What has happened in America? A few days before I was born in 1960, 43 year old John F Kennedy (Dem) narrowly beat 47 year old Richard Nixon (Gop)
Sixty years on and there's almost exactly the same result for the parties, except that Nixon was a VP seeking election not a sitting President.
The big difference is, the candidates last year were 74 and 77 and the older man won. How come people my age or maybe a bit younger couldn't win either party's nomination?
The broken primary system happened.
Dem – Iowa screwed up the count which denied early momentum to young candidates. GOP – television charisma trumps (geddit!) all. Thank $deity that could never happen here. Oh, it did.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Given how much inconvenience the KYC stuff from banks imposes on all of us, how come they never appear to be able to identify the account holder recipients of all these scam transfers?
@TheScreamingEagles might have a better idea. Aiui, the money will end up abroad, out of our jurisdiction. It is quite possible that intermediate payees are also victims that have been taken over by the fraudsters. And if I can steal your identity, why can't I take over your bank account or even set up a new one in your name under my control? As well as stealing your vote!
Yes I think the money goes abroad very quickly and through multiple jurisdictions.
I wonder if it would be worth implementing something like clearing for bank transfers.
i.e. Unless you specifically opt out of it, any bank transfers made by a consumer the funds are not allowed to leave the country for 3 days, regardless of how many banks the money flows through.
Could save hundreds of millions per year from getting to criminal gangs.
Would it be cynical to suggest the banks prefer fraudsters to steal from current accounts (ie our money) rather than from credit cards (ie the banks' money)
To be cynical, a lot of current security practices make it easier for the fraudsters. Just yesterday I upgraded my phone. To do so, I had to answer some security questions and give part of my password. This is to protect me so that you, for instance, cannot mess with my phone account. Trouble is, it also conditions me to answer unthinkingly anyone else asking similar questions.
Your phone rings. Hello Mr Victim, I'm calling from your bank/isp/bookmaker. Before we go any further can I just check I'm speaking to the account holder? What is your pet cat's mother's first school? You get the picture. And if you won't fall for it, what about your old Aunt Betty who's in a care home?
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
Given how much inconvenience the KYC stuff from banks imposes on all of us, how come they never appear to be able to identify the account holder recipients of all these scam transfers?
@TheScreamingEagles might have a better idea. Aiui, the money will end up abroad, out of our jurisdiction. It is quite possible that intermediate payees are also victims that have been taken over by the fraudsters. And if I can steal your identity, why can't I take over your bank account or even set up a new one in your name under my control? As well as stealing your vote!
Yes I think the money goes abroad very quickly and through multiple jurisdictions.
I wonder if it would be worth implementing something like clearing for bank transfers.
i.e. Unless you specifically opt out of it, any bank transfers made by a consumer the funds are not allowed to leave the country for 3 days, regardless of how many banks the money flows through.
Could save hundreds of millions per year from getting to criminal gangs.
Doesn't solve the problem as there are likely to be UK bank accounts as the first point of call and they will be opted out.
Remember that the first person is likely to be a mule using their bank account to receive and forward money in the hope of getting a few quid.
The mules should be treated like drugs mules - 10 years minimum, unless you’re doing an awful lot of talking.
What would they say that could be of the slightest use? The bank can already see where the payment went.
Oh well, 10 years then.
More importantly, lots of newspaper headlines that if someone asks you to receive £30k in your bank account and immediately transfer £25k abroad somewhere, it’s going to cost you 10 years.
And when I set up an account in your name, under my control? Still happy with your 10 year sentence?
Well the KYC crap says it should be pretty much impossible for you to actually set up an account in my name. If the police are looking for a criminal prosecution, they’ll need a pretty high standard of evidence that I actually control the account.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way and some my comments might be close to saying that. But it is spectacularly missing the point.
The election of a President who sets out to win by cheating is a threat to democracy whether they win by cheating or if they would have won anyway without cheating. The Trump Republicans are setting out to cheat.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way and some my comments might be close to saying that. But it is spectacularly missing the point.
The election of a President who sets out to win by cheating is a threat to democracy whether they win by cheating or if they would have won anyway without cheating. The Trump Republicans are setting out to cheat.
I don't follow US politics closely. How exactly are they going to cheat?
Top American General has just said in Congressional hearing that the mission to protect America from terrorist attacks from Afghanistan had just got harder and an attack could come as early as a year's time.
General Milley said, "The Taliban was and remains a terrorist organisation and still has not broken ties with al-Qaeda. A reconstituted al-Qaeda or ISIS [Islamic State group] with aspirations to attack the US is a very real possibility, and those conditions to include activity in ungoverned spaces could present themselves in the next 12-36 months."
Joe Biden should be ashamed. Neither he nor Trump are the future for America in 2024 surely?
Keir Starmer gets it, it’s time to tell the left where to stick it.
I didn't come into politics to vote over and over again in Parliament and lose and then tweet about it.
Ouch! Whatever factions could be be thinking of?
He’s being very direct. I am assuming he also changed the rules on numbers of nominees to spark a challenge? If so it seems probable that he’s feeling very safe as it’s only the Left that really want to remove him.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way and some my comments might be close to saying that. But it is spectacularly missing the point.
The election of a President who sets out to win by cheating is a threat to democracy whether they win by cheating or if they would have won anyway without cheating. The Trump Republicans are setting out to cheat.
I don't follow US politics closely. How exactly are they going to cheat?
The Republicans have been cheating for years. Gerrymandering did not start with Trump, and nor did vote suppression.
Top American General has just said in Congressional hearing that the mission to protect America from terrorist attacks from Afghanistan had just got harder and an attack could come as early as a year's time.
General Milley said, "The Taliban was and remains a terrorist organisation and still has not broken ties with al-Qaeda. A reconstituted al-Qaeda or ISIS [Islamic State group] with aspirations to attack the US is a very real possibility, and those conditions to include activity in ungoverned spaces could present themselves in the next 12-36 months."
Joe Biden should be ashamed. Neither he nor Trump are the future for America in 2024 surely?
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way and some my comments might be close to saying that. But it is spectacularly missing the point.
The election of a President who sets out to win by cheating is a threat to democracy whether they win by cheating or if they would have won anyway without cheating. The Trump Republicans are setting out to cheat.
I don't follow US politics closely. How exactly are they going to cheat?
Multiple ways, too complex to detail in full, but the key blocks seem to be putting in place people willing to lie about the result into important positions, shifting responsibility for deciding results to Republican controlled legislatures, and restricting the ability of opponents to vote.
Mrs P. (no pun intended) spotted that as we have no water supply and only three toilets, we are only three flushes from disaster.
She has therefore decreed flushing is only allowed after a number 2.
Truly, the end of days 😬
No cold water tank?
Nope. That's all old hat these days*... All mains pressure to the outlet.
(*My brother's a plumber - he regularly takes out old cold water storage tanks, there's often the remains of a mouse, rat or bird in them, so think about that when you brush your teeth.)
