The ICO is a toothless waste of tax-payers' money. They couldn't even be arsed to do anything about BT's use of Phorm. Fines should apply immediately (say £100 per breach), and quadrupled if the company did not disclose the breach itself. So in this case the contractor/councils should be staring down the barrel of a circa £2.6million fine. But they won't. All that will happen is that a few civil servants will be promoted, the council will mutter "lessons learned", the ICO will crow about monitoring its own navel and nothing will change. Why the **** does a contractor need to take that amount of information out? Give them a limited VPN and a key to access what they need. Simples. And disable USB - that has no business being enabled for typical end-users in a corporate/council environment.
My name is Simon Wimpleblode, I am 34 years old, I live in Cape Town, I am an accountant.
I could create just such a profile in Facebook (or G+ or...) and not be "anonymous" as far as they are concerned, but without the ability to verify primary ID, they have no way to prove whether anything I have claimed is true in any way. All that remains of any worth is the identity/persona that is Simon Wimpleblode, and that's the same whether I am using an obvious handle or not.
Without some massive, world-wide scheme to link IP multiple-addresses back to primary, state-approved ID; there is no way to actually remove anonymity. All that handles allow you to to is segregate the on-line-self from the real-world-self and there could be many reason for wanting to do that. If the on-line-self has value (e.g. contributes to projects, respected blog, whatever) then it matters not if the consumers know the real ID or not, the content/product is what is of value and the trust built-up over time.
If people are trolling ass-hats, let the community/admins deal with those accounts as required. If people are weird in the head and prone to stalking, threats etc then I rather doubt that a lack of anonymity will dissuade them.
The only reason FB et al want anonymity gone is so that they can link the on-line-self to the real-world-self and thus sell more advertising. That's it. End of discussion.
"Don't involve it with work at all. Work under a pseudonym" Do not mention it on Google+, ever. Or any site where the pseudonym/nick is mentioned on Google+.
In one sense a pseudonym is pointless, you can working out who someone is from their connection on a social media site so long as you already have enough background knowledge. On the other hand a pseudonym does stop basic abuses like an employer trawling the social media looking for "undesirable behaviour". That may not seem so bad, but what your current or future employer deems "undesirable" could effectively silence you. Spoken out about depression, gay rights, socialism etc? Any of those could be viewed as "undesirable" an effectively exclude you. I know in the USA companies are already offering to mine social media for just such things. Speaking out against the status quo would also become incredibly difficult, be that against the state or against one's employer (i.e. whistleblowing). Of course the biggest worry is not the pseudonym or lack there of, it's automatic facial recognition. With that enable (as is default on Facebook) any pseudonym you care to use is moot as it only takes two friends to innocently tag you with you real name and pseudonym and eventually the system will marry the two up. Anonymity, while can be abuse just like anything, is precious and losing would have terrible consequences for society in my opinion.
You sir/madam are a chuffin' genius. One could then have an "Internet enabled" TV that was stuck with the OEM's walled garden or lacklustre codec support.
I think you are confused. This is not a generic box shifter that has to pay the £35-ish MS tax (e.g. Dell, Toshiba etc). This is a small tech outfit and Windows won't even fit on their board. The target is going to have to be a Linux of some kind. So no MS tax to pay (end the EU is looking into that at the moment - good thing too, it pisses me off having to pay it). However...because it does not run Windows, it will not be welcome in UK schools which require students to use MS Office. That's not a stated policy, but it is a direct side-effect of the various choices the exam/school boards etc make. So this device is doomed to fail. If it does gain any kind of traction, MS will just increase their education discounts "for the good of the children" and lock-in another generation. I dearly hope I am wrong.
You can pay $0.00 and yet have the cash to pay for broadband? You really expect us to believe that crap? The last time someone tried to get these via an illegal torrent they got the Internet kicking of their life. The chat on Demonoid was rather amusing.
If you are genuinely penniless, cut the broadband, use the library and the saved cash for something important. OR Use sites like abandonware.com OR Use many of the games that are available on Linux (e.g. Sauerbraten, Super Tux kart, Oolite, Zero Ballistics, Warsow...)
There is no point in kicking companies who play fair in the balls. In fact, what you do by illegally torrenting is damage the very system that most people would like to see companies follow.
Here's an idea, why not skip that $0.99 cheeseburger today and use the to buy the games? Or is that simply too simplistic for you?
