Since RFIDs landed in passports it's been a fairly badly held secret that the only thing that limits the range of such devices is the quality of the antenna and the transceiver.

The only reason those terminals work on proximity is because they use crap aerials. All it takes is a larger aerial and you can get up to max 10 meter range (beyond that the S/N ratio becomes an issue).

The only real question is why card companies are pretending they don't know this.

When have you ever known a card company to limit its opportunity to get you into interest paying debt? Why else do you think they put a payment limit on NFC transactions?

Sadly, what you have done is not enough.

You missed Google fonts. Practically EVERY Wordpress template contains them as it's one of the few resources available to create a better design without having to license fonts for download. Google doesn't do that out of the gentleness of their non-existing hearts: every time you load a Wordpress page which uses Google fonts you create a hit on their fonts API.

Granted, if you nuke cookies they will not have a fully accurate lock on you as a person, but that's where geolocation comes in - Google does not HAVE to be accurate, all they need is a reasonable approximation. In principle we should ALL use the web via proxy, but it's ridiculous that I have to defend what is my RIGHT because setups like Google are allowed to break the law with impunity (at least in Europe)?

The ISP was also providing email, but yes, the technically correct expression should have been "email provider".

There is a degree of irony in this. Many years ago, I was behind the cleanup of a VERY large email provider in Hong Kong who had so many spam problems in their client base that we had to start with a network containment process before we started to tackle the clients, so it's not that I'm unfamiliar with the problem or unsympathetic to Spamhaus - I just observe that from a neutral perspective, Spamhaus is not perfect.

Realistically, they can't be, because the sheer volume of spam they deal with makes anything but automation impossible and it is thus important that you have measures in place to detect being blacklisted. It may not be your fault, but you will suffer the effects.

Believe me, if we were blocking legitimate mail, our users would complain. It's not happening.

How would they know they're not receiving email? I'm all for what Spamhaus does and have used their lists on many mail servers, but I have also been on the receiving end when they had it wrong.

I was abroad, and the ISP I was using was blocked. Spamhaus basically tells you "talk to the ISP", but if you're dealing with a large ISP the theory that they will pay any attention to you doesn't always work. It wasn't difficult to solve (just grabbed a Yahoo account), but Spamhaus *can* get in your way, especially if you hang off a shared IP address.

Avoiding due process. It means they can get hold of data, and you cannot prove they have it. One of the main games since 9/11 has been to gain more powers (laughingly labeled "emergency" powers) against far less oversight so abuse would no longer be an issue.

I think there should be no barrier against law enforcement access to information, provided the need is proven (read: no fishing expeditions) and there is a clean, clear and reliable audit trail which is accessible a while later (not immediately because you could disturb ongoing operations). If the services do not want that transparency and independent oversight, I have a simple question for them:

"What do you have to hide?"

Grin, I switched to OSX from Windows/Linux in 2010 after I bought a Macbook Pro for research for a book. To be honest, I wasn't planning to, but the month I gave myself to get used to the platform turned into the last month I ran Windows (still have a tiny Win XP VM somewhere, but that doesn't get much used). The next month I spent swearing at myself I hadn't tried this earlier :)

The usual caveat applies, of course, it works for me, and the businesses I'm set up. It may not work for everyone, but so far, our deployment is pretty boring standard and others we know are now looking at leaving the Windows camp too.

What works for me:
- it works. Want to work: open lid, enter password, go. Ready: close lid, done. No hangups, no fuss, it just works. Set up dual screen? It takes seconds and it remembers the setup per screen as well. Need to give a Linux box a cabled ethernet link when there is only WiFi around? No problem - System Preferences, Internet sharing, go. I haven't even looked on how to do that in Linux, but I'm positive it will take more than the 4 seconds it took on the Mac - that was a complete jaw dropper.

- great hardware. I bought the high res screen, so my MBP has a 1680x1050 resolution, which matches the screen I used to use for my PC. About the only think I positively do NOT like is the mouse and the small bluetooth keyboard when I'm at home, so I have the cabled version and a Logitech Anywhere MX as mouse (IMHO the most perfect mouse ever invented, but I digress)

- low software costs. If I see how massively useful apps like Omnigraffle Pro, Pixelmator and Artboard are, versus how much they cost (admission: I would have paid more for that quality), the price and license limits of a single copy of Microsoft Office are plain ludicrous, and it's not be half as usable due to this %&Ã* ribbon idiocy (let's not mention what they have done to Visio's UI, shall we? I don't want to swear). In this context it's also worth observing that proving license compliance is a lot easier - saves time when FAST gangsters want to play games.

Thus, the new office we're planning will only have one single copy for format translation - all other machines will run LibreOffice and we will multi-license all the apps mentioned above (the App Store has support for commercial use which makes license management easy). Our business doesn't involve document production other than the occasional PDF, so that works for us.

