UK EU GDPR Security Laws

I am the lead on IT, however, as it is a fairly small company, the managing partner holds the purse strings. If I have notified him about possible ways that we could be breached, is he legally obligated to have them tested and corrected?

What ramifications are there, if there is a breach and it comes out that we were aware of these possible vulnerabilities?

Laws of logic – having issues with identifying if some propositions and what law is used

(~q∨q)∧r⇔(q∨~q)∧r  (q∨~q)∧r⇔r∧(q∨~q) 

To me looking over all the laws the only one that I think that makes sense to me is the Commutative law. Unless I am just way overthinking it and missing something simple that it uses a different law or laws. Here are some others that I had no problem identifying I believe. This is all refresher before my course starts this summer where we start writing our own proofs:

 r∧(q∨~q)⇔r∧t           Negation of Laws  r∧t⇔r                  Identity Law  r∧(q∨~q)⇔(r∧q)∨(r∧~q)  Distributive Law  ~(q→p)⇔q∧~p            Negation of Conditional 

How are the laws considering storing country details of visitors of my website? (calculated of their ip adresses) [migrated]

I wanted to add the country of the people who left a review on a website but I was wondering how this regards towards the laws about privacy. I have been doing quite some research into this topic but there weren’t any solid answers.

Does anyone know if I am allowed to store the country data of people who post a review? As well as what rules are related to this for different locations e.g Europe and America?

Example data:

Table header       rating | comment | createdOn | countryOfOrigin Table row          5        "hello"   00-00-0000  The Netherlands 

By VTM 5e, are the Kindred in the VtMB2 clan reveal trailers breaking any Camarilla laws?

For reference: As of this question being posted, the current released Bloodlines 2 clans are – Brujah, Tremere and Toreador (not counting Thin-blood).

This is prompted by how I saw a theory in the comments of one of the reveal videos, speculating whether the Kindred who appear in these videos might actually be the intended blood-hunt targets for the thin-blood pc.

They cited the following things as why they thought so:

Brujah – Very unsubtle looking cases of arson and murder which could attract some undesired attention

Tremere- Very messy blood ritual

Toreador- Filming herself eating/murdering someone

Whether or not the theory is correct (that not being the topic/question here – just context), the Toreador at least, I do agree is likely doing something they shouldn’t with making what is essentially a snuff video.

I’m not too sure of the severity of that by itself though, if she’s not actually distributing it (I don’t know), or about the others as they seem more of-norm.

So, my question is, with it in mind that the game does actually draw heavily and specifically from VTM 5E (even mentioning the fall of the Pyramid):

By the rules set in the VTM 5e rpg, are any of the kindred in the VtMB2 clan reveal trailers actually committing any violations/breaking any laws of the Camarilla during them?

Exercise on formal group laws over an algebraically closed field

There is an exercise in Weinstein’s notes on Lubin–Tate theory, namely show that there is a unique (up to isomorphism) one-dimensional formal group law of given finite height $ h$ over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $ p$ . A hint is to show that for the Diedonne module $ M$ of such a formal group law $ \mathcal{F}$ we have $ F^h(M)=pM$ .

I think that to prove the latter statement we need the following facts:

  • by definition, there is a power series $ g(X)\in W(\bar{F_p})[[X]]$ such that $ [p]_{\mathcal{F}}X=g(F^h(X))$ and such that $ g'(0)\neq 0 (\mathrm{mod}\, p)$ . I believe this means that we can find another power series $ f\in W(\bar{F_p})[[X]]$ such that $ g\circ f=1(\mathrm{mod}\,p)$ .
  • power series comparable $ \mathrm{mod}\,p$ induce the same map on $ H^1_{dR}$ .
  • reparametrization by a power series from $ W(\bar{F_p})[[X]]$ preserves the class of closed/exact forms.

I am not sure how to proceed from here. One problem is that Frobenius does not really induce a linear map between Diedonne modules but a semi-linear map (maybe here we should use that the ground field is algebraically closed, so $ g(F^h(X))=F^h(g_1(X))$ where $ g_1$ is a power series whose coefficients are the inverse images of the coefficients of $ g$ under the lift of $ \bar{F_p}$ -Frobenius to $ W(\bar{F_p})$ ). Could somebody give a detailed proof so that a novice would understand?

Best way to smoothly onboard whilst adhering to text message laws

Our team have just discovered the harsh laws surrounding the opt-in/opt-out for receiving promotional SMSs.

Our current workflow is this (we are a prescription management application):

  1. User sees the doctor for the first time
  2. Doctor recommends the app to the user
  3. Doctor sends prescription to the app through his software (API)

4. User receives an SMS notifying them they have a new prescription and to download the app to view

  1. User sends prescription to a pharmacy etc

As you can see at point 4, there was no prior permission given by the user to opt-in for SMS messages from our company. We have 2 possible options

  1. Use a chatbot style to begin and make the patient begin the onboarding flow e.g Send the word ‘Start’ to 1800 400 400 to receive your prescription and a download link for the app. The user then receives an SMS which outlines if they have a prescription or not and flags for the permissions then.
  2. Use a QR code on a pamphlet and takes them to a webpage which asks for their permission to use SMS and a link to download the app.

Has anyone been through this conundrum before?

Let’s Encrypt is based in the US and subject to US laws

Let’s Encrypt is based in the United States and subject to the laws of the United States, including National Security Letters. What are the implications for foreign sites that use Let’s Encrypt?

Here’s what I have come up with thus far:

  1. Let’s Encrypt could be forced to revoke a certificate
  2. Let’s Encrypt could be forced to issue a counterfeit certificate
  3. Let’s Encrypt could be forced to keep any activities secret

Furthermore, Let’s Encrypt is controlled by the Internet Security Research Group which includes members whose companies are part of the US PRISM program (Google, Facebook, etc).

[Download] T.Harv Eker – The Spiritual Laws of Money

[Download] T.Harv Eker – The Spiritual Laws of Money

Introducing The Legendary Millionaire-Maker T. Harv Eker’s Most Finest Work To Date
Discover T. Harv Eker’s Blueprint To Being Kind, Loving, Balanced & Spiritual While Embracing Money, Wealth & Abundance
In This 8-Week Journey With Harv Eker, You Will Learn To Overcome The 8 Millionaire Blocks That Are…

[Download] T.Harv Eker – The Spiritual Laws of Money