The share of Linux (and by that I mean any OS executing a Linux kernel) is way more than 1%. Evidence from the sales of games etc puts the desktop penetration at around 10% (if not more http://tinyurl.com/6fcua8dhttp://tinyurl.com/3f6mf8w and http://tinyurl.com/3poo5rp). Something else to consider; in your home you may have one or two Windows PCs. You probably have four or more devices running Linux (often in the guise of BusyBox). Common examples are routers, set-top boxes, printers. Public-facing web-servers are predominately Linux stacks of some kind (LAMP etc) at 50%+.The back-end grunt servers are mostly Linux (datacenter etc). Supercomputers are almost exclusively Linux. In the enterprise, even in Windows shops the virtual hosts are mostly Linux (VMWare ESX et al). Many smartphones are Linux (Android, MeeGo). The new "fast-boot" options are Linux (e.g. WebOS). As I have already pointed out, home devices are predominately Linux. If one looks beyond North America to the future emerging economies (e.g. Brasil, to pick one at random) then there is a decided push away from MS. This is also why MS is happier to see illegal copies of Windows in use in the likes of China than legal copies of a Linux. If China were to crack down too hard on piracy and people made a switch to something else (Apple or a Linux or whatever) then MS would be well and truly boned.
I thought OpenID (and to an extent, OAuth) were attempts to stop the user having to use passwords all the time? I know I have password coming out the wazoo and it is getting to be a royal pain.
I have seen some interesting "non-password" features on sites: 1) Asking for inconsequential personal information before moving on to the password phase; 2) Never taking a password, just a few letters (selected via combo).
These have strengths and weaknesses too 1) Personal information does leak and might well be guessable; 2) The number of characters is restricted to whatever is in the combo, but at least key loggers should be impotent (so long as one uses the mouse).
The major issue I see with some kind of Internet-wide single-sign-on solution is that one loses anonymity totally. OK, so with the likes of Google around there isn't much to begin with, but they don't have some public crypto key (or whatever) with which to link accounts together. At the moment, so far as the sites are concerned, my account here is unrelated to an account I have elsewhere. If there is a push for an Internet-wide solution, we must be sure that it does not have unintended consequences and give more power to those who would do us harm. And let me be clear, I classify France, UK, Germany, USA (amongst others) as nations intent on doing us harm with regards to Internet censorship, take-down and "for the children!"
Slashdot Mirror
The ICO is a toothless waste of tax-payers' money. They couldn't even be arsed to do anything about BT's use of Phorm.
Fines should apply immediately (say £100 per breach), and quadrupled if the company did not disclose the breach itself. So in this case the contractor/councils should be staring down the barrel of a circa £2.6million fine. But they won't. All that will happen is that a few civil servants will be promoted, the council will mutter "lessons learned", the ICO will crow about monitoring its own navel and nothing will change.
Why the **** does a contractor need to take that amount of information out? Give them a limited VPN and a key to access what they need. Simples.
And disable USB - that has no business being enabled for typical end-users in a corporate/council environment.
My name is Simon Wimpleblode, I am 34 years old, I live in Cape Town, I am an accountant.
I could create just such a profile in Facebook (or G+ or...) and not be "anonymous" as far as they are concerned, but without the ability to verify primary ID, they have no way to prove whether anything I have claimed is true in any way. All that remains of any worth is the identity/persona that is Simon Wimpleblode, and that's the same whether I am using an obvious handle or not.
Without some massive, world-wide scheme to link IP multiple-addresses back to primary, state-approved ID; there is no way to actually remove anonymity. All that handles allow you to to is segregate the on-line-self from the real-world-self and there could be many reason for wanting to do that. If the on-line-self has value (e.g. contributes to projects, respected blog, whatever) then it matters not if the consumers know the real ID or not, the content/product is what is of value and the trust built-up over time.
If people are trolling ass-hats, let the community/admins deal with those accounts as required. If people are weird in the head and prone to stalking, threats etc then I rather doubt that a lack of anonymity will dissuade them.
The only reason FB et al want anonymity gone is so that they can link the on-line-self to the real-world-self and thus sell more advertising. That's it. End of discussion.
"Don't involve it with work at all. Work under a pseudonym"
Do not mention it on Google+, ever. Or any site where the pseudonym/nick is mentioned on Google+.
In one sense a pseudonym is pointless, you can working out who someone is from their connection on a social media site so long as you already have enough background knowledge.
On the other hand a pseudonym does stop basic abuses like an employer trawling the social media looking for "undesirable behaviour". That may not seem so bad, but what your current or future employer deems "undesirable" could effectively silence you. Spoken out about depression, gay rights, socialism etc? Any of those could be viewed as "undesirable" an effectively exclude you. I know in the USA companies are already offering to mine social media for just such things.
