Garacesh

That's probably because they're not doing anything lol It's incredibly few-and-far-between in the UK that I see anything by the police or any legal agency that's actually proactive for these scams. Where the usual channels of communication with the vulnerable are concerned (e.g. facebook) it's usually charities that are putting this information out, and when it's published media (e.g. newspapers or e-news sites) it's something the organisation is reporting on because it's news, and not because the police have asked them to (often there's a canned quote from some agency or other, but it's very much a 'the journalist is hunting cases and following this up' rather than anything else) The UK police are criminally under-staffed and under-funded, and given that most of these scams operate from outside the UK, there's not really a whole lot they could do even if they wanted to.

Our photography dept have had kids uploading photographs they've taken on their phones/etc. Issue is when they upload the file, it dumps it in Appdata/blahdeblah/INetCache. Then, when they go to upload a second image, it remembers that it uploaded from that folder, tries to open it, and fails with a restrictions on this computer error. Then it opens the folder the file came from instead. I've tracked the first half of the issue down to the Prevent access to drives from My Computer GPO setting. If I remove that GPO, the Remove Run menu from Start Menu setting still blocks the user from browsing to C:\, D:\ etc in File Explorer. Awesome. But now when trying to upload a second file, Chrome opens the INetCache folder. This file prompt then allows back-browsing to AppData (and then opening all the subfolders there), or even as far back as C:\Users\%USERNAME% Now we have AppLocker in place to prevent any executables running from C:\Users, so I'm not concerned about that, but what I am concerned about is introducing an issue where files are now getting saved to C:\Users\%USERNAME% instead of their network homepath because the drive is no longer fully restricted. Is there an option I've missed here, or am I stuck choosing between "Switch it off and hope" and "Tell them to put up with the error because it doesn't actually impact functionality"?

Having seen D:I's monetisation, I really don't think it is 'tame' for the mobile market. Also, even if it were, so? "I'm lucky they only chopped my hand off, in the next city over you'll lose your entire arm!" Nobody wants the game (or any game) to stop being fun, we just want them to stop using predatory manipulation methods, gambling mechanics, a huge focus on 'whaling', FOMO, and a myriad of other underhanded tactics to prey on people.

Be aware that you can't redirect a start menu in Windows 11, or so I'm told. If you want to customise it, you need to use InTune. Aside from that, I've been running Windows 11 on my work PC for a while now and everything seems to be fine.

This is the exact video I was going to post as soon as I saw the thread title. We all knew Diablo Immortal would be.. egregious.. with it's microtransactions when it was announced to not be on PC. The fact that they later decided to (poorly, at that!) port it to PC notwithstanding, it was announced as mobile-only. We also know how greedy Blizzard were becoming after their success at monetising Overwatch. I never thought it would be *this* bad.

Don't get me wrong, he could've just ignored it, I can appreciate that. But it shouldn't ever get that far. In fact, it shouldn't be such a recurring issue that professionals have to blow off steam about how poor the service is. The CEO shouldn't be on damage control. The CEO especially shouldn't be doing damage control off-platform where it can't be seen by other members. If @paulkerton needs to make several threads about how bad the support is, that's where the damage control should be taking place. Or you could just, y'know, look up his ticket(s) and get the issue fixed? But to go hunting for them off platform and message them? Creepy. Maybe I just feel like the service and/or support shouldn't be so bad that the CEO has to get involved in the first place, is that such a crazy idea? Stable door after the horse, and all... I've recently made 2 gripe posts, one about Taremtec and one about Civica for abysmal performance. Do I want their CEO's to start message me? No! If their CEO wants to get involved, they should be giving their support a kick up the rear end and improve their service.

Bad pitch, hear me out: Have your support folks do their job, so the CEO doesn't have to hunt for folks across different corners of the internet to chase things up?

Our asset register has a 'notes' field where we put in who has what. Staff also have to sign for it, the usual rigmarole, so there's a paper record too.

I went on a Sam Raimi/Tobey McGuire Spider-Man binge on Saturday. Good god those movies are awful. I love them.

