Also, When can the UK expect Obama to come over and talk with minor MPs to talk about US banks ruining costing the country billions and to pay the British citizens compensation?
If I was Cameron I would have just ignored those senators. The UK doesn't tell the US what to do with their prisoners, the US shouldn't tell the UK what to do with theirs. The guy probably would have been released on appeal anyway. The evidence against him was shockingly bad and should've been laughed out of court.
For one thing. Why the hell does it matter? It's an
However there is utter garbage reporting on that site. They used the exif data as 'proof' the photo was actually taken in 2001. If you're going to call out a company for incompetence and/or missleading people, perhaps it would be best to demonstrate a bit of common sense.
Do the editors also wonder if they've been caught in a time vortex when they notice their AV equipment flashing 00:00?
He did frame it correctly. He gave them 60 days to fix it. Not "60 days to fix it plus you must stroke my ego sufficiently and quickly enough".
If you give someone a 60 day deadline, you stick to it. You don't throw a hissy fit and put far more computers at risk because they didn't behave exactly as you want.
Yes the code was known and being exploited but he made the exploit far more widespread (just look at the explosion of malware that abused the bug that appeared days after he published it).
Sorry, Travis is a scumbag lacking in morals who only cared about grabbing headlines.
Without knowing their stats it's impossible to know how regular their visitors are. There will be a significant 'front page only' visitors, visitors coming for a single article and ones that only visit when incredibly bored.
There may be 10 ads but I'd imagine the revenue for them plummets once you look outside of a skyscraper and main banner.
The Guardian have been mocking the Times/Murdoch over his business practices. A bit rich coming from a media company that lost something like £230 million last year...
The Grauniad does provide a nice contrast to the right wing tabloids but they're not above printing questionable articles to push an agenda.
BBC is still my top news site, only major news outlet I know of with a strong mandate designed to minimise bias.
£2 probably represents 2000 ad views. With their original viewing figures they would've had to have 200 ad views a week per user to make that kind of revenue which is a big ask.
So long as they can maintain or grow those subscriber numbers, this has actually been fairly successful.
I could've taken a picture of the weather in the UK late last year when we had an incredibly large amount of snow that stayed around for weeks (unusual in the UK where snow usually becomes muddy slush within a day).
Would that be incontrovertible proof the UK is getting colder? Of course not.
Junk science is unacceptable, no matter which side of the fence you sit. Is it any wonder scepticism is on the rise when scientists point to stuff like this as cast iron proof?
There are exceptions but they're entirely down to national security or privacy (both personal and business related). Neither of these apply to data collection methods and figures.
Why should they have to do this? Because the tax payers own the research, they have a right to it. This is a right firmly entrenched in UK law.
The emails were criminally obtained, but the lack of response to FOIA requests was already know. The leaking of the emails just meant that no one could pretend it wasn't happening any more.
You can charge cost for responding to requests. Both for the man power and any physical costs. It's for cases like this where there's a risk of them being harrassed through FOIA requests this clause was put it.
Rather than exercise their legal right, they thought they could just pick and choose who they could give information to.
The inquests were largely carried out by the university. They focused on studies that were specifically chosen to be investigated by the university.
What's more the entire scope of the article was changed (at the request of the university again) from studying the science behind the reports (and if the scientific process was subverted) to looking simply looking at the conduct of the people writing the report.
The information they were blocking WAS published and was being refered to in reports.
This wasn't a case of "you will give us your readings as you measure them". This was a case of "you published these figures in this study, can we now see how you arrived at these figures?".
Except when they don't fufil their obligations under the freedom of information act. As they weren't. They're now facing (civil) charges over their treatment of FOIA requests.
The data has to be ALWAYS available to everyone. That's the whole point behind Freedom of Information requests. Only releasing data to people you like and you feel share your views is not freely releasing data.
If you feel you are being hassled by nuisence requests, you hire someone to deal with them and pay their wages by charging the people requesting the information (as you are perfectly entitled to do).
They said they'd give MS 30 days to fix a vulnerability. They then proceeded to release an exploit within 5 days.
Not even the majority of linux distributions can have that kind of turn around (at least the distributions that actually test patches before rolling them out).
All these hackers (yes that's what they are) care about is stroking their own ego and giving the impression that by somehow exposing this code to millions of script kiddies (look at the explosion of exploits that happened in the previous example) that they're being noble.
