P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Peer to Peer
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-12-18, 08:00 AM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 15th, ’18

Since 2002


































"They may not make the shows, but they still want your money." – Edgar Alvarez






































December 15th, 2018




Hiding in Plain Sight: The YouTubers' Crowdfunding Piracy

They may not make the shows, but they still want your money.
Edgar Alvarez

I never imagined I would be watching Kitchen Nightmares, starring the world-renowned chef Gordon Ramsay, in my downtime on YouTube. I knew of Ramsay and his ruthlessness from shows like Hell's Kitchen, but I had never heard of Kitchen Nightmares until a few weeks ago, when an episode popped up on YouTube's Trending section. Next thing you know, I'm hooked and watching full episodes of it on my phone instead of the usual sneaker videos. But aside from Ramsay's rants at owners of filthy restaurants, something else caught my attention -- these uploads weren't from Fox, which owns the rights to the show in the US. Instead, they were from an unofficial channel called "Kitchen Nightmares Hotel Hell and Hell's Kitchen." And as if that wasn't brazen enough, the owner explicitly asked viewers for donations to fund the uploading of copyrighted content.

YouTube creators asking for money is nothing new, be it through the site's built-in membership features or third-party services such as Patreon. But trying to profit off someone else's intellectual property isn't the same as asking for support on an original video they've created. The person who runs the Kitchen Nightmares Hotel Hell and Hell's Kitchen channel did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Engadget, but their Patreon page (named YoIUploadShows) isn't coy.

"Hey! It's not as easy as you might think to make my content, I have to look for the best quality episodes I can find, download them, convert them, edit them, render them and upload them," YoIUploadShows' Patreon page reads. "This can sometimes take at least a few hours. Especially because the downloads are usually slow and the rendering itself can take a couple hours, because I started making all my uploads in HD instead of 480p to give them a little extra clarity." It's not easy, folks, so for that he or she "would really appreciate the extra support if you have any money to spare :)"

YoIUploadShows' Patreon goes as far as to offer different tiers to potential fans of their work. A $15 or more donation gets you a "shoutout in every video," while $30 or more per month means you can have "an episode of any show you want," according to the page. Interestingly, despite the Kitchen Nightmares Hotel Hell and Hell's Kitchen channel having nearly 60 million total views since 2016, the owner's Patreon account has never received a donation.

"Hey! It's not as easy as you might think to make my content, I have to look for the best quality episodes I can find, download them, convert them, edit them, render them and upload them."

Not surprisingly, this isn't the only YouTube account doing this. There are others like "Dvr Night" that are uploading other Kitchen Nightmares episodes and asking for donations via PayPal as well as Patreon. That said, while companies like PayPal and Patreon don't encourage this behavior, they don't have any legal liability unless they get a complaint from the content owner. "Creators uploading copyrighted content is against our terms of use," a Patreon spokesperson told Engadget. "We take action against this content when rights holders send us a copyright notice."

As of this writing, YouIUploadShows' Patreon is still up and running, likely because Fox hasn't made any takedown requests. There is an official "Kitchen Nightmares" YouTube, meanwhile, but it uploads only short clips, not full episodes. YouTube says it does not mediate copyright claims: That's something that has to be handled between the parties involved, which in this case would be Fox and the person behind YoIUploadShows.

That said, if YouTube is notified by the rights-holder of an infringing video, the company is required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) to remove that content. This is where YouTube's Content ID system comes into play, which was created to make it easy for copyright owners to spot pirates. When a user uploads a video, Content ID automatically scans it and checks it against reference files from copyright owners. If the system matches the video and flags it as owned by a TV network or another rights-holder, a channel like Fox then has three options: Let the content stay up on YouTube, track and monetize it, or completely block it from the site.

Based on the fact that some of the videos from Kitchen Nightmares Hotel Hell and Hell's Kitchen have tens of millions of views, it's safe to assume Fox has declined to take any action against the channel. That may seem like a strange decision on the network's part, but it makes sense when you consider Kitchen Nightmares is an older show. The episodes on YouTube could entice viewers to go watch something newer from Fox featuring Ramsay, like 24 Hours to Hell and Back. I know that certainly was the case for me. Of course, you don't see the company doing the same for flagship shows such as The Simpsons -- good luck trying to find full episodes of that on YouTube.

According to YouTube, more than 98 percent of copyright issues on its site are handled through Content ID rather than the notice-and-takedown process. Just last month, the company revealed that it paid $3 billion to content owners through its anti-piracy programs. And in 2017 alone, YouTube says rights-holders chose to monetize 90 percent of all Content ID claims, which gives them a way to create revenue from videos they own but that were uploaded by someone else. That could be what Fox has chosen to do with the videos from the unofficial Kitchen Nightmares Hotel Hell and Hell's Kitchen.

