Every so often my profile gets followed by an account of an adult nature obviously spam. Its not that obvious of how you can block accounts.
The following link https://support.twitter.com/articles/117063 explains how.
So to block an account that has not tweeted you you have to first go into their profile and block from there. Why cant you just complete the action from your own account withoyt having to navigate into their profile. Does not seem unreasonable
So only two weeks to go until the referendum vote takes place
Am I any clearer on what staying or leaving means to me not really and to the country no not really.
Over the last few days the leave campaign in the polls is ahead but it appears to be very tight there appears to be a lot of undecided voters out there and i have heard statements on news reports of people saying I might not vote as I dont know what it means.
If the people that want to stay don’t vote then I think the leave vote may prove the largest, David Cameron is probably very worried at this stage
As originally thought there is alot of scare moungering from both sides; From the stay campaign it all is economic based from i) BHS budget cuts, ii) State pension cuts, iii) House price crashes, iv) Job cuts and the list goes on obviously the leave campaign dismiss this. What is the answer; I have no idea
The leave campaign talks about immigration. This will be the main vote winner for the leave campaign ; talk of Turkey joining the EU opening the UK borders to thousands more migrants adds fuel to their campaign. The veto that the UK has may not be available pr workable, Incidents of migrant boats turning up off of the coast of Dymchurch and Hastings brings the troubles that the Greece and Italy have closer to home.
There is disharmony amongst politicians within their own parties can they ever get back onside after the referendum remains to be seen.
one of the newest methods of payments on the high street; todays debit and credit cards allow you to pay upto £30 just by waving your card in front of a card reader, no pin needed.
so what can go wrong? on tonights itv show how safe is your money an it security expert showed how just by bumping into someone with a mobile device with a vard reader app they had put together they were able to get enough information from the contactless card in the victims pocket to then go and use the card details online to make purchases above £30. you might say but hang on what about verified by visa , card security code (not sure is they got the code from the swipe i must say they implied not) well amazon don’t actually ask for the security code and do not use verified by visa or 3d secure at the checkout. a number of companies don’t as its perceived in the ecommerce world as a potential reason for abandoned baskets which is bad for the retailer. it seems that a fair number of customers can never recall the numbers they set up so will abandon their shopping basket ay checkout. retailers that use the verification process are actually protected by the card issuing companies if a fraudulent transaction is found to have taken place, they are not covered if this process is not undertaken.
i have heard a director of an online retailer actually say the fraud levels they were operating at were below industry averages and security and checking was too tight!
fraud involving contactless cards is a new type of fraid and last year it totalled around £2.8 million where as fraud involving telephone and online transactions totalled £170 million.
there are now wallets and purses out there that are encased in metal to stop reading of contactless cards by people using available card readers. imagine being on a packed tube, or walking down oxford street and a person in your carriage or walking down the road with one of these devices. you would have no idea until you next look at your account online.
Publicity surrounding the celebrity injunction in relation to the publication of details of an alleged threesome shows no signs of subsiding. The UK press namely the Sun are in court later this week to try and overturn the injunction, the Daily Mail on a daily basis continues to publish stories of where the details have now emerged. We have learnt that the injunction is only applicable in England and Wales, so a Scottish Newspaper has published the names and picture of the supposed celebrity couple. It seems that the injunction stops any England and Wales based websites and publications even naming the Newspaper. We have now discovered a prominent UK based political blogger has published the details on their blog, it would appear they can do this as the sites hosting is based in the USA. It would also appear that a major USA television network has named the couple. A UK MP was supposedly going to use parlimentary privildege to ask a question in parliment naming the couple in the process in a similar manner to how Ryan Giggs was named a few years back. The speaker of the house has stopped the MP from doing this.
Today we learn of a Conservative MP who has been named who had the misfortune of dating for a brief period of time a couple of years back a lady from the website match.com who turned out to be a dominatrix. Once he found this out (she did not tell him) supposedly by the press tipping him off of an impending story he stopped dating her. The story was never published and has only just come to light. Conspiracy theory has gone into overdrive as the said MP is involved in handling the current press regulations in the wake of the phone hacking scandal. Certain organisations and opposition MPs believe he has been compromosed with the theory that the story was not published so it can be used with other stories to leverage changes to the regulations that restrict the press activity.
Both the names pf the celebrity couple and the third party involved are widely available on search sites and social media sites. It is also very easy to find details of the dominatrix though no injunction exists for keeping the name hidden.
Google trends makes interesting reading. So what is google trends; Its a website owned by google that displays the current search term trends i.e. what we are searching for. Just drilling into the site shows graphs of by hour, by day, by month, by years of search topic trends. As a user you can enter a search term and see how frequently the term has been searched over a specified period of time. Just using the celebrity name shows large spike in the last week, with few searchs over the previous year; interestingly the site also shows related search terms and the names of over involve parties as readily identified.
Once again a high profile celebrity has been granted a court injunction to stop the reporting in the uk of details of a threesome his partner was supposedly involved in. the injunction only applies to the UK. A US news publication has named the celebrity and his partner and given details of the infidelity.
Almost immediately and namely the social media networks were awash with the names; google and bing searches were just as fruitful. As with other high profile celebrity injunctions and more serious criminal cases such as the recent adam johnson case anomonimity if granted cannot be guarenteed. Naming such prople in the UK granted anonomous status in the UK can result in prosecution of the person that releases the details though how many people have been prosecuted I am unsure.
Obviously one could argue that injunctions surrounding celebrity relationship scandals just show that some people have too much money; quite often the same celebrity is quite happy to sell stories of their life to magazines for vast sums of money but are not so keen on scandal appearing in the pubic domain even if their partner knows the details.
Where as victims of crimes committed against them who have been granted anonimity should be allowed to remain anonomous,
So how do Social Media and Search Engines fail to protect the victims.
If you take google and bing as search engines the search pages as part of the search result have content sections that show related searches that have been carried out by other users. The search boxes themselves show drop downs of related searches. Quite rapidly the names of people granted anomonimity appear in these sections. From these names it can be quite easy to find more personal information of these people.
Even twitter and facebook have similar search functionality where related results and searches are shown. Quite quickly innocent names can on twitter appear in the trending section.
Obviously quite quickly the results are adjusted and names are removed by moderators but one would presume this would only occur after a complaint has been made. The alogorithms dont seem to stop everything and perhaps only the link to the content that has been complained about. It is quite easily to spoof your location and search in countries where the data has not been removed to find the details that have been surpressed in say the UK.
More should be done to stop victims names from becoming known in the public domain; the internet has no borders and court orders in one country do not apply in other countries.