Saturday, 23 February 2008

Agent 58 "Trojan"

Posting will be late Friday and Saturday due to a “strange” bit of software that keeps popping up every time I access the internet. MI5 or MI6 no doubt!
Posted by at

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Shaw

I hope your PC is better. It would seem that the sources of any malicious codes distributed from ST*BC are very tough to identify and track down even when you have an IP.

I note that the public questions unanswered from the last meeting in 24th January Borough Council meeting were deferred during the reconvened meeting on 1st February to the 28th February Borough Council meeting, as stated in the agenda: http://cmis.southtyneside.info/current/Binary.ashx?Document=13657:

Questions 21-25 were included in the requisition for the Extraordinary Meeting held on 1 February 2008. It was stated at that meeting that these questions would be included on the agenda for this meeting.

Questions 22-25 are from members of the public who have already submitted the maximum number of questions allowed by an individual at a Council meeting (2 questions). These questions will therefore be answered under the Freedom of Information Act.

Subsequently, it is highly unlikely that all of the public questions will be answered in the Borough Council meeting on 28th February, therefore, does the council have a statutory duty to give a written response to these questions within the minutes for this meeting?; or will outstanding questions again be deferred to the next meeting?; or will each member of the public have to request an answer to each question under the Freedom of Information Act?

Surly, the answers to all public questions raised during a public meeting should be recorded on STMBC website for the public to view without individuals having to request answers to each and every question under the Freedom of Information Act.

Do you have any experience of gaining info from STMBC under the Freedom of Information Act, and if so, did you get prompt and easy access to the information you requested.

This whole process could be considered to be highly unsatisfactory by the electorate.

23 February 2008 at 20:17
rossinisbird said...

One of the web pages on a redirect from the Whiteleas blogspot site is a dummy web page which tries to download a trojan pretending to be an ActiveX control. It's possible you were snagged there.

I suggest you remove the link on your page to whiteleas to stop any other unfortunate folk from clicking through and being caught out.

cheers

rossi

23 February 2008 at 23:09
PETER SHAW said...

A quick reply to your comments post Mr Integrity.

- Not every body has internet access so many would be able to view the answers.
- Questions will always be deferred unless asked for in writing
- I have always had a good response to FOI enquiries, with only one ever being refused on the “disproportionate argument.

Remember, the Council are answerable to the public, not the other way round. Until they acknowledge this, the questions will continue to mount up. The answer? Drop the 20 minute rule.

24 February 2008 at 09:57
PETER SHAW said...

Thank you Rossi

The link has been deleted. But remember, the Russians are coming!

24 February 2008 at 09:58
Anonymous said...

Thank you Peter for your response.

I agree that the 20 minute rule is totally unsatisfactory, especially when this time seems to be used up so effectively!

24 February 2008 at 12:02

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)