Frankly, they need to grow up and actually think about the people they're putting at risk. Vulnerabilities happen, patches may take a while to come. That's no excuse for this.
Yeah there was some lab people who demonstrated that it was possible on some specific cards using a specific type of terminal that you could confuse the reader into sending a verified code. It was incredibly unlikely to ever be used 'in the wild' as it needed expensive equiptment and older generation chip and pin cards (which are all expiring now anyway.
One of the strengths of chip and pin is that the chips on the cards themselves can carry new versions of the protocol, as well as the readers.
I (and millions of other Brits) have a chip and pin debit card in my wallet that I use as my sole method of getting cash out.
In the UK it's mandated by law that the banks have to prove that you were negligent with your card details to refuse to pay out (very difficult to do).
You are completely wrong about what you think chip and pin is.
The magnetic strip on the card contains the exact same information as on regular cards.
The chip contains the pin, if the pin is guessed incorrectly 3 times, the card will lock itself. If a chip and pin terminal senses a pin, it will not authorise a transaction without the pin (which on correct entry will cause the card to send an encrypted 'pin verified' code to the bank).
The only way chip and pin cards have been compromised (outside of cards using outdated protocols in a lab envoironment) is standard card skimming. You copy the magnetic stripe and PIN from a compromised terminal to clone the card. This only works if you use the cloned card on a non-chip and pin terminal. To do this you need to leave the country as all terminals in the UK (and other chip and pin countries) are required to be chip and pin. Nothing like someone suddenly making a massive purchase 1000 miles away in a different country 30 minutes after making one in their home country to flag up a transaction with the bank.
Basically, the only practical vulnerability at the moment for chip and pin is a vulnerability for strip only cards. There's a reason there's been massive reductions in ATM fraud in chip and pin countries.
Can government owned property be classed as private property (and the implications that go with that)?
Did the security guy just say there was no law against photography on the metro or did he specifically say it was fine to take pictures on the metro?
If it's private property and there is no specific rule saying photography is fine then the security guards were probably within their rights to eject them from the metro (provided they followed company guidelines).
If I invite you over to my house for dinner, there's no law that says you can't say my cooking sucks but that doesn't mean I can't tell you to get out of my house if you do and call the police if you refuse to budge.
You use Shakespeare as an example when Shakespeare is a huge example of why copyright is important.
Shakespeare didn't produce written versions of his plays. Why not? Because there was no copyright law at the time. If he published his plays, they'd be performed across the country by other companies without giving him anything and he'd be ruined.
As a result, an unknown portion his plays as they exist now differ from the original performances as there were no 'official' versions of his plays, so they had to be pieced together from his writings and memories of the performances.
Had there been copyright law at the time, there could have been proper published versions and we'd have close to the original text today. Not to mention we'd have some plays and poems that have become lost to time (Cardenio being one of the most prominent examples of lost Shakespeare).
By that logic, encryption is also security through obscurity, therefore there's no point in encrpyting data.
The point of ASLR isn't to provide absolute security, it's to provide an additional layer of security to make it harder to produce meaningful exploits from vulnerabilities.
The Magna Carta is a horribly outdated document and some of the terms are laughable. It's why it's only used as a guideline, not as a cast iron constitution. Here's some questionable rules it puts across:
If you're a noble, your heir cannot be of someone of lower social class.
If you're a widow, you can't re-marry without permission from the crown.
Rules regarding debt (specifically) to Jews.
Nobility can only be punished by their equals
Women cannot accuse anyone of murder unless the victim was their husband
Lots of rulings regarding specific barons alive at the time and new forests that had been created that are utterly irrelevant now.
One of the problems with that article is the way it views IPCC complaints.
IPCC complaints are treated as criminal allegations (they can afterall cost an officer his job or result in a full criminal prosecution). As such, the defendants (the force or officers in question) need to the full information surrounding the complaint in order to fully defend themselves.
If you withold evidence to defendents, you end up with miscarriages of justice.
Slashdot Mirror
The EXIF data only indicates that they probably didn't set their camera clock or it got reset changing the batteries.
Also, When can the UK expect Obama to come over and talk with minor MPs to talk about US banks ruining costing the country billions and to pay the British citizens compensation?