Although Content ID has created a way for YouTube and networks like Fox to create new, legal opportunities for revenue, people like YoIUploadShows could still get in trouble for trying to make money from copyrighted content. And while YouTube does not have a policy prohibiting users from including a Patreon or PayPal link in their video description, there may be some content owners who ask for a takedown request and, subsequently, go after the copyright violators.

Mark Schonfeld, a partner at law firm Burns & Levinson in Boston, said that the video uploader has a lot more legal liability than YouTube, even if they may not be a financially viable target. "What is interesting is the role of Patreon as an accessory or as a contributory infringer because they're allowing themselves to be used as a mechanism to reward the uploader and the infringer," he added. "So, if I were [a network] and wanted to stop this, I would not only go after the infringer, the uploader and YouTube, but I would also challenge Patreon because [it is] enabling the infringer to earn a living off the infringing content they're posting."

The good news for YouTube and Patreon is that, so far, people like YoIUploadShows haven't succeeded in actually doing that -- though both companies need to be wary of this becoming a trend.

Ultimately, though, it's up to content owners such as Fox to decide whether they want to go after someone like YoIUploadShows. For now, the network doesn't seem to be concerned. And who knows? Maybe channels like Kitchen Nightmares Hotel Hell and Hell's Kitchen are helping it gain new audiences. If it weren't for that, I probably would've never started bingeing a Gordon Ramsay series from 2007 -- and based on the 59 million-plus views the channel has accumulated, it's safe to say I'm not alone.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/13/...pal-donations/





Feds Indict 5 Men Who Allegedly Hacked Hollywood Film Companies to Steal and Pre-Release Films, TV Shows
Erika Martin

Five men in four countries were indicted by a federal grand jury Wednesday in a case alleging they distributed major movies and television shows for profit before their release date by hacking Hollywood film companies, officials said.

Copies of titles including “Fifty Shades of Grey,” “The Expendables 3” and “The Walking Dead” were stolen by the international piracy ring from company computer servers, or sometimes obtained by means such as surreptitiously recording cinema screenings, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California said in a news release.

Investigators said they recovered a server in France that contained more than 25,000 stolen files, including the feature films “Godzilla,” “How to Train Your Dragon 2” and “Horrible Bosses 2.”

The defendants are accused of altering the digital files so that they could be easily distributed across the internet.

In addition to selling films via private online communication, the defendants also uploaded the stolen content to pirating sites. The men then distributed profits via a shared PayPal account, according to the indictment.

The criminal conduct allegedly began in 2013 and continued until spring 2015.

In February 2015, one of the men allegedly told a potential customer that copies of the films “Kingsman: The Secret Service” and “Fifty Shades of Grey” would be available to buy on the same day they were released in U.S. theaters.

Investigators caught on to the ring after they sold films to a confidential source working on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America, Variety reported.

None of the five defendants are in U.S. custody, officials said. They are:

• U.K. resident Malik Luqman Farooq, 30. The indictment accuses him of stealing more than a dozen film over two years. He was previously arrested by police in London on similar charges and is awaiting trial in the U.K.

• Aditya Raj, who is believed to reside in India. He’s accused of releasing pirated movies online and arranging for several films to be recorded in theaters in India.

• Sam Nhance, who is believed to reside in Dubai. Authorities allege he procured and maintained the computer server used to store files for international distribution.

• Ghobhirajah Selvarajah, who is believed to reside in Malaysia. He was the owner of the PayPal account used to receive payments and pay for the computer server, the indictment alleges.

• Jitesh Jadhav, who is also believed to reside in India. He’s accused of using a camcorder to record films during cinema screenings, including “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” “X-Men: Days of Future Past” and “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.”

Officials also allege the men formerly ran a website called BollyTNT that distributed pirated copies of Bollywood films.

All five are charged with conspiracy to commit computer fraud, unauthorized access to a computer, aggravated identity theft and copyright infringement.

If convicted on all counts, they could be sentenced to up to 15 years in federal prison.
https://ktla.com/2018/12/12/feds-ind...ilms-tv-shows/





Nintendo Sues California Man for Allegedly Rigging Consoles and Pirating Games

Nintendo says the defendant is also instructing players on how to use the illegal components "in a manner least likely to be caught or arouse suspicion."
Ashley Cullins

Nintendo is suing an Orange County, California, resident who it claims is illegally modifying its consoles and selling pirated versions of popular games in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Pirates have found ways to circumvent Nintendo's hardware and software features that make it so only authorized games can be played, and in doing so the video game giant says they're infringing on its copyrights and trademarks.