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way and some my comments might be close to saying that. But it is spectacularly missing the point.
The election of a President who sets out to win by cheating is a threat to democracy whether they win by cheating or if they would have won anyway without cheating. The Trump Republicans are setting out to cheat.
I don't follow US politics closely. How exactly are they going to cheat?
The Republicans have been cheating for years. Gerrymandering did not start with Trump, and nor did vote suppression.
Gerrymandering doesn't affect POTUS, does it? But, yes, it was the phrase "Trump Republicans" that I was curious about. As you say, America is a pretty messed up place anyway.
Top American General has just said in Congressional hearing that the mission to protect America from terrorist attacks from Afghanistan had just got harder and an attack could come as early as a year's time.
General Milley said, "The Taliban was and remains a terrorist organisation and still has not broken ties with al-Qaeda. A reconstituted al-Qaeda or ISIS [Islamic State group] with aspirations to attack the US is a very real possibility, and those conditions to include activity in ungoverned spaces could present themselves in the next 12-36 months."
Joe Biden should be ashamed. Neither he nor Trump are the future for America in 2024 surely?
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way and some my comments might be close to saying that. But it is spectacularly missing the point.
The election of a President who sets out to win by cheating is a threat to democracy whether they win by cheating or if they would have won anyway without cheating. The Trump Republicans are setting out to cheat.
I don't follow US politics closely. How exactly are they going to cheat?
Multiple ways, too complex to detail in full, but the key blocks seem to be putting in place people willing to lie about the result into important positions, shifting responsibility for deciding results to Republican controlled legislatures, and restricting the ability of opponents to vote.
Given how much inconvenience the KYC stuff from banks imposes on all of us, how come they never appear to be able to identify the account holder recipients of all these scam transfers?
@TheScreamingEagles might have a better idea. Aiui, the money will end up abroad, out of our jurisdiction. It is quite possible that intermediate payees are also victims that have been taken over by the fraudsters. And if I can steal your identity, why can't I take over your bank account or even set up a new one in your name under my control? As well as stealing your vote!
Yes I think the money goes abroad very quickly and through multiple jurisdictions.
I wonder if it would be worth implementing something like clearing for bank transfers.
i.e. Unless you specifically opt out of it, any bank transfers made by a consumer the funds are not allowed to leave the country for 3 days, regardless of how many banks the money flows through.
Could save hundreds of millions per year from getting to criminal gangs.
Would it be cynical to suggest the banks prefer fraudsters to steal from current accounts (ie our money) rather than from credit cards (ie the banks' money)
To be cynical, a lot of current security practices make it easier for the fraudsters. Just yesterday I upgraded my phone. To do so, I had to answer some security questions and give part of my password. This is to protect me so that you, for instance, cannot mess with my phone account. Trouble is, it also conditions me to answer unthinkingly anyone else asking similar questions.
Your phone rings. Hello Mr Victim, I'm calling from your bank/isp/bookmaker. Before we go any further can I just check I'm speaking to the account holder? What is your pet cat's mother's first school? You get the picture. And if you won't fall for it, what about your old Aunt Betty who's in a care home?
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
The banks should be fined for that. Disgraceful and stupid.
Top American General has just said in Congressional hearing that the mission to protect America from terrorist attacks from Afghanistan had just got harder and an attack could come as early as a year's time.
General Milley said, "The Taliban was and remains a terrorist organisation and still has not broken ties with al-Qaeda. A reconstituted al-Qaeda or ISIS [Islamic State group] with aspirations to attack the US is a very real possibility, and those conditions to include activity in ungoverned spaces could present themselves in the next 12-36 months."
Joe Biden should be ashamed. Neither he nor Trump are the future for America in 2024 surely?
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I think you have just had a few examples post your question with one poster admirably admitting his comments could be interpreted as such. And that Trump is a cheat. Plus another one who said that Republican cheating had been going on for years. It’s clear there will be a good solid group - as post-2016 - who would take the view that Trump could not have won legitimately and therefore must have cheated
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Given how much inconvenience the KYC stuff from banks imposes on all of us, how come they never appear to be able to identify the account holder recipients of all these scam transfers?
@TheScreamingEagles might have a better idea. Aiui, the money will end up abroad, out of our jurisdiction. It is quite possible that intermediate payees are also victims that have been taken over by the fraudsters. And if I can steal your identity, why can't I take over your bank account or even set up a new one in your name under my control? As well as stealing your vote!
Yes I think the money goes abroad very quickly and through multiple jurisdictions.
I wonder if it would be worth implementing something like clearing for bank transfers.
i.e. Unless you specifically opt out of it, any bank transfers made by a consumer the funds are not allowed to leave the country for 3 days, regardless of how many banks the money flows through.
Could save hundreds of millions per year from getting to criminal gangs.
Would it be cynical to suggest the banks prefer fraudsters to steal from current accounts (ie our money) rather than from credit cards (ie the banks' money)
To be cynical, a lot of current security practices make it easier for the fraudsters. Just yesterday I upgraded my phone. To do so, I had to answer some security questions and give part of my password. This is to protect me so that you, for instance, cannot mess with my phone account. Trouble is, it also conditions me to answer unthinkingly anyone else asking similar questions.
Your phone rings. Hello Mr Victim, I'm calling from your bank/isp/bookmaker. Before we go any further can I just check I'm speaking to the account holder? What is your pet cat's mother's first school? You get the picture. And if you won't fall for it, what about your old Aunt Betty who's in a care home?
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
The banks should be fined for that. Disgraceful and stupid.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way and some my comments might be close to saying that. But it is spectacularly missing the point.
The election of a President who sets out to win by cheating is a threat to democracy whether they win by cheating or if they would have won anyway without cheating. The Trump Republicans are setting out to cheat.
I don't follow US politics closely. How exactly are they going to cheat?
Multiple ways, too complex to detail in full, but the key blocks seem to be putting in place people willing to lie about the result into important positions, shifting responsibility for deciding results to Republican controlled legislatures, and restricting the ability of opponents to vote.
Perhaps a thread header?
Yes could make a good header, not sure if its been done before, would have thought it has been.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
That may or may not be true but the vast majority of scams rely on the very simple expedient of duping people into making transfers or giving away information. I don't see how Google, Microsoft or Apple security would prevent that.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I think you have just had a few examples post your question with one poster admirably admitting his comments could be interpreted as such. And that Trump is a cheat. Plus another one who said that Republican cheating had been going on for years. It’s clear there will be a good solid group - as post-2016 - who would take the view that Trump could not have won legitimately and therefore must have cheated
If Trump doesn't want to be accused of cheating he shouldn't have sent an armed mob to storm the capital after he lost.
I can believe Trump can and might legitimately win the 2024 election. It was pretty close in some key states. And not every argument over voting rules will fall on one side, as not every proposed or actual voting rule is without criticism, though people complainaing about them midway through an election were being unreasonable.
