We don't have a problem with teens viewing porn in the UK. It just doesn't happen any more. In fact, we've been remarkably effective at stopping it compared to half the other countries in Europe, which have seen a recent surge in porn viewing for reasons no-one can identify.

Me too, though of course in our day, the world was much less connected and much less reliant on the technology. The worst we could have done after getting root access to the entire IT infrastructure at my school would have been look at what our classmates had been drawing in Paint or something. Today these systems host much more important and sensitive information and security breaches would be a much bigger deal.

And on that note, am I the only one less concerned by the behaviour of an impressively curious seven-year-old and more concerned by an official, professionally-managed system holding potentially sensitive data that is so insecure that even a seven-year-old could hack it?!

I wouldn't be fine with that. Someone would probably "buy" something because they wanted to have it available indefinitely. If they later found that their "permanent" purchase was revoked, they might no longer have the option to buy it elsewhere because it was no longer available, even if they did have that option available when they first "bought" the product from the other vendor. It's still a scam in the lying vendor's favour.

Of course you want off-site backups. And everyone has been doing that for decades so I don't see the problem with that.

Streaming replication of databases and the like is pretty much ubiquitous as well.

What exactly did you think all those big cloud services were doing for their managed database offerings?

Have you... heard of backups at all?

If the kind of site that would host this kind of system internally at an organisation like a police service has been catastrophically damaged then you probably have bigger problems than the time it takes to restore a backup.

The British government has some excellent IT people. It's a meme really that Civil Service staff are only there for the jobs for life because they couldn't make it in the private sector. The GDS team in particular have successfully automated a huge variety of government interactions with tens of millions of people and for example are widely regarded as having some of the best UX design and accessibility experts anywhere. Building on that to support other government activity, including internal functions not normally seen by the public, would have made a lot of sense. In the longer term we're going to want people like that dealing with the astronomical challenge of modernising NHS IT.

This looks like it might be a useful feature for some users. If it is clearly advertised and using it is optional, I'm not sure I see a problem here.

Is there any (non-tinfoil) expectation that any related behaviour in Firefox is not being added transparently and optionally? The description seems ambiguous about what triggers these previews. If merely hovering over a link would be enough to cause a visit to another page then personally that's probably something I'd want to turn off. Others might have a different attitude to risk there. In any case, if there's some kind of active choice where you need to click or press in a specific way to trigger it, that seems reasonable.

Don't worry, Microsoft has you covered. In a couple of months, Windows 10 will also be EOL. And there are millions of computers that could run Windows 7 or Windows 10 but can't run Windows 11.

I also make a living from creative work and it annoys me as well to see someone blatantly trying to rip us off. But I think you and I both know that it's unlikely measures like this will prevent piracy for very long even if they are initially successful. The only thing you can truly control is the systems that don't belong to your user, so that's where you need to put anything you don't want them messing with.

Meanwhile as someone who is also a user and also doing other things than playing games on my devices - including some things where security matters much more than it does for anti-cheat measures in some random game - requiring any kind of intrusive access to my system just to play a game is a 100% reliable way or ensuring that I will never be buying that game.

Fortunately there is now more entertainment produced than I could possibly experience in a lifetime so even if it's the best game in the world I won't be too sorry to miss it while I'm playing something else that doesn't think it should have more control of my equipment than I do.

The other thing I don't get is using apps for everything.

I mean, I get it from the manufacturer's point of view. It means they can update things as they please retrospectively and possibly add new charges for functionality or services and/or implement spyware after the sale.

But from a user's point of view, why would I ever want my new home solar power and battery installation that has an expected working life of at least 20-30 years to be dependent on some random phone app to configure it? How many people had smartphones 20-30 years ago? How many people will still have them in 20-30 years? Exactly.

Nothing wrong with providing an app as well for the convenience of those who want it. But anything that is a permanent appliance or fixture in my home and doesn't fundamentally require external connectivity to do its job still needs to have 100% of its functionality available locally as well, without relying on external connectivity or any separate hardware or software platform for the UI.

When there is functionality that really does need remote connectivity, like say a power system that integrates with my electricity provider that offers flexible, demand-based pricing, there should be open standards for how these remote interactions work and it should still be possible to see and do everything else locally.

The world would be a much better place if governments and regulators promoted this kind of future-proof approach but sadly the public sector tends to lag so far behind in its awareness and understand of tech issues that it's not very effective at dealing with them.

Companies like Amazon seem to be betting on the AI taking over theory. It's probably the only explanation that makes sense now, because their reputation among skilled technical people will be permanently damaged by moves like this. It won't suddenly repair itself whenever the pendulum swings back to being an employee's market, if the great AI revolution turns out to be just another hype cycle after all.

Working at a FAANG used to be attractive to a lot of highly skilled technical people and having employment history inside that bubble used to be a positive thing on your resume. I'm not sure how true either of those things is any more. Maybe those who are still there and making premium TC in a big US city are still getting a decent deal out of it. For others, most of those big brands seem to be increasingly unattractive, and having history there seems to be increasingly regarded as neutral or even negative when employers outside that bubble are hiring.

FWIW, I'm a little more optimistic. In the UK, we don't have the kind of pork barrel politics that is endemic to some other western democracies. The ICO are, like many government regulators, under-resourced, but they are basically trying to do a decent job and I think moves like the one we're discussing here today are going in the right direction.

Which is exactly why it's vital for governments and their regulatory bodies to step in and protect the ordinary citizen who isn't an expert on these things from the abuse that the big companies who are will otherwise commit in the name of profit, just as they already do with financial services, caterers, healthcare providers, and so on.

Fantastic. Then we can go back to having dumb devices that just do their jobs and don't have all the other junk attached competing for the market instead. That worked for a few generations before all the 1984 stuff. I'm betting it will work just fine for generations after it too.

And please spare us the rhetoric about how nothing could possibly be affordable if it doesn't violate our privacy to help pay for itself. The difference in pricing in a competitive market is likely to be pretty small. The only reason they can get away with intruding as much as they do right now is that market competition has failed because everyone is lapping up the free money. I, for one, am glad the ICO has other ideas about how things should be .

AIUI, your costs can't (or couldn't) generally be passed on when using the small claims system. Has that changed? It's been a while since I went through the process, so it's possible that my information here is out of date.