, this is a very good thing.
The legal definitions of "personal data" in the EU are quite clear - it's not the articles of data itself that counts, it's the usefulness is *identifying* a living individual from that data that makes the difference. For example, a name is a public identifier (and known to most people who browse a reasonable corporate intranet, let's say), and a residential or business address is clearly public information. You wear a name badge at a trade show or conference, big deal - and most people in a given area will know that 24 Acacia Avenue exists (from walking past it to the bus stop), in isolation these items are not noteworthy. It's when you can put the two together that an individual is identifiable (in the scope of directive 95/46/EC), and that personal data begins to need protection.
IP numbers in and of themselves are predictable (based on finite multiples of 4 numbers up to 255) and obvious, but when you put a name to an IP number, the state should provide some basic protection from the free dissemination of that couplet of information. Even more so when one includes - from the ISP, say - the subscriber's residential address, or employer's name and address.
That the EU is now extending this protection to IP addresses *in the context of identifying people and their actions* is a step forward - let's just wait for the UK government to accidentally cock it up --- http://www.out-law.com/page-4717, or just lose it --- http://www.out-law.com/page-8649.
http://www.oreilly.com/news/differences_nt.html
The ten connection limit was IIRC introduced into the NT codebase during NT 3.x days to stop people using NT Workstation as a very capable file server.
O2 being a "a wholly-owned subsidiary of Telefónica S.A." http://www.o2.com/, the Spanish telecoms company with one or two other international arms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telefonica#Key_operat ions (.es .cz .sk .ie .de .mx .cl .vz .pe .ar .br .ec .co .pr .cn .ma .us) doesn't make it "international" enough?
There's a saying in British mobile (US: wireless) telco-land that the most profitable letter of the alphabet is "K" (as a diminutive of "OK"), as customers cheerfully shell out ~35 pence (65-70 cents US) millions of times a day to send an SMS message containing this one affirmative character.
You can SMS someone whilst walking in the street, or covertly whilst driving (is technically a no-no in GB, although my ex-gf seemed to not care), or talking to someone else. SMS is (still) the biggest consumer mobile technology in the UK, and all-you-can-eat tariffs are still on the expensive side. Correspondingly, the mobile networks don't really see any pressing reason to try to push people away from this highly profitable, low revex stream of money.
3G uptake is not great either (despite the £30bn+ spent by mobile telcos on access to the spectrum), because:
- there's no "killer app" for mobile interwebs
- interwebs apps tend to be focused activities that can't be done when walking in the street, etc
- GPRS and its ilk provide better device battery life
The other significant barrier to 3G acceptance is the extortionate pricing/usage models for 3G data traffic. T-Mobile have a basic nearly unmetered data service for £7.50 per month on top of your line rental, but don't do anything than smurf the web (i.e. no VOIP, IM, etc) - if you want "nearly" unlimited application choice, your monthly add-on more than quadruples. Vodafone operate a similarly high priced model. O2 and Orange still charge metered - often up to £4 per megabyte.
Unless there's a revolution in charging structures, the data-centric iPhone will struggle simply because using a "mobile internet communicator" (or whatever it's called) is too damned expensive for the masses.
This is aside from the fact that:
- Brits are big fans of camera phones, and with 3MP resolution being near standard these days, a 2MP emerging at the end of the year will be very out of date.
- the web looks toss on a mobile device, most of the time