If I was Cameron I would have just ignored those senators. The UK doesn't tell the US what to do with their prisoners, the US shouldn't tell the UK what to do with theirs. The guy probably would have been released on appeal anyway. The evidence against him was shockingly bad and should've been laughed out of court.
For one thing. Why the hell does it matter? It's an
However there is utter garbage reporting on that site. They used the exif data as 'proof' the photo was actually taken in 2001. If you're going to call out a company for incompetence and/or missleading people, perhaps it would be best to demonstrate a bit of common sense.
Do the editors also wonder if they've been caught in a time vortex when they notice their AV equipment flashing 00:00?
As every IT manager knows, the amount of time it takes to produce some code is directly proportional to the number of people working on it!
They should employ 100,000 coders, that way exploits will get fixed minutes after they're found!
People in China work 80 hour weeks for pathetic wages. Why can't you? There are tasks that need to be done 24/7, not just 40 hours a week!
He did frame it correctly. He gave them 60 days to fix it. Not "60 days to fix it plus you must stroke my ego sufficiently and quickly enough".
If you give someone a 60 day deadline, you stick to it. You don't throw a hissy fit and put far more computers at risk because they didn't behave exactly as you want.
Yes the code was known and being exploited but he made the exploit far more widespread (just look at the explosion of malware that abused the bug that appeared days after he published it).
Sorry, Travis is a scumbag lacking in morals who only cared about grabbing headlines.
Without knowing their stats it's impossible to know how regular their visitors are. There will be a significant 'front page only' visitors, visitors coming for a single article and ones that only visit when incredibly bored.
There may be 10 ads but I'd imagine the revenue for them plummets once you look outside of a skyscraper and main banner.
The Guardian have been mocking the Times/Murdoch over his business practices. A bit rich coming from a media company that lost something like £230 million last year...
The Grauniad does provide a nice contrast to the right wing tabloids but they're not above printing questionable articles to push an agenda.
BBC is still my top news site, only major news outlet I know of with a strong mandate designed to minimise bias.
£2 probably represents 2000 ad views. With their original viewing figures they would've had to have 200 ad views a week per user to make that kind of revenue which is a big ask.
So long as they can maintain or grow those subscriber numbers, this has actually been fairly successful.
I could've taken a picture of the weather in the UK late last year when we had an incredibly large amount of snow that stayed around for weeks (unusual in the UK where snow usually becomes muddy slush within a day).
Would that be incontrovertible proof the UK is getting colder? Of course not.
Junk science is unacceptable, no matter which side of the fence you sit. Is it any wonder scepticism is on the rise when scientists point to stuff like this as cast iron proof?
There are exceptions but they're entirely down to national security or privacy (both personal and business related). Neither of these apply to data collection methods and figures.
Why should they have to do this? Because the tax payers own the research, they have a right to it. This is a right firmly entrenched in UK law.
The emails were criminally obtained, but the lack of response to FOIA requests was already know. The leaking of the emails just meant that no one could pretend it wasn't happening any more.
You can charge cost for responding to requests. Both for the man power and any physical costs. It's for cases like this where there's a risk of them being harrassed through FOIA requests this clause was put it.
Rather than exercise their legal right, they thought they could just pick and choose who they could give information to.
The inquests were largely carried out by the university. They focused on studies that were specifically chosen to be investigated by the university.
What's more the entire scope of the article was changed (at the request of the university again) from studying the science behind the reports (and if the scientific process was subverted) to looking simply looking at the conduct of the people writing the report.
The information they were blocking WAS published and was being refered to in reports.
This wasn't a case of "you will give us your readings as you measure them". This was a case of "you published these figures in this study, can we now see how you arrived at these figures?".
Except when they don't fufil their obligations under the freedom of information act. As they weren't. They're now facing (civil) charges over their treatment of FOIA requests.
The data has to be ALWAYS available to everyone. That's the whole point behind Freedom of Information requests. Only releasing data to people you like and you feel share your views is not freely releasing data.
If you feel you are being hassled by nuisence requests, you hire someone to deal with them and pay their wages by charging the people requesting the information (as you are perfectly entitled to do).
They didn't try that.
They said they'd give MS 30 days to fix a vulnerability. They then proceeded to release an exploit within 5 days.
Not even the majority of linux distributions can have that kind of turn around (at least the distributions that actually test patches before rolling them out).
