Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Real Threat, in reply to BenWilson,
So I do find it hard to believe they would really put it in.
Why so disbelieving? In 2009 Apple patented a way to block photos being taken through the use of an infra-red signal being transmitted to their phones. They’re definitely interested in finding out ways to disable their phones from doing things; it’s kinda the entire Apple ethos to stop users doing things unless permitted by Apple.
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Russell Brown,
And then Bradley Ambrose indicated to me via Twitter that he had made no such apology.
This doesn’t seem to be over yet.
Has he pursued a defamation action yet? With the release of this information about his text messages, it sounds like it'd be a slam-dunk with no possible defence.
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to nzlemming,
The denial from the police doesn't say it was never considered, only that it was never attempted. Something about angels on the head of a pin.
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Russell Brown,
He alleges that Key’s office was “in the loop” on the investigation. And that police were told to brief Wayne Eagleson on everything they did.
Believable? Oh yes, it surely is. Even from Winston. Key's grubby paws are all over that investigation, right the way up to an assistant commissioner looking over things and running point.
However, [citation needed].
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Russell Brown,
You’ll need to join the queue on that one, buddy.
It's not written down. It didn't happen. If there's a queue, I appear to be at the head ;)
-
Also, I would like to nominate "metadata" as the PAS WOTY. WOT decade, probably, but certainly WOTY.
-
Hard News: A handful of battling billionaires, in reply to alwyn,
people like Murdoch, with a genuine love of political influence
FTFY
-
the warning issued against Ambrose by Police Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess
(emphasis added)
Those two words highlight exactly the problem. Out here in mortal land, a crime which carries a sentence of only two years would struggle to attract the attention of a detective sergeant. Out here in mortal land, such a lowly offence as unlawful interception of communications would be fobbed off onto the desk of the nearest detective constable (or maybe a full detective if there was one with time to spare) and ignored by anyone holding any kind of commissioned office except inasmuch as it is a singularly unusual crime so would stand out in reported statistics.
Assertions that all complaints are treated equally by the police ring very hollow when an officer of the very highest non-politically-appointed rank (whose holder will, without question, have designs on offices higher still) is involved in the investigation into a very low-level crime. Even the likes of Richie McCaw would be lucky to get a detective senior sergeant speaking about the outcome of an investigation into someone tapping his phone.
If the police had handled this like any other investigation, without undue high-level involvement, there would've been much less egg to be thrown around on discovery that Ambrose was telling the truth the whole time. By turning it into an exercise in political favour-seeking, it was never going to be impartial in its findings.
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Pete Sime,
GCSB is certainly gaining as a search term on Google, and is slightly ahead of the April peak for the search term “Marriage equality”, but is quite far behind the search term “Gay marriage”. It doesn’t appear to be the political story of the year, but interest is growing.
Only in Wellington and, to a lesser extent, Auckland, however. The "search volume index" is 100 for Wellington, and somewhere around 55-59 for Auckland depending on the precise search phrases used. Everywhere else in the country it's zero.
-
Hard News: The Real Threat, in reply to Peter Graham,
Oddly, when I connect to https://publicaddress.net it tries to use a certificate for www.simpsongrierson.com and then redirects to http://publicaddress.net.
I don't think anyone has explained why this is happening, so here goes:
It's very common for web hosting to share multiple sites from a single IP address, what's called "name-based hosting". Ordinary HTTP is quite happy to share an IP address because requests specify the name of the site.
HTTPS can coexist on an IP address with HTTP, even with multiple other sites, but there can only be a single SSL certificate (which is tied to a particular domain name) for a given IP address. So when you tried to go to https://publicaddress.net you got sent to the IP address shared by both publicaddress.net and simpsongrierson.com, and because there can only be the one SSL certificate you got presented the one for SG. Since that wasn't the site you requested, however, you then got redirected to the site you actually wanted- http://publicaddress.netAs Kirk observes, getting SSL hosting means getting a non-shared IP address, and that frequently costs. The bigger cost, though, is getting the SSL certificate.