But it's also not unreasonable to be worried that some people in key positions will push unreasonable measures and rules, when challenge after challenge after fruitless, baseless challenge was made, and when many proposals seem specifically designed to advance one side, or disadvantage the other, or give choice/power to politicians irrespective of votes. January 6th did not come out of nowhere, and gives pretty good cause to cast a critical eye over things.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
It could only be so long before you popped up to defend your hero. It’s the usual bilge. The reason why people are fearful of a Trumpton coup is, erm, because he has something of a track record in this area.
That said, maybe it’s my own fault for giving the time of day to the analysis of a poster who assured us “Virginia is in play”, “Fox was wrong to call Arizona” and “Nevada’s result will be overturned”.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I think you have just had a few examples post your question with one poster admirably admitting his comments could be interpreted as such. And that Trump is a cheat. Plus another one who said that Republican cheating had been going on for years. It’s clear there will be a good solid group - as post-2016 - who would take the view that Trump could not have won legitimately and therefore must have cheated
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I think you have just had a few examples post your question with one poster admirably admitting his comments could be interpreted as such. And that Trump is a cheat. Plus another one who said that Republican cheating had been going on for years. It’s clear there will be a good solid group - as post-2016 - who would take the view that Trump could not have won legitimately and therefore must have cheated
If Trump doesn't want to be accused of cheating he shouldn't have sent an armed mob to storm the capital after he lost.
MrEd got quite close to accepting Trump was cheating around then and lying about the 2020 election, not sure if he would still accept that they did? And if so, what is so outrageous about assuming someone who cheated in the 2020 election is likely to do similar in the next election?
(Should be even less controversial considering they are openly discussing how to do this through appointing the right office holders).
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
Evening all. As someone some of us remember used to say.
Topped up with petrol this evening prior to a long drive Thursday. No queue, no limit of what I could buy.
What a mess the USA is in. I suspect Trump won't be able to run again, either as a result of health problems, or legal ones
Come to that, what a mess UK is in.
Of the three petrol stations within a few miles of me, two were out of fuel today.
I did a 10-mile run in Peterborough today, whilst Mrs J's car was having its service and MOT. A few random thoughts: *) A petrol station I passed had all fuel and no queues. £30 limit on transactions. *) Peterborough isn't the prettiest places, but I managed to run three miles south to the centre on good roadside cycle paths, with no on-level road crossings. Impressive. *) Six or seven men drinking from cans of lager in various places. All alone. Quite a sad sight in the early afternoon. *) On the way back, I ran through an underpass where three youths on bikes with hoods up were smoking something a little heavy on the nose. A young woman cycled past me, saw the youths, stopped, turned around, and headed back past me.
The latter was particularly poignant. I have little fear in running or walking anywhere - I feel as though I face more danger from traffic than I do people. Yet I know female friends who are fearful of being out and about alone. It's easy for me, as a man, to forget that ...
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
I'd have thought the OS was more important... presumably Android, so Google developed and controlled in the US right?
Is there any long-term future for a privatised rail service?
Not at the moment. But truthfully the privatised system has in all its 25 years been an unholy mess so I don’t think anyone will miss it when it has gone. The only regret is it didn’t go a lot sooner.
That isn’t to say a privatised system couldn’t work, but the system adopted was devised by people who simply didn’t understand railways.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I think you have just had a few examples post your question with one poster admirably admitting his comments could be interpreted as such. And that Trump is a cheat. Plus another one who said that Republican cheating had been going on for years. It’s clear there will be a good solid group - as post-2016 - who would take the view that Trump could not have won legitimately and therefore must have cheated
I can believe Trump can and might legitimately win the 2024 election. It was pretty close in some key states. And not every argument over voting rules will fall on one side, as not every proposed or actual voting rule is without criticism, though people complainaing about them midway through an election were being unreasonable.
But it's also not unreasonable to be worried that some people in key positions will push unreasonable measures and rules, when challenge after challenge after fruitless, baseless challenge was made, and when many proposals seem specifically designed to advance one side, or disadvantage the other, or give choice/power to politicians irrespective of votes. January 6th did not come out of nowhere, and gives pretty good cause to cast a critical eye over things.
I can believe Trump can and might legitimately win the 2024 election. It was pretty close in some key states. And not every argument over voting rules will fall on one side, as not every proposed or actual voting rule is without criticism, though people complainaing about them midway through an election were being unreasonable.
But it's also not unreasonable to be worried that some people in key positions will push unreasonable measures and rules, when challenge after challenge after fruitless, baseless challenge was made, and when many proposals seem specifically designed to advance one side, or disadvantage the other, or give choice/power to politicians irrespective of votes. January 6th did not come out of nowhere, and gives pretty good cause to cast a critical eye over things.
Trump should be tried for treason imo.
The justification for not convicting him at impeachment II was pretty weak, given McDonnell's comments.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
Don't quote me on this but I fully expect UK banks in the next couple of years (either at their own volition or at the direction of the UK government) to no longer allow their apps available on Chinese mobile phones.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I think you have just had a few examples post your question with one poster admirably admitting his comments could be interpreted as such. And that Trump is a cheat. Plus another one who said that Republican cheating had been going on for years. It’s clear there will be a good solid group - as post-2016 - who would take the view that Trump could not have won legitimately and therefore must have cheated
Trump is a cheat. His victory in 2024 will be evidence of cheating of one sort or another, whether it's actually rigging the ballot or just lies-on-a-bus Boris style cheating. In standing for pres, he is impliedly claiming that he is a fit and proper person to be pres, and that's a lie.
Do we have to be mealy mouthed about this? I thought the first amendment was pretty robust.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I think you have just had a few examples post your question with one poster admirably admitting his comments could be interpreted as such. And that Trump is a cheat. Plus another one who said that Republican cheating had been going on for years. It’s clear there will be a good solid group - as post-2016 - who would take the view that Trump could not have won legitimately and therefore must have cheated
If Trump doesn't want to be accused of cheating he shouldn't have sent an armed mob to storm the capital after he lost.
MrEd got quite close to accepting Trump was cheating around then and lying about the 2020 election, not sure if he would still accept that they did? And if so, what is so outrageous about assuming someone who cheated in the 2020 election is likely to do similar in the next election?
(Should be even less controversial considering they are openly discussing how to do this through appointing the right office holders).
MrEd pretty much had to admit Trump tried to cheat, albeit through gritted teeth and only when the evidence was so ludicrously overwhelming as to be outside the frame of anyone but the clinically insane. He might now try to recant - indeed I expect he will.
Keir Starmer gets it, it’s time to tell the left where to stick it.
You can tell em to stick it all you like. The Labour Party is completely split.
Good. The whole point is to splinter the left away, and leave them to their delusions well away from the corridors of power.
Unityis much overpraised as a virtue. Causes people to silence their own doubts. Gets called for even when views and options are diametrically opposed.