All these hackers (yes that's what they are) care about is stroking their own ego and giving the impression that by somehow exposing this code to millions of script kiddies (look at the explosion of exploits that happened in the previous example) that they're being noble.
Frankly, they need to grow up and actually think about the people they're putting at risk. Vulnerabilities happen, patches may take a while to come. That's no excuse for this.
Yeah there was some lab people who demonstrated that it was possible on some specific cards using a specific type of terminal that you could confuse the reader into sending a verified code. It was incredibly unlikely to ever be used 'in the wild' as it needed expensive equiptment and older generation chip and pin cards (which are all expiring now anyway.
One of the strengths of chip and pin is that the chips on the cards themselves can carry new versions of the protocol, as well as the readers.
I (and millions of other Brits) have a chip and pin debit card in my wallet that I use as my sole method of getting cash out.
In the UK it's mandated by law that the banks have to prove that you were negligent with your card details to refuse to pay out (very difficult to do).
You are completely wrong about what you think chip and pin is.
The magnetic strip on the card contains the exact same information as on regular cards.
The chip contains the pin, if the pin is guessed incorrectly 3 times, the card will lock itself. If a chip and pin terminal senses a pin, it will not authorise a transaction without the pin (which on correct entry will cause the card to send an encrypted 'pin verified' code to the bank).
The only way chip and pin cards have been compromised (outside of cards using outdated protocols in a lab envoironment) is standard card skimming. You copy the magnetic stripe and PIN from a compromised terminal to clone the card. This only works if you use the cloned card on a non-chip and pin terminal. To do this you need to leave the country as all terminals in the UK (and other chip and pin countries) are required to be chip and pin. Nothing like someone suddenly making a massive purchase 1000 miles away in a different country 30 minutes after making one in their home country to flag up a transaction with the bank.
Basically, the only practical vulnerability at the moment for chip and pin is a vulnerability for strip only cards. There's a reason there's been massive reductions in ATM fraud in chip and pin countries.
Few questions and observations:
Can government owned property be classed as private property (and the implications that go with that)?
Did the security guy just say there was no law against photography on the metro or did he specifically say it was fine to take pictures on the metro?
If it's private property and there is no specific rule saying photography is fine then the security guards were probably within their rights to eject them from the metro (provided they followed company guidelines).
If I invite you over to my house for dinner, there's no law that says you can't say my cooking sucks but that doesn't mean I can't tell you to get out of my house if you do and call the police if you refuse to budge.
You use Shakespeare as an example when Shakespeare is a huge example of why copyright is important.
Shakespeare didn't produce written versions of his plays. Why not? Because there was no copyright law at the time. If he published his plays, they'd be performed across the country by other companies without giving him anything and he'd be ruined.
As a result, an unknown portion his plays as they exist now differ from the original performances as there were no 'official' versions of his plays, so they had to be pieced together from his writings and memories of the performances.
Had there been copyright law at the time, there could have been proper published versions and we'd have close to the original text today. Not to mention we'd have some plays and poems that have become lost to time (Cardenio being one of the most prominent examples of lost Shakespeare).
By that logic, encryption is also security through obscurity, therefore there's no point in encrpyting data.
The point of ASLR isn't to provide absolute security, it's to provide an additional layer of security to make it harder to produce meaningful exploits from vulnerabilities.
This is great for countries that lack opticians with basic equiptment yet somehow have lots of people with large screened smartphones?
The Magna Carta is a horribly outdated document and some of the terms are laughable. It's why it's only used as a guideline, not as a cast iron constitution. Here's some questionable rules it puts across:
If you're a noble, your heir cannot be of someone of lower social class.
If you're a widow, you can't re-marry without permission from the crown.
Rules regarding debt (specifically) to Jews.
Nobility can only be punished by their equals
Women cannot accuse anyone of murder unless the victim was their husband
Lots of rulings regarding specific barons alive at the time and new forests that had been created that are utterly irrelevant now.
One of the problems with that article is the way it views IPCC complaints.
IPCC complaints are treated as criminal allegations (they can afterall cost an officer his job or result in a full criminal prosecution). As such, the defendants (the force or officers in question) need to the full information surrounding the complaint in order to fully defend themselves.
If you withold evidence to defendents, you end up with miscarriages of justice.