I did my CBT last year, been pootling about on a 125 since. I'm probably looking at doing the rest of it over the summer. Still need to get the hang of gears/clutch though. Ended up having to switch to an auto during my CBT because I kept mucking up the gear order, or letting the clutch out too quickly.

WTH? I thought they said they were going to make all that optional years ago, back when it was "BT Wifi with FON" Terrible practice, BT. Sure, let's just carve off a slice of everybody's network for rando's to use. That's a fantastic idea. Security and convenience being polar opposites again.

Sounds like a great solution to my annoying teacher problem Is it open-source? Freeware?

Au contraire, quite clearly they can. Now, un-parking might present a problem...

Nice! Free half a tank!

I don't know - nor want to know - the particulars of the legal action, but I suspect that this is very much the case. Either that, or they don't really know what they want, so they just want everything, in the hopes that they'll find something vindicating. I'm fairly certain our DPO has gone to the council for advice. As far as my role in all of this, I passed on everybody's comments at the back end of last week and have washed my hands of it all. I was asked to dump all the emails, so I did. Ticket closed.

Head/Arms/Weapons/Back thingies are spare bits from the Incubi box, the torso itself is from spare folks hanging off a Raider, and the legs (and the rock he's stood on) are from the Scourge kit. I have no idea about the ribbons coming off his back, from some Eldar kit a friend gave me a tonne of spare bits for. Same for the tree and the other rock on the base. I didn't really like the official new Drazhar.. It was way too ostentatious for someone supposed to be decked out in ancient armour of the first Incubi. It looked far to new and decorated and fancy, so I kludged one looking a bit less sparkly and new.

Finally got around to painting something again. My Drazhar, Master of Blades kitbash is no longer rocking his primer-grey bodysuit.

I'm not looking to reduce anything, it's not me that's got to sort through it all, I don't care how long it takes Just looking to get some clarification because our DPO isn't 100% sure. Valid point, the email may be of no consequence, but a third party with no prior knowledge would be able to infer there was an employee named J Bloggs. So essentially my initial suspicion was right and we include him everything, except any personal data about anybody not listed in the request? So we redact any other names/etc that aren't $EMoS, $NP1 or $NP2 and ship off the rest?

Having discussed with the DSL in person, this is his angle too, and I understand his position better now. $EMoS has requested all emails, between himself and $NP1 and/or $NP2, between A and B dates. However, a lot of that is mailing list emails that are "has anybody got..", "I found this...", "So and so has just absconded from my lesson", etcetera. These emails do fall within the scope of the request, however, they are not data about the subject. The ICO's What is personal data? page states the following: Now let's take an example email to $EMoS by $NP2, fittingly redacted as appropriate. Well this information neither identifies nor is about the individual making the subject access request. The only bit of relevance to that individual it pertains is that it ended up in their inbox, so whilst it meets the criteria laid out in the request (an email to $EMoS by $NP2 within the specified date range), it is still not data about the subject. So going off the snippet from the ICO's page above, this information cannot be used to directly identify the individual, nor can it be used to infer the identity of the individual. Additionally, it has zero capability to be used by anybody to identify the individual.

The DPO is handling it, just to be clear, we're just a little iffy in what needs to be included. I'm not the one doing the redactions etc, I just dumped all the emails into text files, but I know we have a fair few folks on here more knowledgeable than I about this, so figured it was worth the ask. Good shout about legal @psydii.. I assume the council has legal services we can discuss it with..

So just to be clear, to throw a few scenarios, 'cause I don't just wanna assume and get it wrong. $Ex-Member-of-Staff sends an email to $NamedPerson1 with marks schemes. This falls squarely within the scope of the request. In this scenario, we include the email contents and any email attachments. $NamedPerson2 is off ill and is communicating via email with $Ex-Member-of-Staff. $EMoS asks for $NP2's address to run workbooks to be marked out to their home. $NP2 obliges. In this scenario, we include the email exchange, but redact the given address as personal data. $Ex-Member-of-Staff discusses via email changing a rota, offering to swap times with a third person who has not been named in this SAR In this scenario, we include the email exchange but redact the third person's identity as personal data.