I can believe Trump can and might legitimately win the 2024 election. It was pretty close in some key states. And not every argument over voting rules will fall on one side, as not every proposed or actual voting rule is without criticism, though people complainaing about them midway through an election were being unreasonable.
But it's also not unreasonable to be worried that some people in key positions will push unreasonable measures and rules, when challenge after challenge after fruitless, baseless challenge was made, and when many proposals seem specifically designed to advance one side, or disadvantage the other, or give choice/power to politicians irrespective of votes. January 6th did not come out of nowhere, and gives pretty good cause to cast a critical eye over things.
Trump should be tried for treason imo.
The justification for not convicting him at impeachment II was pretty weak, given McDonnell's comments.
The justification was that the Republican senators are spineless cowards who care more about their careers than their country.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
I'd have thought the OS was more important... presumably Android, so Google developed and controlled in the US right?
Dunno, I no longer think I really understand computers. But I think you can put a lot of nasties in the firmware at a sub OS level. anyway my OS is OnePlus Oxygen, which is a riff on an android theme rather than the thing itself.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
Don't quote me on this but I fully expect UK banks in the next couple of years (either at their own volition or at the direction of the UK government) to no longer allow their apps available on Chinese mobile phones.
Keir Starmer gets it, it’s time to tell the left where to stick it.
You can tell em to stick it all you like. The Labour Party is completely split.
Good. The whole point is to splinter the left away, and leave them to their delusions well away from the corridors of power.
Unityis much overpraised as a virtue. Causes people to silence their own doubts. Gets called for even when views and options are diametrically opposed.
Given how much inconvenience the KYC stuff from banks imposes on all of us, how come they never appear to be able to identify the account holder recipients of all these scam transfers?
@TheScreamingEagles might have a better idea. Aiui, the money will end up abroad, out of our jurisdiction. It is quite possible that intermediate payees are also victims that have been taken over by the fraudsters. And if I can steal your identity, why can't I take over your bank account or even set up a new one in your name under my control? As well as stealing your vote!
One of the hot trends is to set up a bank account in the name of someone real without their knowledge and start using it like a normal account and them kaboom then start using it for money laundering.
Dump the fraudulently taken money in that account and transfer it out, usually overseas.
I'm going to share this because thanks to social media you can piece the details to hack/open accounts.
But there are literally dozens of ways to transfer the fraud money without even sending it overseas, things like prepaid cards which you can pick up at most newsagents or travel shops.
KYC and AML works mostly, however some banks screw up because sometimes the scammers come up with something nobody ever thinks about or the customer is extremely gullible.
One thing that would definitely help, stop putting the full sort code and account numbers on the front/back of cards.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
Fingerprints are hugely unreliable. They aren't as unique as you might think. And a surprising amount don't have them. Friend at college didn't. Plus they can be damaged by scarring, blistering, etc.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
Don't quote me on this but I fully expect UK banks in the next couple of years (either at their own volition or at the direction of the UK government) to no longer allow their apps available on Chinese mobile phones.
Keir Starmer gets it, it’s time to tell the left where to stick it.
You can tell em to stick it all you like. The Labour Party is completely split.
Good. The whole point is to splinter the left away, and leave them to their delusions well away from the corridors of power.
Unityis much overpraised as a virtue. Causes people to silence their own doubts. Gets called for even when views and options are diametrically opposed.
People on this website were openly mocking Boris in autumn 2019 for "splitting" the Tories and "losing" May's majority (which only existed if you counted the DUP anyway).
But that division marked a closure and allowed the party to move on with an agenda they could unite behind.
Starmer needs the same. He needs to oust his own Gaukeward squad which in his case is the far left extremists.
He should also expel anyone who uses the word comrade from now on. The UK isn't the USSR.
Keir Starmer gets it, it’s time to tell the left where to stick it.
You can tell em to stick it all you like. The Labour Party is completely split.
Good. The whole point is to splinter the left away, and leave them to their delusions well away from the corridors of power.
Unityis much overpraised as a virtue. Causes people to silence their own doubts. Gets called for even when views and options are diametrically opposed.
People on this website were openly mocking Boris in autumn 2019 for "splitting" the Tories and "losing" May's majority (which only existed if you counted the DUP anyway).
But that division marked a closure and allowed the party to move on with an agenda they could unite behind.
Starmer needs the same. He needs to oust his own Gaukeward squad which in his case is the far left extremists.
He should also expel anyone who uses the word comrade from now on. The UK isn't the USSR.
Given how much inconvenience the KYC stuff from banks imposes on all of us, how come they never appear to be able to identify the account holder recipients of all these scam transfers?
@TheScreamingEagles might have a better idea. Aiui, the money will end up abroad, out of our jurisdiction. It is quite possible that intermediate payees are also victims that have been taken over by the fraudsters. And if I can steal your identity, why can't I take over your bank account or even set up a new one in your name under my control? As well as stealing your vote!
One of the hot trends is to set up a bank account in the name of someone real without their knowledge and start using it like a normal account and them kaboom then start using it for money laundering.
Dump the fraudulently taken money in that account and transfer it out, usually overseas.
I'm going to share this because thanks to social media you can piece the details to hack/open accounts.
But there are literally dozens of ways to transfer the fraud money without even sending it overseas, things like prepaid cards which you can pick up at most newsagents or travel shops.
KYC and AML works mostly, however some banks screw up because sometimes the scammers come up with something nobody ever thinks about or the customer is extremely gullible.
One thing that would definitely help, stop putting the full sort code and account numbers on the front/back of cards.
Just use old car registrations, preferably your parents, that haven't been known by anyone else in ages. And then with a random word before and after.
Jeremy Corbyn will never be a Labour MP again thanks to Sir Keir Starmer’s rule changes, senior shadow cabinet members believe.
The procedural changes approved narrowly by the party conference on Sunday after a highly charged debate could embolden MPs to turn against their former leader, sources say.
As well as the changes to the leadership rules, Starmer forced through tweaks to the process under which Labour MPs can stay on to fight in their seats at general elections.
The new rules make it harder for local activists to trigger a deselection process for sitting MPs, which forces them to face off against others to be the Labour candidate for their seat.
That change, shadow ministers say, will embolden MPs to give less weight to the views of the members of their constituency parties, which will be important if MPs get the chance to ban Corbyn from the Labour Party in the future.
Previously those MPs might have feared that their constituency parties, which tend to be more left wing and pro-Corbyn than the general public, would have tried to deselect them if they tried to bring a decisive end to Corbyn’s career in the Labour Party.
Members of Starmer’s front bench believe the changes to the “trigger” process are as important if not more important than the new leadership election rules, which will hand MPs a bigger say over Starmer’s successor.
“In the run-up to 2019, loads of us had to spend months in our constituencies organising against being triggered,” one shadow cabinet minister said. “We’d have won 20 more seats if it wasn’t for that.”