Nintendo says one of those individuals is Mikel Euskaldunak, who it claims has been selling modification services for the Nintendo Switch that allow users to play unauthorized games, and has been selling NES Classic Edition systems that come preloaded with 800 pirated games.

In addition to infringing its copyrights directly, Nintendo claims Euskaldunak and countless other currently unnamed defendants are also inducing users to infringe them and are liable for contributory copyright infringement as well.

"Defendants provide users of the modification with the tools to infringe and instructions on how to use the modification in a manner least likely to be caught or arouse suspicion," writes attorney Kenneth Parker in the complaint, which is posted in full below.

Nintendo also claims the defendants are infringing and diluting its trademarks. The company is asking the court to order an injunction barring defendants from continuing to make, sell or otherwise distribute technology that circumvents its controls.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...-games-1168690





Latest EU Copyright Proposal: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, But Don't Use Upload Filters
Mike Masnick

As we've been discussing the "Trilogue" negotiations between the EU Commission, EU Council and EU Parliament over the EU's Copyright Directive have continued, and a summary has been released on the latest plans for Article 13, which is the provision that will make upload filters mandatory, while (and this is the fun part) insisting that it doesn't make upload filters mandatory. Then, to make things even more fun, another document on the actual text suggests the way to deal with this is to create a better euphemism for filters.

When we last checked in on this, we noted that the legacy film and television industry associations were freaking out that Article 13 might include some safe harbors for internet platforms, and were asking the negotiators to either drop those protections for platforms, or to leave them out of Article 13 altogether and only have it apply to music.

The latest brief description of the recommendations for Article 13 appear to be an attempt by bureaucrats who have no understanding of the nuances of this issue to appease both the legacy copyright industries and the tech companies. Notably absent: any concern for the public or independent creators. We'll dig in in a moment, but frankly, given the state of Article 13 demonstrated in this two-page document, it is horrific that these discussions are considered almost concluded. It is obvious that the vast majority of people working on this have no idea what they're talking about, and are pushing incredibly vague rules without any understanding of their impact. And rather than taking in the criticism and warning from knowledgeable experts, they're just adding in duct-taped "but this won't do x" for every complaint where people warn what the actual impact of the rules will be for the internet.

That's why, throughout this document, they keep insisting that there will be no mandate for filters. But, there's no way you can actually avoid liability without filters. Indeed, in order to appease the film and TV folks, the proposal now includes a notice-and-staydown provision. We've spent years explaining why a notice-and-staydown provision is not only unworkable, but would lead to tremendous amounts of non-infringing content being removed. Copyright is extremely context specific. The exact same content may be infringing in one instance, but protected in another. Yet a notice-and-staydown does not allow the protected versions. It requires they be blocked. That is outright censorship.

On to the document. It starts with seven "guidelines."

The Commission was requested to follow these guidelines indicated by the Rapporteur:

• Platforms should follow high standards of duty of care;
• Cooperation should not be unidirectional;
• Non infringing content should remain on the platform online;
• Automatic blocking, albeit non forbidden, should be avoided as much as possible
• Existing measures should not be excluded
• Platforms should not always be released from liability by merely applying content identification measures
• Rightholders should not be in a worse position than they are currently. In this context the audiovisual sector was singled out. On this basis, the following ideas, which are based on a logical grouping of the above guidelines, are outlined for the consideration of the co-legislators:

This can be summed up as... all infringing content must disappear, but you don't have to use filters and you must make sure that non-infringing content remains online. This is the "nerd harder" approach to regulating. It is magic wand regulating: make the bad stuff go away, and magically don't have any collateral damage.

This is not sound policy making. This is technically illiterate bureaucrats trying to cover their asses. Because the liability requirements in the document will certainly lead to massive overblocking and widespread unintended consequences, these spineless technocrats are trying to avoid that by just tacking on "but let those consequences happen." They don't explain how this is possible. They just are going to put these rules out into the world, and tell the tech industry to wave a magic wand and make one type of content disappear without impacting other content (even if they're impossible to distinguish, and if the penalties for getting it wrong are dire).

From there, the document provides "details" never apparently recognizing just how contradictory the plans are:

High standard of duty of care and bilateral cooperation (1 + 2) Online content sharing service providers, as defined in the directive, are considered to communicate to the public and as such need to obtain licences from the relevant rightholders. Where no licences are granted, online content sharing service providers and rightholders should cooperate in good faith to prevent the availability of protected content online.

