CNN said:The data breach at Target was significantly broader than originally reported: The company said Friday that 70 million customers had information such as their name, address, phone number and e-mail address hacked in the breach.
Target said the personal data stolen could affect its past shoppers -- not just those who have visited the store recently.
The breach occurred in the weeks following Thanksgiving when as many as 40 million customers may have also had credit or debit card information stolen. A Target spokesperson said there may be overlap between the two groups, but they do not currently know the extent.
Nice one Justin, guess Cocaine was missing on your achievements list
L.A. Times said:Detectives searching Justin Bieber's Calabasas mansion Tuesday during an investigation into an egging case arrested one of the singer's associates on felony drug charges after cocaine was found in plain view.
L.A. County sheriff's investigators did not immediately identify who was arrested but said it was not Bieber. Lt. Dave Thompson said the drug they found was cocaine.
"The cocaine I believe was in plain view of the deputies when they were looking for the other evidence," he said in a news conference following the arrest.
David Kravets said:A federal appeals court today nullified key provisions of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, opening the door to a curated approach to internet delivery that allows broadband providers to block content or applications as they see fit.
The 3-0 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit guts much of a 2010 Federal Communications Commission order, in a challenge brought by Verizon. The nation’s number one mobile provider successfully argued that the regulatory agency overstepped its authority because it issued the rules in 2010 without classifying broadband providers as common carriers, like rank-and-file telcos.
While it’s a nuanced legal argument, the effects are huge.
Here’s the rules that were negated:
*Wireline or fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. Mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.
*Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic. That rule, however, does not apply to wireless services.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is mulling whether to continue the litigation. His options include asking the court to rehear it with the same three judges or with a larger, en banc panel, or going directly to the Supreme Court.
“We will consider all available options, including those for appeal,” Wheeler said, “to ensure that these networks on which the internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”
If the decision stands, broadband providers are likely to implement pay-to-play plans like the one AT&T announced last week — plans that many said violated, at a minimum, the spirit of net neutrality.
The second largest mobile provider is taking advantage of the data caps it imposes on subscribers by letting companies sponsor the bandwidth their wares use. The consumer who enjoys those sponsored services will not have that broadband count against their monthly data allotment. Sponsorship is not mandatory — if a company doesn’t pay AT&T, the bandwidth will count against the user’s cap as always.
However, under today’s ruling, AT&T conceivably could demand that companies like Netflix or others pay to be carried on their pipes.
The decision could also be a boon for anti-piracy measures. The providers would be free to throttle BitTorrent traffic or to block file-sharing sites altogether.
“Without high-level rules of the road, or other replacement high-level rules, the broadband carriers are free to discriminate and block content from consumers,” Chris Lewis, a vice president at digital rights group Public Knowledge, said in a telephone interview.
The appeals court ruled that the regulations it nullified are akin to those assigned to “common carriers,” like brick-and-mortar telephone services, which are heavily regulated, from everything including rates to interconnections.
“Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order,” the appeals court wrote.
Adding broadband providers into the common carrier legal thicket would give the FCC the power to reinstate the regulations. But doing so could open the door to regulating the internet in ways that might hamper its progress by mandating rates, interconnectedness and perhaps even speeds.
Free Press president Craig Aaron said under today’s ruling “broadband providers will race to turn the open and vibrant Web into something that looks like cable TV. They’ll establish fast lanes for the few giant companies that can afford to pay exorbitant tolls and reserve the slow lanes for everyone else.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute hailed the decision, saying “net neutrality is another example of over regulation that flies in the face of every proper tenet of infrastructure wealth creation and expansion of free speech and consumer welfare.”
For what it’s worth, the appeals court left intact a net-neutrality rule requiring wireless and wireline broadband providers to disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their services.
You forgot the link to the story.
Worst part is Bieber himself was not arrested. Um, shouldn't he be held accountable for having cocaine in his house even if it's not his? You know, other famous celebrities get arrested all the time for this crap, how come he got off? Afraid he's too "pretty for prison" or something?
Ups sorry, I don't come here often so I didn't even know we needed a link, should have read the rules.
Anyways, your problem has been solved http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/23/showbiz/justin-bieber-arrest/ JUSTIN STRIKES AGAIN, THIS TIME ON DRUNK DRIVING!! Damn
CNN said:Justin Bieber was charged with drunken driving, resisting arrest and driving without a valid license after police saw the pop star street racing early Thursday morning, Miami Beach police said.
"What the f*** did I do? Why did you stop me?" Bieber asked the police officer who pulled him over just after 4 a.m., according to the arrest report.
The singer, dressed in an orange jail uniform, stood silently with his lips sometimes pursed as attorney Roy Black represented him in the hearing.
You can respond to this if you wish.1. So that one was towards Poke Trainer J (who happens to be the one to bring it to attention here first), huh? Very well, never mind that one, then.
I don't buy into the belief that anything a corporation does is is immoral. Businesses are the ones that maintain the 'net, the servers, upgrade the tech and make it available to the public. Unlimited or free access to the 'net is not a right.Ruling against the public and in favor of corporations (which really benefit from this), legal or not, is immoral, serving the greedy and power-hungry. A business should never infringe on the rights of the citizens of this country.
Doe you mean speaking out anonymously? I do have some issues with the whole anon internet deal. Too many people hide behind their internet names and attack others.The aforementioned venue, I believe, is also just a bonus for those wishing to speak out, but especially for those who can't (debatably versus those who won't).
I like being able to access reference material easily as well. Especially if I can prove someone wrong.I'll be honest, this is why I won't be seen debating much, if at all. While I'm relatively thick-skinned (though not exceptionally so), I'm generally not the greatest thinker I've ever known, let alone in the world; in addition, I usually have to have the info right in front of me if I'm to be able to debate at a remotely competent level (except for, say, music, which I can rant about for hours if allowed), and I can get a bit on the passionate side.
With that noted, you have been pretty civil about the whole thing with me so far, and I thank you for it. I just want you to understand where I'm really coming from, that's all.
Jehovah’s Witnesses won a major court victory today when an appellate court reversed an earlier ruling by a lower court that banned jw.org, the official website of Jehovah’s Witnesses, throughout Russia. The Regional Court of Tver conducted a new trial, which concluded that the decision of the Tsentralniy District Court on August 7, 2013, was unjustified, since there was no legal reason to ban the site. “Witnesses around the world are rejoicing at this victory,” states J. R. Brown, a spokesman at the Witnesses’ world headquarters. “Thanks to this legal victory, all citizens of Russia will continue to have access to this excellent Bible-education website.”
“You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission.”
I thought it was illegal to copyright words...
And the company definitely is a GIANT hypocrite. It blatantly ripped off of games before, like Pac-Man and others. Why should they even have the ability to copyright anything like that, given their past behavior?
On that same note, why should ANY company be allowed to do that? I remember Facebook trying to copyright the words, "Face" and "Book" awhile back. That was just downright ludicrous.
Disclaimer: from gizmodo.com
Disclaimer: from wired.com
Nice and ironic on that one... since Pokémon contains that word. Book and Wall are words people use as well... not to mention the latter is part of buildings.