“The trigger changes are the most important part of the rule changes,” another member of Starmer’s shadow cabinet said. “They finally free us up to face the country rather than thinking the whole time about our members.”
Keir Starmer gets it, it’s time to tell the left where to stick it.
You can tell em to stick it all you like. The Labour Party is completely split.
Good. The whole point is to splinter the left away, and leave them to their delusions well away from the corridors of power.
Unityis much overpraised as a virtue. Causes people to silence their own doubts. Gets called for even when views and options are diametrically opposed.
People on this website were openly mocking Boris in autumn 2019 for "splitting" the Tories and "losing" May's majority (which only existed if you counted the DUP anyway).
But that division marked a closure and allowed the party to move on with an agenda they could unite behind.
Starmer needs the same. He needs to oust his own Gaukeward squad which in his case is the far left extremists.
He should also expel anyone who uses the word comrade from now on. The UK isn't the USSR.
"He just said Comrade. Stone him!"
It's Soviet nonsense. It should be as socially stigmatised as standing on a stage and doing a fascist salute.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
Fingerprints are hugely unreliable. They aren't as unique as you might think. And a surprising amount don't have them. Friend at college didn't. Plus they can be damaged by scarring, blistering, etc.
Yet they still to be highly regarded as evidence.
Have you got a couple of good references for your assertions?
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
Don't quote me on this but I fully expect UK banks in the next couple of years (either at their own volition or at the direction of the UK government) to no longer allow their apps available on Chinese mobile phones.
Fair play to Boris Johnson when he banned Huawei from being involved in our internet/5G systems.
This is the tip of a very large iceberg, if you join all the pieces together you can see the Chinese strategy.
Blimey. That will kill internet banking given the popularity of Apple phones.
And save the High Street.
Hey, I’m starting to like this…
Terrible trolling.
E minus, see me after class.
I’m afraid I can’t increase your grade, Mr Eagles. My marking doesn’t work like that.
More seriously, I think people are missing the point about these click safe transactions. It’s designed to force the holdouts to get internet banking (as it operates effectively only through the app) so the banks can close their final remaining branches.
The minor detail that the security of most banking apps would disgrace a piggy bank is a detail compared to the lower overheads.
Yes- and it should qualify Phillip's enthusiasm for parties limiting themselves to people who are totally loyal. Every leader and every party needs people who question, express doubts, and maintain opinions not currently in favour by the leader.
I also forgot to mention, SIMjacking is also an important part in the arsenal of fraudsters.
The other thing is we're running out mobile phone numbers and mobile phone companies are having to recycle numbers and it presents difficulties for consumers when they try and register their 'new' mobile phone number with their bank and their bank already have that number registered for another customer.
Yes- and it should qualify Phillip's enthusiasm for parties limiting themselves to people who are totally loyal. Every leader and every party needs people who question, express doubts, and maintain opinions not currently in favour by the leader.
I don't think people need to keep totally loyal. I do think however that for the central most important issue of the party that people should be able to agree a basic platform. Those that can't, shouldn't be standing on that platform.
Especially in a Parliamentary system.
The 2017-19 divisions were not healthy and ultimately one side had to prevail. Ultimately one side did. The MPs who lost the whip would have kept it if they'd bitten their tongues and kept the three line whip once a confidence vote was called - as happened with Maastricht.
The reason Trump had been "quiet" is because he's banned from Twitter and Facebook.
He still puts out inflammatory rants on his website but no one in the media gives a shit about websites any more so the tv channels no longer breathlessly report all his nonsense.
I imagine once he is the nominee they will let him back on Twitter and the media circus will resume.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
Don't quote me on this but I fully expect UK banks in the next couple of years (either at their own volition or at the direction of the UK government) to no longer allow their apps available on Chinese mobile phones.
Fair play to Boris Johnson when he banned Huawei from being involved in our internet/5G systems.
This is the tip of a very large iceberg, if you join all the pieces together you can see the Chinese strategy.
Blimey. That will kill internet banking given the popularity of Apple phones.
And save the High Street.
Hey, I’m starting to like this…
Er, I know you were being tongue in cheek but...
I use my iPhone to make payments on the High Street a lot, whereas on the internet the iPhone is not relevant - it's bank transfer or online card payment.
Ergo banning phone payments would only further harm the high street.
The reason Trump had been "quiet" is because he's banned from Twitter and Facebook.
He still puts out inflammatory rants on his website but no one in the media gives a shit about websites any more so the tv channels no longer breathlessly report all his nonsense.
I imagine once he is the nominee they will let him back on Twitter and the media circus will resume.
Given that he was banned while still president I can't see Twitter allowing him back except a contested court case.
The reason Trump had been "quiet" is because he's banned from Twitter and Facebook.
He still puts out inflammatory rants on his website but no one in the media gives a shit about websites any more so the tv channels no longer breathlessly report all his nonsense.
I imagine once he is the nominee they will let him back on Twitter and the media circus will resume.
Given that he was banned while still president I can't see Twitter allowing him back except a contested court case.
Big dilemma for the social media companies.
It’s one thing to ban the guy on his way out, quite another to ban the guy who might be on his way back in.
Keir Starmer gets it, it’s time to tell the left where to stick it.
You can tell em to stick it all you like. The Labour Party is completely split.
Good. The whole point is to splinter the left away, and leave them to their delusions well away from the corridors of power.
Unityis much overpraised as a virtue. Causes people to silence their own doubts. Gets called for even when views and options are diametrically opposed.
People on this website were openly mocking Boris in autumn 2019 for "splitting" the Tories and "losing" May's majority (which only existed if you counted the DUP anyway).
But that division marked a closure and allowed the party to move on with an agenda they could unite behind.
Starmer needs the same. He needs to oust his own Gaukeward squad which in his case is the far left extremists.
He should also expel anyone who uses the word comrade from now on. The UK isn't the USSR.
"He just said Comrade. Stone him!"
It's Soviet nonsense. It should be as socially stigmatised as standing on a stage and doing a fascist salute.
The nonsense, on this occasion, is your post Philip.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
I'd have thought the OS was more important... presumably Android, so Google developed and controlled in the US right?
No, not unless you wipe the phone completely and install a clean version. Even then it is relatively easy to have the hardware programmed to compromise the OS. Lenovo did it with their laptops.
I'd never use biometrics for an app as they can't be changed if compromised. PINs and the like (painful though they might be) can.
The reason Trump had been "quiet" is because he's banned from Twitter and Facebook.
He still puts out inflammatory rants on his website but no one in the media gives a shit about websites any more so the tv channels no longer breathlessly report all his nonsense.
I imagine once he is the nominee they will let him back on Twitter and the media circus will resume.
Given that he was banned while still president I can't see Twitter allowing him back except a contested court case.
Big dilemma for the social media companies.
It’s one thing to ban the guy on his way out, quite another to ban the guy who might be on his way back in.
