LAPD did a complete freak-out when they found a bunch of bugs in some of their conference rooms a few decades ago. The interesting things were that some of the bugs had evidently been there a very long time, and that they figured they had been installed by more than one group. (none of the articles said how they had determined this, which would have been interesting...)
At the time LAPD was blaming "organized crime", but I always figured the perps were factions of LAPD itself, the police union, and perhaps the mayor's and prosecutors' offices.
"But I'm a farmer! You owe me your product for free!"
If they want the increased yield and pest resistance of Monsanto or Syngenta products, they should pay for them. If they don't want to pay for them, they're perfectly free to plant the same seeds their ancestors did. Nobody is stealing the bread from their children's mouths.
What's next? They're going to demand free tractors and fuel? They rightfully deserve those as much as genetically modified seeds, right?
I don't know if those companies did it all by themselves or they're responding to government requests, but as censorship becomes "the new normal" it won't be long before they vanish references to anything they don't like. Facebook and Twitter have been riding the censorship wagon for a while now. The evil is spreading...
Back in the 1980s many vendors of computer software and hardware ran BBSs with information, software patches or updates, discussion boards, etc.
Compuserve, and later AOL, courted the more successful companies heavily, persuading them to close their public-access support sites in favor of using their pay services. The companies got a kickback based on traffic to their forums, and they didn't have to pay their own people to run them. Such a deal!
I've seen a several companies that I *used to* deal with go to Facebook-only for all support. I expect the same thing is happening there.
Management typically views backups as an utter and complete waste of money. After all, the system never got trashed before, so obviously it will never happen in the future. Shouldn't you be doing something constructive?
"Uptime is like air. Nobody notices until it's gone."
"Don't be silly, your medical records are perfectly safe, and there's no way any outsider can get into any of our internet-connected medical equipment. Have you talked to your therapist about your paranoia?"
"But our vendors and their equipment must be able to communicate at will, in order to provide the highest possible standards of service!"
"What do you mean, a five-user pack of Norton Antivirus won't cover the entire hospital?!"
"Senior management gets annoyed with passwords, so we don't use them, except with equipment that requires one, in which case it is "1-2-3-4-5".
As a former security wonk, I'm all for the fat laundry marker and cardboard ballot system.
My local electors, alas, have gone the Diebold terminal route. Because it's important that national news services get their figures as soon as the polls close, as opposed to a couple of hours for the blue-haired old ladies to count the paper ballots in the open, on cafeteria tables.
That office seems to alternate between the malicious and the incompetent.
The FBI withdrew from most bank robbery and kidnapping investigations years ago. It doesn't even do much in the way of the fraud and stocks work any more. And now its vaunted "forensic science" has turned out to be partially faked.
De-fund them and save the money. They're doing nothing useful any more.
So what? It's his own business, and presumably he paid for it with his own money.
It's hardly new or dangerous; a friend of mine had the same basic procedure done in the USA circa 1978 or so. He didn't wind up any taller than before, but he didn't have to have custom-made left shoes with four inch platform sole any more, so he figured it was a win...
Long ago the USPTO decided the revenue from patent fees was more important than doing their job, went for the money, and fobbed their job off on the courts, where the judges would have to wrestle with junk patents instead of the PTO.
The PTO's default is "yes" to all applications, no matter how incomprehensible, broad, or obvious. An application has to be really bad before they'll send the tear-stained check back to the applicant.
> They would promise not to leverage personal data to unfairly discriminate against or abuse the trust of end users. And they would not sell or distribute consumer information except to those who agreed to similar rules. --- ...and this is different from existing conditions, how?
I see "promise" and "unfairly" and "abuse" and "trust" and "except". That translates to, "we have your data and we'll sell it to anyone who'll pay, and there's nothing you can do about it you schmuck, ha ha ha."
They're attempting to slide the Overton Window over to their side by a fake "compromise."