Interesting article in the news today: Ian Williams, a man in Bendigo, was defrauded
of $1,338 a few years back. Two items were paid for via Google Pay on his mobile
phone. The bank (National Australia Bank) refused to refund the money: he had identified himself with
a fingerprint, so he must have been there.
Williams wasn't happy with that, and he sued NAB. The case is ongoing, but his evidence is
convincing. He's asking for $379 million in payout, using rather implausible reasoning, and
I'm sure he's not expecting to get more than a fraction of that.
But somehow he's barking up the wrong tree. Yes, banks should take more responsibility for
abuse. In cases like my Centrelink exploit nobody seemed to care that my money had been transferred to
another bank account due to their negligence. With appropriate legislation the bank could
have reverted the transfer. In the current case, where food was bought with fraudulent use
of the mobile phone, things are different: the shop (Coles) was only marginally
involved. The real culprit is Google Pay. Their security checks are inadequate.
How could they improve them? I don't know. That's why I don't put any sensitive
information on my mobile phone. But it's time that the government got its act together and
found a better security system, like a single reliable (hah!) method of identification,
rather than relying on driver licences or dates of birth.
Finally I have got round to posting a message about my issues with
the OM System OM-1 Mark
II on the exiftool forum.
Response from Phil Harvey,
the author: “It seems that you mean "Any plans for better OM Workspace support?"”.
Well, no. But at least he'll look at the issue. Am I the only person to run into this
problem?
Yes, it's a very sad-looking Clematis “Edo Murasaki”. But today is literally the middle of winter. It shouldn't
be flowering at all. Does this bode well for the next season?
It's not difficult to see why: the camera had focused on the trellis. I saw it at the time
and thought I had worked past it, but clearly I was mistaken. This was taken with the “T”
layout of focus points that Aaron Harivel had recommended for bird photography. Clearly
it's not good for this kind of photo. Back to single point focus it is:
I'm still working on the new dishwasher, and I've managed to find a programme (“turbo”) that
finishes in acceptable time. Instead of 2:45 hours it finishes in 59 minutes. Or 1:40 if
set to “extra dry”. Today I did it without, and Yvonne, who
take the dishes out, didn't notice any big difference.
But I'm still not much closer to loading the shelves, particularly the top one. Here a
“before” and “after” trying to put one more item into the shelf:
The item was the empty jar in the middle of the shelf, and it required a significant
reorganization of other items in the shelf. Even there the shelf is anything but fully
loaded, but I can't get anything else in: all the distances are too small to add anything
else. The instruction manual is no help: it shows things that I don't use, like stemless
glasses. I must compare with the old Whirlpool machine, which I'm getting to miss more and
more.
This page contains (roughly) yesterday's and today's entries. I have
a horror of reverse chronological documents, so
all my diary entries are chronological. This page normally contains the last two days,
but if I fall behind it may contain more. You can find older entries in
the archive. Note that I often update a diary entry
a day or two after I write it.
Do you have a comment about something I have written? This is a diary, not a
“blog”, and there is
deliberately no provision for directly adding comments. It's also not a vehicle
for third-party content. But I welcome feedback and try to
reply to all messages I receive. See the diary overview for more details. If you do
send me a message relating to something I have written, please indicate
whether you'd prefer me not to mention your name. Otherwise
I'll assume that it's OK to do so.