Why would they let him back - what's the upside for Twitter and Facebook?
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
Fingerprints are hugely unreliable. They aren't as unique as you might think. And a surprising amount don't have them. Friend at college didn't. Plus they can be damaged by scarring, blistering, etc.
Yet they still to be highly regarded as evidence.
Have you got a couple of good references for your assertions?
Here is one. The problems with fingerprinting are quite far down the article.
TLDR. Essentially. The idea your fingerprints are unique is an assertion not a fact. Moreover, there never was any common standard for what equalled a match. It was just someone's opinion.
The reason Trump had been "quiet" is because he's banned from Twitter and Facebook.
He still puts out inflammatory rants on his website but no one in the media gives a shit about websites any more so the tv channels no longer breathlessly report all his nonsense.
I imagine once he is the nominee they will let him back on Twitter and the media circus will resume.
Given that he was banned while still president I can't see Twitter allowing him back except a contested court case.
Big dilemma for the social media companies.
It’s one thing to ban the guy on his way out, quite another to ban the guy who might be on his way back in.
Why would they let him back - what's the upside for Twitter and Facebook?
Not having themselves regulated as hell by the Trump FCC.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
I'd have thought the OS was more important... presumably Android, so Google developed and controlled in the US right?
No, not unless you wipe the phone completely and install a clean version. Even then it is relatively easy to have the hardware programmed to compromise the OS. Lenovo did it with their laptops.
I'd never use biometrics for an app as they can't be changed if compromised. PINs and the like (painful though they might be) can.
The joys of Android, I guess. Although I can't see why Google couldn't close those OS shortcomings.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
Fingerprints are hugely unreliable. They aren't as unique as you might think. And a surprising amount don't have them. Friend at college didn't. Plus they can be damaged by scarring, blistering, etc.
Yet they still to be highly regarded as evidence.
Have you got a couple of good references for your assertions?
Here is one. The problems with fingerprinting are quite far down the article.
TLDR. Essentially. The idea your fingerprints are unique is an assertion not a fact. Moreover, there never was any common standard for what equalled a match. It was just someone's opinion.
Bit like all snowflakes are different. I mean, has any one checked?
The reason Trump had been "quiet" is because he's banned from Twitter and Facebook.
He still puts out inflammatory rants on his website but no one in the media gives a shit about websites any more so the tv channels no longer breathlessly report all his nonsense.
I imagine once he is the nominee they will let him back on Twitter and the media circus will resume.
Given that he was banned while still president I can't see Twitter allowing him back except a contested court case.
Big dilemma for the social media companies.
It’s one thing to ban the guy on his way out, quite another to ban the guy who might be on his way back in.
Why would they let him back - what's the upside for Twitter and Facebook?
Not having themselves regulated as hell by the Trump FCC.
He's surely coming after them if he gets back, continued ban or no. Better for Twitter & FB not to help a nutcase who might regulate the hell out of them.
A 3D-printed head has shown that while Apple's Face ID is a secure biometric authentication system, other facial recognition systems used by Android-based smartphones are able to be fooled and unlocked by the fake cranium.
Company vaccine wall going up on the October 11th. All employees who wish to attend social events or any in-person office days will have to upload proof of vaccination or their entry key card will be deactivated. Only medical exemptions are allowed but they come "at their own risk" because all social distancing is officially junked from the 11th onwards.
Tbh, this feels aimed at our US offices rather than London but it's being applied globally with Japan getting it in December when everyone's been given an opportunity to have the vaccine.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
Fingerprints are hugely unreliable. They aren't as unique as you might think. And a surprising amount don't have them. Friend at college didn't. Plus they can be damaged by scarring, blistering, etc.
Yet they still to be highly regarded as evidence.
Have you got a couple of good references for your assertions?
Here is one. The problems with fingerprinting are quite far down the article.
TLDR. Essentially. The idea your fingerprints are unique is an assertion not a fact. Moreover, there never was any common standard for what equalled a match. It was just someone's opinion.
Bit like all snowflakes are different. I mean, has any one checked?
Essentially, we have a variation of a relative few patterns on each finger. They aren't random or unique like a QR code or summat. They exist within a limited range of possibilities. Like we all have slightly different hair or eye colour. But no one has blue hair. Nor red eyes naturally.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
I'd have thought the OS was more important... presumably Android, so Google developed and controlled in the US right?
No, not unless you wipe the phone completely and install a clean version. Even then it is relatively easy to have the hardware programmed to compromise the OS. Lenovo did it with their laptops.
I'd never use biometrics for an app as they can't be changed if compromised. PINs and the like (painful though they might be) can.
The joys of Android, I guess. Although I can't see why Google couldn't close those OS shortcomings.
Because they let each manufacturer roll their own version of Android - including the Chinese ones.
I’d be quite wary of using any Chinese brand Android phone for banking stuff, to be honest.
A 3D-printed head has shown that while Apple's Face ID is a secure biometric authentication system, other facial recognition systems used by Android-based smartphones are able to be fooled and unlocked by the fake cranium.
Keir Starmer gets it, it’s time to tell the left where to stick it.
You can tell em to stick it all you like. The Labour Party is completely split.
Good. The whole point is to splinter the left away, and leave them to their delusions well away from the corridors of power.
Unityis much overpraised as a virtue. Causes people to silence their own doubts. Gets called for even when views and options are diametrically opposed.
People on this website were openly mocking Boris in autumn 2019 for "splitting" the Tories and "losing" May's majority (which only existed if you counted the DUP anyway).
But that division marked a closure and allowed the party to move on with an agenda they could unite behind.
Starmer needs the same. He needs to oust his own Gaukeward squad which in his case is the far left extremists.
He should also expel anyone who uses the word comrade from now on. The UK isn't the USSR.
"He just said Comrade. Stone him!"
It's Soviet nonsense. It should be as socially stigmatised as standing on a stage and doing a fascist salute.
The nonsense, on this occasion, is your post Philip.
'British usage The British Union of Fascists used the word commonly to refer to members. The Marching Song, set to the music of the Horst-Wessel-Lied began 'Comrades, the voices'. The writer, E.D. Randall, defended the usage of the word by stating that 'comrades' ‘fittingly and completely expresses the ideal of unity in the service of a common cause.'
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
I'd have thought the OS was more important... presumably Android, so Google developed and controlled in the US right?
No, not unless you wipe the phone completely and install a clean version. Even then it is relatively easy to have the hardware programmed to compromise the OS. Lenovo did it with their laptops.
I'd never use biometrics for an app as they can't be changed if compromised. PINs and the like (painful though they might be) can.
The joys of Android, I guess. Although I can't see why Google couldn't close those OS shortcomings.
Android is open source. It means anyone can get it and modify it to their own end. Google services aren't though and most Chinese phones don't ship with Google services anyway.