Cooperation should take place according to appropriate standards of professional diligence, which ought to take into account the size of the service, the number and type of works or other subject matter uploaded by users, the potential economic harm caused to rightholders, the availability of suitable and effective technologies and their cost for service providers. In practice, this means that the standards of cooperation should be particularly high for high value content. Cooperation should not lead to a general monitoring obligation as defined under the e-Commerce Directive.


Magic wand thinking: Either your entire platform needs to be licensed (i.e., no user-generated content) or you need to "prevent the availability" of any copyright-covered content with "good faith." But how? Well, the bureaucrats insist that this shouldn't require "general monitoring" (i.e., an upload filter). But... um... how do you prevent availability of copyright covered content if you're not monitoring? This is an impossible situation and either the bureaucrats know this and are just ignoring that they're demanding the impossible, or they don't understand this and shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of any regulation over the internet.

Rightholders should provide content sharing service providers with specific information (e.g. metadata) allowing identification of their content.

The cooperation could include content identification measures (e.g. for high value content) but should not prevent other forms of cooperation if agreed by the parties (e.g. ex post content moderation for low value content, see also letter B).

When unauthorised content becomes available on their websites, content sharing service providers would in general not be liable if they have cooperated in good faith according to the relevant standards of professional diligence. However, within an adequate framework to ensure legal certainty, when despite such cooperation the availability of content online has caused significant economic harm to rightholders the Directive could consider the provider liable in any event, but at a reduced level taking into account the good faith of the provider. Alternatively, the Directive could allow rightholders to claim restitution of the benefits appropriated by the providers (e.g. using unjust enrichment claims under national law) (see point C below).


So, again, we see the general incomprehensibility of what is being pushed here. The first paragraph is an attempt to appease the platforms, basically saying "if copyright holders are going to demand takedowns, they should at least be required to supply the details of what content they actually hold a copyright over." That's reasonable given a plan to demand mandatory filters, because the only thing such metadata is actually useful for is... a filter.

The second paragraph is basically saying "okay, yes, we mean filters for loosely defined 'high value' content, but maybe loosely defined 'low value content' doesn't require filters." Again, this appears to be an attempt to split the baby. Who the hell is going to self-describe their own content as "low value content?" The whole concept of "high value" and "low value" is elitist claptrap from the legacy content industries who basically believe that anything that comes from the legacy recording, TV and film studios is "high value" and all that independent, amateur, and user-generated content is "low value." The paragraph here is supposed to be an attempt to say "well, okay, if your platform is just publishing garbage memes and stuff maybe it doesn't need a filter, but if you happen to include any of Hollywood's precious brilliance, you must put in place a filter."

The third paragraph is, yet again, an attempt to give special extra rights to the legacy recording, TV, and film companies. It basically says that if platforms try to "cooperate in good faith" (i.e., censor at the drop of a hat) then maybe they would be considered not liable... but only if it's that riff-raff low value content that slips through the filters (though we're not demanding filters!). If any content slips through the filters that "caused significant economic harm" (i.e., comes from the big copyright industries), well then, it doesn't fucking matter how much you tried to stop it, you're still liable.

In other words, if any internet platform makes a single mistake with Hollywood's content, no matter how hard they tried to stop it, too bad, you're liable.

And this is where there's such a massive disconnect between the framers (and supporters) of Article 13 and reality. When you're told that any mistake will lead to liability, you are put in a position of trying to prevent any mistakes. And the only ways to do that are to (1) stop accepting any user-uploaded content or (2) filter the hell out of all of it, and take down anything that even might possibly be considered infringing, meaning tons of perfectly legitimate content will get shut down.

No matter how many times these technocrats say "don't take down non-infringing works", it's totally meaningless if the only way to avoid liability is to take down tons of non-infringing works. Which brings us to the next part:

Non infringing content should remain online and automatic blocking to be avoided as much as possible (3+4)

Content that does not infringe copyright, for example because it is covered by exceptions, should stay on the services’ websites. In addition, the co-legislators could provide that minor uses of content by amateur uploaders should not be automatically blocked (in the context of the cooperation and professional diligence referred to under A) nor trigger the liability of the uploader. This should be without prejudice to the remedies under point C and the rules on liability of the providers and cooperation under A.

The need to allow legitimate content to remain available, should be strengthened through a robust redress mechanism which should ensure that users can contest measures taken against their legitimate uploads. The Commission already provided possible suggestions to the co-legislators which are currently under discussions in the trilogue process.