I have in one machine a Unix command line and a commercial grade portable desktop, so to me, a combination of Linux on servers and OSX on the desktop is the best usable mix. YMMV, of course.

I left Groklaw when I noticed a strong bias, which to me does equate a "search for truth" but "picking facts selectively". Groklaw's default stance appears to be that anything Google does is excusable (which isn't), and anything Microsoft does is bad (which is mostly correct, but not always). Groklaw hasn't quite worked out yet that Google appears to make most of its revenue in the US and abroad by wilfully breaking laws (the statements made by Google when it is caught only serves to make it clear that Google knows damn well that it was breaking the law). I'm interested to see how they fare with the privacy policy problems, because the prior Streetview affair has made Google now into a repeat offender (hence the massive lobbying in Europe right now).

In this case you should look beyond the companies involved and look at the kids - by accident, Microsoft has done something that's actually good. Personally I think kids should not be in a database for commercial gain until they are adults, full stop. No excuses.

Sure, I know that Microsoft's motivation is anything but pure but it has fairly accurately laid its dirty fingers on Google's man problem: privacy is an inalienable Human Right - Google making a profit is not.

Could I suggest you invest in a double security setup? One that is visible, is possibly noisy and easy to detect - and which you plan to lose - and another one comprised of covert, cabled pinhole cameras at just below eye height which transmit their data to a server account (FTP tends to be well supported).

This ensures that the next visit (which is almost guaranteed) will be the one that gets them caught, because they will focus on your visible alarm - totally missing the second circuit (also because it doesn't emit anything using cables). You can augment it with IR light, but make sure it's not near the cameras.

I always add an element of deception in coverage - and it changes with every design.

All they want is money out of Google

I think they are starting from the position that Google knows damn well what the EU privacy laws look like, they have now been caught AGAIN at ignoring them and they have had plenty of time to formulate *any* kind of answer ranging from apology and compliance to at least engaging in discussion on how to solve the issue. Instead, they have calmly ignored a letter sent to them in name of 27 separate countries, meanwhile collecting even more income from what in some cases is flat out illegal activity under EU law.

The result is that the EU will now act, for two reasons. First of all, the law is the law, and if Google thinks it's too big and important to comply I would only like to point at what happened with Microsoft. Secondly, the Art 29 Working Group represents 29 countries, and none of them could progress any complaints until there was clarity about this privacy policy. This means there was a lot of other trouble backed up behind this issue, so by acting, the commission is now allowing those later complaints to become active.

Google is being *very* stupid IMHO, but that may be because they make the same mistake as other US companies by considering the EU as just another version of the US, but with more languages (which also explains their attempts at lobbying themselves out of this situation). That may emerge to be a VERY costly mistake, and Google has wasted the time it had since the 16th of October - now they will have to deal with a commission as well as 27 separate countries all keen to prove they are not US annexes..

The problem I see with more and more electronics is the loss of control, not just of the vehicle but also of your privacy. You are already driving with a black box in most vehicles, and access to that is not restricted to accident investigators - data gets pulled every time you have the car serviced, with you having nil control over how it is used.

A secondary issue is that entertainment electronics is subject to far less security checks than the stuff that makes sure your engine runs best and that steers traction control and ABS, yet they are interconnected. Research teams have already shown it is possible to use the one layer to affect the other by completely killing the brakes of a car on remote - do you really want to make it possible for a script kiddie to do this to your car?

The privacy issue is very current. I can already see Google powered systems enter into some vehicles, without any alternative options being presented. Not only does that require the most expensive wireless connection you can get as a family (mobile/cell), especially if you travel internationally, it's also handing data in large uncontrolled gobs to a company that has as yet to prove it can be trusted with it. I don't want to become part of the Streetview data collection system, thank you - not even if they paid me for it.

Because I want to control it.

Given that the guy is using WiFi, you may have a fight with others for that :)

First of all, Amazon has a wider selection at more sensible prices. I can buy a full physical CD at lower costs than the music on iTunes, and I have already come across a situation where I could only buy individual songs and not a whole album.

To illustrate what that means in money terms, Amazon would charge me $15 or so for the whole album as a physical CD whereas the same album in iTunes would cost over $40.

This was actually the point where I switched to Amazon. First of all, an MP3 plays everywhere (including in iTunes), secondly it's much cheaper and thirdly it doesn't seem to have those weird regional limits of the iTunes store which doesn't want to sell you something if you live in the wrong part of the world.

Apple, you're losing ground here. Clean it up.

Not a chance of that becoming legal - declaring a link to content would destroy any academic paper which requires references, and would ban any discussion about last night's TV programme at work. Ain't gonna happen, and outside copyright there is no way you can establish a contract that is legally enforceable as it needs 2 parties to agree.

Personally I would love to get a bill from ideas like that - I'd take them to the cleaners properly.

This is either a massive exercise in stupidity, or an attempt to see if the adage "any publicity is good publicity" holds true. I opt for the first one..