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
Fingerprints are hugely unreliable. They aren't as unique as you might think. And a surprising amount don't have them. Friend at college didn't. Plus they can be damaged by scarring, blistering, etc.
Yet they still to be highly regarded as evidence.
Have you got a couple of good references for your assertions?
Here is one. The problems with fingerprinting are quite far down the article.
TLDR. Essentially. The idea your fingerprints are unique is an assertion not a fact. Moreover, there never was any common standard for what equalled a match. It was just someone's opinion.
Bit like all snowflakes are different. I mean, has any one checked?
Quite. Tell them that women don't have dicks, and the reaction is pretty uniform.
Company vaccine wall going up on the October 11th. All employees who wish to attend social events or any in-person office days will have to upload proof of vaccination or their entry key card will be deactivated. Only medical exemptions are allowed but they come "at their own risk" because all social distancing is officially junked from the 11th onwards.
Tbh, this feels aimed at our US offices rather than London but it's being applied globally with Japan getting it in December when everyone's been given an opportunity to have the vaccine.
I wonder what would happen if someone challenged that in our courts?
I had a phone call from my bank recently. Would I answer some questions about recent changes to my current account terms and conditions? Sure, okay. First I have to ask you some security questions. Er, how can I be sure you're really from the bank?
The system is absurd.
Banks and credit card companies have some of the worst security going. UK banks have recently enabled SMS for authenticating card not present transactions, even though using SMS for such purposes is something standards organisations have deprecated for years now. Bank are effectively subcontracing the security of your bank accounts to your mobile carrier, who in turn have farmed out the leg work to someone in a call centre overseas or a teenager in a store doing a Saturday job. You would be hard pressed to come up with something worse.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
Ten years ago the buzz was that passwords would be quickly replaced by biometrics such as eye scans or fingerprints. Why arent we using those more? (Genuine question, not saying we should or shouldn't).
My bank app uses face recognition.
mine uses fingerprints. but in both cases they are just relying on the phone, presumably? Chinese phone in my case, I wrongly thought it was from taiwan, and I'd have thought twice if i knew it was PRC.
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
I'd have thought the OS was more important... presumably Android, so Google developed and controlled in the US right?
No, not unless you wipe the phone completely and install a clean version. Even then it is relatively easy to have the hardware programmed to compromise the OS. Lenovo did it with their laptops.
I'd never use biometrics for an app as they can't be changed if compromised. PINs and the like (painful though they might be) can.
The joys of Android, I guess. Although I can't see why Google couldn't close those OS shortcomings.
If you make the hardware, you have full control of the device. I think it would be very difficult for Google to stop added extras. The same goes for Microsoft and all Windows devices.
On topic, if Trump wants the nomination, he will get it and it is increasingly clear he does. Also, he is playing a smart game by keeping relatively quiet. That might not be a popular idea on here given the consensus that Trump is a stupid buffoon but he is a lot smarter than many give him credit for.
There was also a good piece by Conrad Black today, which won’t please many on here but the link is below. With regards to his comments on the 2020 election, they will make many here choke but, quite frankly, that’s not important - this is what the GOP is thinking about what happened in November:
Final point. I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means ie his election will be illegitimate. Ironically, there is a fair bit of overlap between those who are the strongest in pushing this view and those who are most shrill about saying how the GOP’s conduct remains the biggest threat to American democracy. It doesn’t seem to occur to many on here that Trump may win because people will be sick of Biden’s incompetence but it is worrying that we are starting to see the building blocks being out in place to claim any Trump 2024 win is, by default, illegitimate.
"I’m noticing a worrying trend on here that, if Trump does run again in 2024, the only way he will win is by fraud / illegitimate means"
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way and some my comments might be close to saying that. But it is spectacularly missing the point.
The election of a President who sets out to win by cheating is a threat to democracy whether they win by cheating or if they would have won anyway without cheating. The Trump Republicans are setting out to cheat.
I don't follow US politics closely. How exactly are they going to cheat?
The Republicans have been cheating for years. Gerrymandering did not start with Trump, and nor did vote suppression.
The Democrats have been enthusiastic gerrymanderers for years.
That being said, it is great that a number of States have implemented measures to limit the ability of lawmakers to set boundaries that benefit themselves. It is notable (ah hem, @MrEd) that Democratic states have been better* at putting in place independent bodies. It's one of the reasons why the Dems need to win the House by a surprisingly large percentage points margin to hold it.
* Not universally better; Democratic Maryland has historically been a pretty terrible gerrymanderer
Comments
Dem – Iowa screwed up the count which denied early momentum to young candidates.
GOP – television charisma trumps (geddit!) all. Thank $deity that could never happen here. Oh, it did.
Really?
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a single comment along those lines.
Presumably you have plenty of examples.
The system is absurd.
I didn't come into politics to vote over and over again in Parliament and lose and then tweet about it.
Ouch! Whatever factions could be be thinking of?
The election of a President who sets out to win by cheating is a threat to democracy whether they win by cheating or if they would have won anyway without cheating. The Trump Republicans are setting out to cheat.
Mrs P. (no pun intended) spotted that as we have no water supply and only three toilets, we are only three flushes from disaster.
She has therefore decreed flushing is only allowed after a number 2.
Truly, the end of days 😬
General Milley said, "The Taliban was and remains a terrorist organisation and still has not broken ties with al-Qaeda. A reconstituted al-Qaeda or ISIS [Islamic State group] with aspirations to attack the US is a very real possibility, and those conditions to include activity in ungoverned spaces could present themselves in the next 12-36 months."
Joe Biden should be ashamed. Neither he nor Trump are the future for America in 2024 surely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58719834
(*My brother's a plumber - he regularly takes out old cold water storage tanks, there's often the remains of a mouse, rat or bird in them, so think about that when you brush your teeth.)
Topped up with petrol this evening prior to a long drive Thursday.
No queue, no limit of what I could buy.
What a mess the USA is in. I suspect Trump won't be able to run again, either as a result of health problems, or legal ones
Come to that, what a mess UK is in.
No bank to the best of my knowledge offers security as good as you can get from a Google, Microsoft, or Apple account, and in some cases you can get their best security options for free.
But it's also not unreasonable to be worried that some people in key positions will push unreasonable measures and rules, when challenge after challenge after fruitless, baseless challenge was made, and when many proposals seem specifically designed to advance one side, or disadvantage the other, or give choice/power to politicians irrespective of votes. January 6th did not come out of nowhere, and gives pretty good cause to cast a critical eye over things.
That said, maybe it’s my own fault for giving the time of day to the analysis of a poster who assured us “Virginia is in play”, “Fox was wrong to call Arizona” and “Nevada’s result will be overturned”.
Go and bother that chump in a dickie bow.
(Should be even less controversial considering they are openly discussing how to do this through appointing the right office holders).
It also uses voice recognition on the phone.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/28/southeastern-state-takeover-amplify-rail-reform-franchise
Is there any long-term future for a privatised rail service?
