stevetrewick

7 ms·

1.
by stevetrewick 7y ago
Well, somebody’s passport number.
2.
by stevetrewick 8y ago
The Reuter’s article [0] this points to gives more info. Basically the judge felt the plaintiff was unrepresentative of the claimed class and any benefit would accrue to plaintiff and their lawyers while also finding Google’s action wrongfu
3.
by stevetrewick 8y ago
Mildly OT, as you’re a blind tennis fan, have you ever tried the adapted version of the sport for blind and partially sighted participants? If not, and you’re interested, I might be able to point you in the right direction depending on wher
4.
by stevetrewick 8y ago
No. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. IP addresses are considered PII if and only if they can actually be legally used to identify an individual. And even where they can be, what on earth are you doing with them that you im
5.
by stevetrewick 8y ago
GDPR is for the most part making explicit things were implicit in the pre existing EU legislation, many of which have been subject to EU court rulings. There is a ton of precedent.
6.
by stevetrewick 8y ago
IP addresses are only PII if you are able to actually use them identify an individual. > The CJEU decided that a dynamic IP address will be personal data in the hands of a website operator if: there is another party (such as an ISP) tha
7.
by stevetrewick 8y ago
You make this assertion elsewhere in the thread. It is incorrect. The entirety of the legislation is 88 pages long and it is really quite straightforward (full link preserved) [1]. Here is a set of (easily available) interactive tools, expl
8.
by stevetrewick 9y ago
404
9.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
Maybe. But where was he, and where were the rest of his party when this abomination was being shoved through parliament? Abstaining in the commons and cheerleading it in the lords. So pardon me if I don't buy him being a decent chap ha
10.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
I think everyone can understand why it's been done. Because parliamentarians have looked at the legislation and come to the conclusion that it would infringe on what they believe to be their legitimate privileges. It's just that
11.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
Guess we're about to find out. The current government (albeit with a different (arguably more liberal) PM) has already revealed it has a desire to criminalise any crypto it can't decrypt. Because paedos and terrorists. That kind o
12.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
Cool. Now all I have to do is prove that to the satisfaction of the investigation while they crawl all over the rest of my life looking for clues as to what it is I'm so keen on hiding. The process is the punishment.
13.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
To make you censor yourself so they don't have to. Same deal with the porn one. There was a piece by Alec Muffet not so long ago discussing the consultation process for age verification. All those involved knew that the headline group
14.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
I fail to see how placing an entire population's electronic communication under surveillance is a proportionate response to this kind of 'low hanging fruit' offender.
15.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
"To ensure they do not succeed, we do not comment publicly on the methods or capabilities available to the security and intelligence agencies." Oh but you don't need to, because it's obvious. All my encrypted traffic to
16.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
Yeah, we got that part from the original. To qualify as a joke I would have thought there needs to be a punchline that allows it to transcend lazy stereotyping. "Ha he means gold diggers" isn't adding that.
17.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
The HN audience likely sees a number of potential readings in context and is interested in which particular one you and GP have chosen to reify. It's unlikely (as shown by negative comments) that the community approves or agrees with a
18.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
Would the person or persons down voting all the author of TFA's comments mind explaining why? Seems a bit off.
19.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
Not even true. I have had this problem and had it traced to water ingress in a junction box some distance away.
20.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
> Which are all relatively poorly paying Relative to stuff we place higher utility on than art, because opportunity cost. But as the price of that stuff approaches zero due to mass automation of production so does the opportunity cost o
21.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
> I imagine that when the very first computing systems were being built, some humans were still on parity / better than the new systems. I mean I guess it depends on how far back you want to go. The early electronic systems (Coll
22.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
Why would they oppose it? It was their idea in the first place. Putting the entire population under constant electronic surveillance may be the one thing they agree with Tories about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Int
23.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
London, frequently. Try getting a cab from Hammersmith out to Roehampton and you'll get a stream of "I'm not going that way" responses. Simple economic reason is that the driver is unlikely to pick up a return fare (sour
24.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
But I don't want to hear sounds generated by the web audio API. So this behaviour seems entirely correct to me.
25.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
> "In fact, the result still needs significant guesswork to decrypt." I have never heard anyone other than the author of this piece suggest otherwise. Ironically, this result is trivial. That said, I have a pretty serious clas
26.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
> Using a GUI for editing E-mail or joining a WI-FI network is silly, just like it is for most things people do with computers. Englebart? Sutherland? Kay? Idiots! Fifty years of academic and industrial research into Human Computer Inte
27.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
Indeed, good catch.
28.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
> You could have no security and just get lucky and never get hacked. It's been a decade and more since that was even remotely true (if it ever was). Back in 2008 the average survival time of an unpatched internet facing XP box was
29.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
The main source of your confusion stems from misinterpretation of the phrase "Tesla's solar roof" which is solar roofing material produced by Tesla for buildings rather than a solar roof for a Tesla automobile. I'm a &#x
30.
by stevetrewick 10y ago
> pick one song and repeat it for the entire day I also do this, one or a very short playlist of very similar stuff. Seems to help keep my mind locked into a particular state all day/work period. Currently long Daft Punk tracks are

More ›