Bristol Digest, Vol 542, Issue 7

Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Moto G [was Android Permissions and Iplayer (OT)] (Ian Plain)
2. Re: Moto G [was Android Permissions and Iplayer (OT)] (Mike Yates)
3. Suse13.1 dual boot intallation failure (d.hockin)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:29:19 +0000
From: Ian Plain <ian@cyber-cottage.co.uk>
To: "bblug@fonehelp.co.uk" <bblug@fonehelp.co.uk>, Bristol and Bath
Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Moto G [was Android Permissions and Iplayer
(OT)]
Message-ID:
<CAPdamw-u6NzSex9Xo7Ajo+AwsidG7YR0AxBQvZkH2exA+1QpgA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

No one forces you to install an app. if you don't like what permissions it
wants / requires then don't install it, and expecting legislation to be
passed globally is to be honest a rather stupid request. Very few apps are
written in the uk so your idea would just mean if passed, apps would not be
allowed for download in the UK.

Surely you realise that in the case of free apps the data they get is what
gives the company value and you the free use of the app.





On Tuesday, March 18, 2014, Mike Yates <bblug@fonehelp.co.uk> wrote:

> Just to let you know, I'm preparing an e-petition for legislation to make
> all software installation "permissions" voluntary. All software requiring
> security permissions should be able to install without those permissions
> and run in a limited way, asking again for the permissions when it needs
> them and explaining why. Vendors and Network providers will never do this
> voluntarily since some of their income is derived from advertisers and
> other "agencies" gaining their data in this highly deceptive manner.
> I'll let you know when it's up.
>


--
Thanks
Ian Plain
http://www.cyber-cottage.co.uk
Twitter @cyberco
Skype ba17sw





The information transmitted is intended only for the entity or person to
whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer or media on which it resides. Any information statements or
opinions contained in this message (including any attachments) are given by
the author. They are not given on behalf of cyber-cottage.co.uk. This
email is for information purposes only and does not create legal relations
unless confirmed in a letter or facsimile. cyber-cottage.co.uk does not
accept any liability for information not relating to its official business.
cyber-cottage.co.uk takes steps to minimise viruses and other errors but
cannot guarantee that this email is error free.
cyber-cottage.co.ukmonitors email traffic for lawful purposes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140319/aa78b803/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:12:31 +0000
From: Mike Yates <bblug@fonehelp.co.uk>
To: Ian Plain <ian@cyber-cottage.co.uk>, Bristol and Bath Linux User
Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Moto G [was Android Permissions and Iplayer
(OT)]
Message-ID:
<CAKU1sbyq1hB1gF44VF71Xi6ghJ+Xd5NFEEo5dJMgMGXHnTg3bA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

It is the deception involved which is the issue here.
"If you don't like it, don't buy it" is the most inane and ineffective
excuse for any contravention of polite trading practice.
In our case it is the hiding of spying permissions in "Terms and
Conditions" or preventing installation without them.
History shows that "market forces" cannot protect the public, unless every
single member of the public is extraordinarily vigilant.

UK legislation would be a first step. EU would come next. They have been
(slightly) effective in forcing "browser choice". The US might follow.

Obviously it couldn't be retrospective, so could could not "ban" existing
apps, but if it was more "labelling legislation" then it could force
warnings in the app store (or any software download site) about them.
Permissions conditional on installation would have to be listed clearly
before a choice to download was made and above any such button on the page.
>From the statement "No compulsory permissions." above some apps,
competition would force "partial functioning without permissions" to become
prevalent.
Free apps should be funded by displaying changing adverts, requiring
permission to receive data only, not spying.
Under current legislation, it is illegal to sell data deceptively obtained,
so are you saying most people break the law?
The US congress is this month considering whether the FTC should allow the
WhatsApp sale for exactly that reason.
Maybe we should prosecute more...


On 19 March 2014 15:29, Ian Plain <ian@cyber-cottage.co.uk> wrote:

> No one forces you to install an app. if you don't like what permissions it
> wants / requires then don't install it, and expecting legislation to be
> passed globally is to be honest a rather stupid request. Very few apps are
> written in the uk so your idea would just mean if passed, apps would not be
> allowed for download in the UK.
>
> Surely you realise that in the case of free apps the data they get is what
> gives the company value and you the free use of the app.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 18, 2014, Mike Yates <bblug@fonehelp.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Just to let you know, I'm preparing an e-petition for legislation to make
>> all software installation "permissions" voluntary. All software requiring
>> security permissions should be able to install without those permissions
>> and run in a limited way, asking again for the permissions when it needs
>> them and explaining why. Vendors and Network providers will never do this
>> voluntarily since some of their income is derived from advertisers and
>> other "agencies" gaining their data in this highly deceptive manner.
>> I'll let you know when it's up.
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Ian Plain
> http://www.cyber-cottage.co.uk
> Twitter @cyberco
> Skype ba17sw
>
>
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the entity or person to
> whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive
> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
> computer or media on which it resides. Any information statements or
> opinions contained in this message (including any attachments) are given by
> the author. They are not given on behalf of cyber-cottage.co.uk. This
> email is for information purposes only and does not create legal relations
> unless confirmed in a letter or facsimile. cyber-cottage.co.uk does not
> accept any liability for information not relating to its official business.
> cyber-cottage.co.uk takes steps to minimise viruses and other errors but
> cannot guarantee that this email is error free. cyber-cottage.co.ukmonitors email traffic for lawful purposes.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140319/5f3c4299/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:22:37 -0000
From: "d.hockin" <d.hockin@btinternet.com>
To: <bristol@lists.lug.org.uk>
Subject: [bristol] Suse13.1 dual boot intallation failure
Message-ID: <536F8FD39F6B4A8FB89A108AF40C3D1F@dave9>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=original

My wife's desktop PC has two drives :-

1=XPhome and
2 = Suse 10.1

I have just tried to install Suse 13.1 from the disk the group sent me,
(having successfully installed it into my laptop)

This was to be a fresh install, NOT an "update" so the existing linux
partition was emptied

At the end of the install process, there was a list of files that failed to
install, the most important being Grub2

So now the computer cannot run at all, as it stops immediately with Grub
error 17

I did try the "rescue" file on the DVD, but that refuses my login.

We cannot do anything now, as we can't even get XP running.

Please, what can we do?

Thank you,

David (Posset)




------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol

End of Bristol Digest, Vol 542, Issue 7
***************************************