I did a 10-mile run in Peterborough today, whilst Mrs J's car was having its service and MOT.
A few random thoughts:
*) A petrol station I passed had all fuel and no queues. £30 limit on transactions.
*) Peterborough isn't the prettiest places, but I managed to run three miles south to the centre on good roadside cycle paths, with no on-level road crossings. Impressive.
*) Six or seven men drinking from cans of lager in various places. All alone. Quite a sad sight in the early afternoon.
*) On the way back, I ran through an underpass where three youths on bikes with hoods up were smoking something a little heavy on the nose. A young woman cycled past me, saw the youths, stopped, turned around, and headed back past me.
The latter was particularly poignant. I have little fear in running or walking anywhere - I feel as though I face more danger from traffic than I do people. Yet I know female friends who are fearful of being out and about alone. It's easy for me, as a man, to forget that ...
That isn’t to say a privatised system couldn’t work, but the system adopted was devised by people who simply didn’t understand railways.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/lithuania-says-throw-away-chinese-phones-due-censorship-concerns-2021-09-21/
Fair play to Boris Johnson when he banned Huawei from being involved in our internet/5G systems.
This is the tip of a very large iceberg, if you join all the pieces together you can see the Chinese strategy.
Do we have to be mealy mouthed about this? I thought the first amendment was pretty robust.
And save the High Street.
Hey, I’m starting to like this…
https://twitter.com/martinwolf_/status/1442901158872289280?s=19
Dump the fraudulently taken money in that account and transfer it out, usually overseas.
I'm going to share this because thanks to social media you can piece the details to hack/open accounts.
But there are literally dozens of ways to transfer the fraud money without even sending it overseas, things like prepaid cards which you can pick up at most newsagents or travel shops.
KYC and AML works mostly, however some banks screw up because sometimes the scammers come up with something nobody ever thinks about or the customer is extremely gullible.
One thing that would definitely help, stop putting the full sort code and account numbers on the front/back of cards.
E minus, see me after class.
But that division marked a closure and allowed the party to move on with an agenda they could unite behind.
Starmer needs the same. He needs to oust his own Gaukeward squad which in his case is the far left extremists.
He should also expel anyone who uses the word comrade from now on. The UK isn't the USSR.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/09/05/like-a-bad-smell-trump-isnt-going-anywhere/
Jeremy Corbyn will never be a Labour MP again thanks to Sir Keir Starmer’s rule changes, senior shadow cabinet members believe.
The procedural changes approved narrowly by the party conference on Sunday after a highly charged debate could embolden MPs to turn against their former leader, sources say.
As well as the changes to the leadership rules, Starmer forced through tweaks to the process under which Labour MPs can stay on to fight in their seats at general elections.
The new rules make it harder for local activists to trigger a deselection process for sitting MPs, which forces them to face off against others to be the Labour candidate for their seat.
That change, shadow ministers say, will embolden MPs to give less weight to the views of the members of their constituency parties, which will be important if MPs get the chance to ban Corbyn from the Labour Party in the future.
Previously those MPs might have feared that their constituency parties, which tend to be more left wing and pro-Corbyn than the general public, would have tried to deselect them if they tried to bring a decisive end to Corbyn’s career in the Labour Party.
Members of Starmer’s front bench believe the changes to the “trigger” process are as important if not more important than the new leadership election rules, which will hand MPs a bigger say over Starmer’s successor.
“In the run-up to 2019, loads of us had to spend months in our constituencies organising against being triggered,” one shadow cabinet minister said. “We’d have won 20 more seats if it wasn’t for that.”
“The trigger changes are the most important part of the rule changes,” another member of Starmer’s shadow cabinet said. “They finally free us up to face the country rather than thinking the whole time about our members.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-will-never-be-labour-mp-again-after-sir-keir-starmers-rule-changes-shadow-ministers-believe-z3fjj86c5
Have you got a couple of good references for your assertions?
More seriously, I think people are missing the point about these click safe transactions. It’s designed to force the holdouts to get internet banking (as it operates effectively only through the app) so the banks can close their final remaining branches.
The minor detail that the security of most banking apps would disgrace a piggy bank is a detail compared to the lower overheads.
The other thing is we're running out mobile phone numbers and mobile phone companies are having to recycle numbers and it presents difficulties for consumers when they try and register their 'new' mobile phone number with their bank and their bank already have that number registered for another customer.
Especially in a Parliamentary system.
The 2017-19 divisions were not healthy and ultimately one side had to prevail. Ultimately one side did. The MPs who lost the whip would have kept it if they'd bitten their tongues and kept the three line whip once a confidence vote was called - as happened with Maastricht.
He still puts out inflammatory rants on his website but no one in the media gives a shit about websites any more so the tv channels no longer breathlessly report all his nonsense.
I imagine once he is the nominee they will let him back on Twitter and the media circus will resume.
I use my iPhone to make payments on the High Street a lot, whereas on the internet the iPhone is not relevant - it's bank transfer or online card payment.
Ergo banning phone payments would only further harm the high street.
It’s one thing to ban the guy on his way out, quite another to ban the guy who might be on his way back in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comrade
I'd never use biometrics for an app as they can't be changed if compromised. PINs and the like (painful though they might be) can.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerprints-180971640/
TLDR. Essentially. The idea your fingerprints are unique is an assertion not a fact.
Moreover, there never was any common standard for what equalled a match. It was just someone's opinion.
A 3D-printed head has shown that while Apple's Face ID is a secure biometric authentication system, other facial recognition systems used by Android-based smartphones are able to be fooled and unlocked by the fake cranium.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/17/face-id-not-fooled-in-fake-head-test-while-android-rivals-fail
Tbh, this feels aimed at our US offices rather than London but it's being applied globally with Japan getting it in December when everyone's been given an opportunity to have the vaccine.
https://sites.rutgers.edu/fingerprinting/no-two-finger-prints-are-alike/
Essentially, we have a variation of a relative few patterns on each finger. They aren't random or unique like a QR code or summat.
They exist within a limited range of possibilities. Like we all have slightly different hair or eye colour. But no one has blue hair. Nor red eyes naturally.
I’d be quite wary of using any Chinese brand Android phone for banking stuff, to be honest.
'British usage
The British Union of Fascists used the word commonly to refer to members. The Marching Song, set to the music of the Horst-Wessel-Lied began 'Comrades, the voices'. The writer, E.D. Randall, defended the usage of the word by stating that 'comrades' ‘fittingly and completely expresses the ideal of unity in the service of a common cause.'
That being said, it is great that a number of States have implemented measures to limit the ability of lawmakers to set boundaries that benefit themselves. It is notable (ah hem, @MrEd) that Democratic states have been better* at putting in place independent bodies. It's one of the reasons why the Dems need to win the House by a surprisingly large percentage points margin to hold it.
* Not universally better; Democratic Maryland has historically been a pretty terrible gerrymanderer