We've had a SAR from an ex-member of staff who is pursuing legal action against the school, and a specific member of staff here. They have provided date ranges and have requested emails to and from $MemberOfStaff and themselves, within those date ranges. They have also requested emails to and from a second member of staff and themselves within another date ranges. Now technologically, not an issue. I've knocked up a script, dumped all the emails and attachments, and sent them on to our data guy. Easy. But there's a little confusion around how or what should be redacted. Obviously we should redact anything related to pupils, pupil contacts, other members of staff, etcetera, that we're in agreement on, but I'm under the impression that if the information is of no consequence, it is provided, regardless of its relevancy. So if the ex-member of staff and one of the named contacts are chatting about what chinese to order tonight, it's not relevant, but it's not of consequence, we give that to them, because they have asked for all emails. SLT are thinking it's the other way around, simply telling them there were emails sent from X to Y at datestamps V/W/X/Y/Z and only providing the related information (email body, attachments, etc) if it is deemed relevant. My response to this is that they have asked for all emails, therefore any email is relevant to the requested scope by simply existing within those date ranges. Additionally, does any consent need to be obtained from the named members of staff? One could argue if these emails are his data, it's also their data too? Do the named members of staff need to be told that this information has been requested, and is (if it is) being shared?

[string]$Sender = "[color="#FF0000"]User1[/color]" [string]$Recipient = "[color="#FF0000"]User2[/color]" [string]$StartDate = "[color="#FF0000"]XXXX/XX/XX[/color]" # Datestamp in YYYY/MM/DD [string]$EndDate = "[color="#FF0000"]XXXX/XX/XX[/color]" # Datestamp in YYYY/MM/DD [string]$SaveRoot = "[color="#FF0000"]C:\Path[/color]" If (!(Test-Path ($SaveRoot + "\" + $Sender + " to " + "$Recipient"))) { New-Item -Path ($SaveRoot + "\" + $Sender + " to " + "$Recipient") -ItemType Directory } ForEach ($EmailList in (Get-GSGmailMessageList -User $Recipient -Filter ("from:" + $Sender), ("after:" + $StartDate), ("before:" + $EndDate) -ExcludeChats)) { ForEach ($Email in (Get-GSGmailMessage -User $Recipient -Id $EmailList.Id -ParseMessage)) { [string]$FullFilePath = ($SaveRoot + "\" + $Sender + " to " + "$Recipient" + "\" + ([string]$Email.Date.Year + '-' + ([string]$Email.Date.Month).PadLeft(2,'0') + '-' + ([string]$Email.Date.Day).PadLeft(2,'0') + ' ' + ([string]$Email.Date.Hour).PadLeft(2,'0') + '-' + ([string]$Email.Date.Minute).PadLeft(2,'0') + '-' + ([string]$Email.Date.Second).PadLeft(2,'0'))) ("To: " + $Email.User) | Out-File ($FullFilePath + ".txt") -Append ("From: " + $Email.From.Address) | Out-File ($FullFilePath + ".txt") -Append ("Subject: " + $Email.Subject) | Out-File ($FullFilePath + ".txt") -Append $Email.Date.LocalDatetime | Out-File ($FullFilePath + ".txt") -Append $Email.TextBody | Out-File ($FullFilePath + ".txt") -Append If ($Email.Attachments -ne $null) { If (!(Test-Path $FullFilePath)) { New-Item -Path $FullFilePath -ItemType Directory } Get-GSGmailMessage -User $Recipient -Id $EmailList.Id -ParseMessage -SaveAttachmentsTo $FullFilePath } } } Owing to an SAR this morning, I've spent the past 2 hours developing and debugging this little snippet Define 2 users, a date range, and a root folder, and using the PSGSuite module, this script will dump every email - and email attachment - into a folder of your choosing, exporting each email as YYYY-MM-DD HH-MM.txt and putting each attachment into an identically-named YYYY-MM-DD HH-MM subfolder.

A while back I came across an absolutely beautiful that's relatively speedpaint friendly. I need to get off my butt and paint again, too.. I have far too many grey-primer Drukhari...

The base of the Broodlord really shows off that pearlescent effect of the paint! Definitely does get me thinking of beetle shells.