It would appear there's sufficient evidence to support an indictment of the officer, at the very least for manslaughter. Was the delay in the release of the report sufficient to allow the statute of limitations to expire?
Read the details carefully and see if you can figure out how they obtained the passwords to these systems or got past the firewalls...
Of course they are clearing donations to white nationalist groups. To do otherwise would be...censorship.
It is probably not coincidental that this announcement comes on the same day that the New York Times publishes an article, "Why do we let corporations profit from rape videos?" The story is about underage girls who are filmed and posted, primarily on xvideos.com, identified publicly and forever tainted by a youthful mistake.
"The banks that connect merchants to our network will need to certify that the seller of adult content has effective controls in place to monitor, block and, where necessary, take down all illegal content."
I don't disagree with the intent, but the approach is rather heavy-handed and almost impossible to implement. How is a "seller of adult content" defined? Can a bank accurately determine that? What about a site that isn't primarily a seller of adult content by may end up hosting an adult content video, e.g, Vimeo or YouTube?
I have a much larger concern with the precedent. It's not a big step to repression of other content.
Resurrecting a tired idea: Perhaps candidates for legislative positions should be required to pass the same test required of applicants for citizenship, although that would likely eliminate almost everyone interested in the job.
"Even though I don't understand this problem, or whether there is a problem, I was elected to solve it..."
I continue to be disgusted by the ignorance continually demonstrated by those we elect to positions where they can directly influence the instantiation of new laws and regulations. I suspect that the ranks of elected officials would be severely reduced if each one had to pass the same citizenship exam as an immigrant wishing to become a U.S. citizen.
"He who has the gold makes the rules."
Democracy was a wonderful idea, until our governments were sold to the highest bidder.
Just as stupid as the actions against Huawei, which were sponsored by lobbyists for Ericsson and Nokia.
It's this kind of WSJ "reporting" that caused me to cancel my subscription.
We're in an "urban interface" area where the only Internet connection we can readily obtain is crappy DSL, so we've banded together and are implementing wireless 100Mbps. Fiber would be preferable, but we're a long way from fiber and are on 5-acre lots, which makes fiber installation expensive. One of our neighbors asked for a quote from Comcast and got a response: $80,000 for just his house. (Comcast cable if about 200 yards from his house.) Not that we would actually want to deal with Comcast...
You seem to believe that the CongressCritters are somehow obligated to represent the best interests of the people of the United States. They aren't. They've been bought and paid for by a corrupt system that allows big corporations to pay for their re-election campaigns. Like most every other institution in this country, their allegiance is to the rich and powerful.
Those of us who live in non-metropolitan communities or in the urban-rural interface are being served by fixed wireless providers. Some of these have customer service that rivals (???) Comcast, but many of the newer ones have capable management and are investing in infrastructure, e.g., towers fed by fiber, to provide reasonably-priced broadband Internet, e.g., 50mbps or better. To the best of my knowledge, these companies are not partaking of the various grants. They are actual businesses, run by competent business people, and expect to make a reasonable profit. Hopefully, they will not be acquired by some corporate behemoth intent on gouging the customers for every last dollar, which is what happened to the local cable providers.
This is absurd. If they want to make a profit, do what MathFox suggests, turn it over to Google, and ask Google for a small percentage of the advertising revenue. Everyone wins.
Congress is to totally dysfunctional that we cannot count on them to fix this atrocity. How else can we force something to happen?
I have numerous IoT devices, but none of them communicate beyond my internal network. I think this article, which is otherwise an excellent summary, needs to at least acknowledge that not all devices are visible beyond the LAN. My home automation system can turn on the coffee pot, turn up or down the HVAC, turn on the lights, etc., but none of that information is exposed beyond the LAN.
However, it's important to acknowledge that an increasing number of consumer IoT devices are visible outside the LAN, but this can be a consumer choice if they are made aware of it.
Some wifi switches actually have two IP addresses, which you can find in your DNS log or with a network scanner. One IP port is for the user interact with the device, but the other "calls home," typically for setup assistance but conceivably for any other purpose the manufacturer chooses. This is not explained in the documentation.
I have an HVAC thermostat that claims to support Z-Wave. In reality, it only supports Z-Wave as a controller and then only by interacting with an online service. I would never want to allow control of my HVAC system to be exposed to the Internet, but I had to deny an IP address to the device to prevent that. An unwary consumer would have no idea about the risks involved.
On the good news side, browsers increasingly support DNS over HTTPS. In Firefox it's almost trivial to set up. The problem is that too many consumers have no idea why you would want to...
Even George Orwell couldn't have predicted this... Tried and convicted before the crime even occurs. Next step is to make these predictions before the kid is even born. Better yet, before the parents meet. Or, maybe, before the parents are born. Hmmm, "Eve, I need to warn you about what our models predict about Adam."
"...a lawyer for the United States argued Monday that the government has the power to kill its citizens without judicial oversight when state secrets are involved."
I cannot believe that someone who graduated from a law school and was admitted to the bar in some state would say this. I guess they skipped the Bill of Rights at that law school. Nonetheless, the lawyer should be disbarred just for saying it in front of a judge.