Speaking out against the status quo would also become incredibly difficult, be that against the state or against one's employer (i.e. whistleblowing).
Of course the biggest worry is not the pseudonym or lack there of, it's automatic facial recognition. With that enable (as is default on Facebook) any pseudonym you care to use is moot as it only takes two friends to innocently tag you with you real name and pseudonym and eventually the system will marry the two up.
Anonymity, while can be abuse just like anything, is precious and losing would have terrible consequences for society in my opinion.
You sir/madam are a chuffin' genius.
One could then have an "Internet enabled" TV that was stuck with the OEM's walled garden or lacklustre codec support.
It took a while as it's buried under some of the more esoteric Live services. You might need to log-in.
http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh
No, but you should check your cafetiere for overflows.
I think you are confused. This is not a generic box shifter that has to pay the £35-ish MS tax (e.g. Dell, Toshiba etc). This is a small tech outfit and Windows won't even fit on their board. The target is going to have to be a Linux of some kind. So no MS tax to pay (end the EU is looking into that at the moment - good thing too, it pisses me off having to pay it).
However...because it does not run Windows, it will not be welcome in UK schools which require students to use MS Office. That's not a stated policy, but it is a direct side-effect of the various choices the exam/school boards etc make. So this device is doomed to fail. If it does gain any kind of traction, MS will just increase their education discounts "for the good of the children" and lock-in another generation.
I dearly hope I am wrong.
Ethernet port? Wonder if it could take power from that?
Heck, once wired up the local keyboard becomes pretty redundant.
I know you're a troll, but....
You can pay $0.00 and yet have the cash to pay for broadband? You really expect us to believe that crap? The last time someone tried to get these via an illegal torrent they got the Internet kicking of their life. The chat on Demonoid was rather amusing.
If you are genuinely penniless, cut the broadband, use the library and the saved cash for something important.
OR
Use sites like abandonware.com
OR
Use many of the games that are available on Linux (e.g. Sauerbraten, Super Tux kart, Oolite, Zero Ballistics, Warsow...)
There is no point in kicking companies who play fair in the balls. In fact, what you do by illegally torrenting is damage the very system that most people would like to see companies follow.
Here's an idea, why not skip that $0.99 cheeseburger today and use the to buy the games? Or is that simply too simplistic for you?
The share of Linux (and by that I mean any OS executing a Linux kernel) is way more than 1%.
Evidence from the sales of games etc puts the desktop penetration at around 10% (if not more http://tinyurl.com/6fcua8d http://tinyurl.com/3f6mf8w and http://tinyurl.com/3poo5rp).
Something else to consider; in your home you may have one or two Windows PCs. You probably have four or more devices running Linux (often in the guise of BusyBox). Common examples are routers, set-top boxes, printers.
Public-facing web-servers are predominately Linux stacks of some kind (LAMP etc) at 50%+.The back-end grunt servers are mostly Linux (datacenter etc). Supercomputers are almost exclusively Linux. In the enterprise, even in Windows shops the virtual hosts are mostly Linux (VMWare ESX et al). Many smartphones are Linux (Android, MeeGo). The new "fast-boot" options are Linux (e.g. WebOS). As I have already pointed out, home devices are predominately Linux.
If one looks beyond North America to the future emerging economies (e.g. Brasil, to pick one at random) then there is a decided push away from MS. This is also why MS is happier to see illegal copies of Windows in use in the likes of China than legal copies of a Linux. If China were to crack down too hard on piracy and people made a switch to something else (Apple or a Linux or whatever) then MS would be well and truly boned.
I thought OpenID (and to an extent, OAuth) were attempts to stop the user having to use passwords all the time? I know I have password coming out the wazoo and it is getting to be a royal pain.
I have seen some interesting "non-password" features on sites:
1) Asking for inconsequential personal information before moving on to the password phase;
2) Never taking a password, just a few letters (selected via combo).
These have strengths and weaknesses too
1) Personal information does leak and might well be guessable;
2) The number of characters is restricted to whatever is in the combo, but at least key loggers should be impotent (so long as one uses the mouse).
The major issue I see with some kind of Internet-wide single-sign-on solution is that one loses anonymity totally. OK, so with the likes of Google around there isn't much to begin with, but they don't have some public crypto key (or whatever) with which to link accounts together. At the moment, so far as the sites are concerned, my account here is unrelated to an account I have elsewhere. If there is a push for an Internet-wide solution, we must be sure that it does not have unintended consequences and give more power to those who would do us harm. And let me be clear, I classify France, UK, Germany, USA (amongst others) as nations intent on doing us harm with regards to Internet censorship, take-down and "for the children!"