Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


ICTChris

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Is Gordon breaking the law by taking photos of someone without their consent?

Gordon is a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yflab said:

Gordon is a moron.

That’s a given.  Not in dispute.  Hopefully the lassie in the photo has an ex named John that gives Gordon a leathering.

Curious to know if he’s actually breaking the law here though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, speckled tangerine said:

"I'm hyperventilating and taken my mask off. Please help! Next stop is Kirkcaldy"

That’s everyone’s reaction to arriving in Kirkcaldy though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Left Back said:

That’s a given.  Not in dispute.  Hopefully the lassie in the photo has an ex named John that gives Gordon a leathering.

Curious to know if he’s actually breaking the law here though.

You can pretty freely take pictures of public in a public place (which I assume public transport would come under) as long as they aren't indecent. It could possibly considered harassment mind you.

https://www.blpawards.org/competition/photo-rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jan Vojáček said:

You can pretty freely take pictures of public in a public place (which I assume public transport would come under) as long as they aren't indecent. It could possibly considered harassment mind you.

https://www.blpawards.org/competition/photo-rights

 

5 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Dunno in terms of civil law and image rights but no nothing criminal.

Cheers.  I asked because I vaguely recall something in the news recently about smart doorbells taking photos without consent and the courts ruling it unlawful.  Didn’t pay a huge amount of attention to it right enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Left Back said:

 

Cheers.  I asked because I vaguely recall something in the news recently about smart doorbells taking photos without consent and the courts ruling it unlawful.  Didn’t pay a huge amount of attention to it right enough.

Pretty sure that headline didn't reflect the full story, they did have a Ring doorbell but the CCTV cameras were more of a problem than the Ring. Don't recall seeing that a Ring doorbell was by itself unlawful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ddfg said:

Pretty sure that headline didn't reflect the full story, they did have a Ring doorbell but the CCTV cameras were more of a problem than the Ring. Don't recall seeing that a Ring doorbell was by itself unlawful

It was the ring doorbell that was the main issue, although the camera was also ring.  It was recording the neighbours garden both visual and audio and although the activation area is configurable, the capture area is not.  It was found to be in breach of GDPR and harassment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Laptops cannot (natively anyway) install and run .apk files. Mobile apps won't run on a laptop.

None of which matters, given the app allows screenshots.

The only way to prevent it, would be a randomly generated, time limited QR code, which of course can't be used as it would remove the ability for hard copies to be used.

In short we are left with an app (and the associated costs of it), which was introduced with the sole purpose of ensuring people had to validate their identity to get their code, being reduced to the same security level as the previously downloadable pdf codes by simply pressing the power and volume button together on a phone or tablet straight out the box. A roaring success.

How no-one in the design process identified and raised this is incredible tbh.

No-one identified it either because they hadn't anticipated it or they felt they could buy themselves a few weeks by releasing early and working on the fix immediately. Either of those is perfectly feasible and a consequence of rushing out software before it is ready.

What is clear is that nobody in government is talking to those who need to implement it or those who need to rely on showing their passport. What is also clear is that there are way too many engineers working on the app and not enough people who understand how users will interact with it. Finally, what is absolutely crystal clear in all of this is that the company involved and the government made a fundamentally fatal mistake of not hiring a team of SRE's (Site Reliability Engineers) whose responsibility is the successful system testing and ultimate deployment of the App needed to prevent incidents like these. It's as though they are still stuck in the 1990's with their software development process.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Billy Jean King said:
1 hour ago, gav-ffc said:
ScotRail bodying a weirdo for taking pics of ransoms on public transport.

Yet the p***k that did the exact same to Scotland fans travelling to the Israel game was advised to "phone the BTP" by Scotrail twitter.

I think the underlying message to both was the same "it's not our job (or within our remit) to enforce the law, f**k off and stop bothering us"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...