Again, this is setting up a laughable impossibility. First they say you're liable if you let anything through, and then they say "but don't accidentally take down stuff you shouldn't." How the hell do you do that? The rules don't say. Hollywood and Article 13's supporters don't care. It's great if they add a "redress mechanism" for bogus takedowns, but that only will apply to content that first gets up and then is taken down. It says nothing for content that is blocked from being uploaded in the first place due to overaggressive filters, which are only overaggressive due to the earlier parts of Article 13 that say you're liable if you let anything "high value" through.

This is the ultimate in cowardice from the EU regulators. Rather than address the actual problems that their own regulations will create, these regulators have decided to just append a bit to their regulation that says "and don't let this create the problems it will obviously create." That's fucking useless.

Rightholders should keep benefiting from existing measures; and platforms not released from liability by merely applying content identification technologies. Rightholders, notably audiovisual sector, not worse off (5+6+7)

Rightholders should in any event retain the ability to request removal of infringing content from the websites of the content sharing services. Building on and complementing the current ecommerce rules, rightholders should be allowed to request that unauthorised content is expeditiously removed and that best efforts are made to ensure that it stays down. As indicated in A, the co-legislators may provide for an additional safeguard for rightholders when despite the good faith cooperation the availability of content online causes significant economic harm to them.


There's something really big hidden in here. A "notice and stay down" requirement. That was not what was being pushed before. Notice and staydown creates all sorts of problems, in that by its very nature it obliterates the points in the previous paragraph. If you have a notice and staydown regime, you cannot allow content that is "covered by exceptions" because you've already designated all such content must stay down. And unless these bureaucrats in Brussels have magically invented a filter that can understand context and correctly judge whether or not something is covered by an exception (something that normally takes a years-long adversarial judicial process) it is difficult to see how this is possible.

Then we get to the other document, leaked earlier today by Politico, that attempts to wordsmith the actual language of Article 13. It's basically the same stuff we discussed above, but with an attempt to put it into actual legalese. Two things stand out in the document. First, they try to rebrand mandatory upload filters, by now discussing "suitable and effective technologies" to "ensure the non-availability on the websites of the service providers of unauthorised works or other subject matter..." How is that not a filter?

This document also includes some language "as an option" that would require "best effort to prevent their future availability." That's putting the notice-and-staydown into the law. I will note that there is no real language being discussed that explains how to prevent the blocking of non-infringing works. Just more hand waving and magical thinking about how it shouldn't block non-infringing works... even though it absolutely will.

This leaves me with two key takeaways:

1. The bureaucrats putting this together are doing the worst kind of regulating. They appear to be utterly ignorant of what it is that they are regulating, how it works, and the inevitable impact of their new rules. And, rather than trying to take the time to actually understand the concerns, they are simply writing "but don't do that" into the law every time someone explains the impact. But you can't regulate internet platforms not to overblock when everything else in your law requires them to overblock or face crippling liability. This is like a law that says "you must immediately dump out the bathwater without looking to see what's in the bath... but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater." How do you do that? The law doesn't say because the regulators don't have the slightest clue. And they don't have the slightest clue because it's impossible. And, they don't seem to care about that because once they pass the law they can celebrate and the mess they create is left for the internet platforms (and the public) to deal with.

2. Given the massive changes and broad and unclear mandates being tossed around, Article 13 is nowhere near a condition which should be put into a binding regulation. What's being debated now is so unclear, so vague and such a mess, that it would be practically criminal to put such nonsense into law. They are rushing to get this done (perhaps before the next EU Parliamentary elections next spring), and the fact that they're about to make massive changes to a fundamental part of society (the internet) without clearly comprehending what they're doing is incredibly frightening. This is like a bad first draft of a bad proposal. This is not just "this is a bad bill that went through a comprehensive process and I disagree with it." This is an utter mess. It keeps shifting, it has vague and contradictory definitions, it tells companies to wave magic wands, and tells companies not to let the very thing the law compels actually happen. This is not regulating. This is why the public hates regulators.

I'm still hopeful that common sense eventually shows up in the EU, but at this point the only way for common sense to survive is to simply dump Article 13 entirely.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-filters.shtml





CDs, Faxes Make Comeback as Military File-Sharing Service Taken Offline
Chad Garland

The shuttering of a widely used military file-sharing service last month has left the services without an online option for transferring sensitive unclassified files, so they’re turning to CDs, DVDs, postal mail and even fax machines.

Both the Navy and Marine Corps issued official guidance late last month saying optical discs are the only way to securely send large files that contain private information like Social Security numbers or medical data, after the military disabled the Army’s Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center Safe Access File Exchange, or AMRDEC SAFE.

Neither the Air Force nor the Army have issued similar guidance, but officials with those services said they also lack an online alternative.

There’s no indication when AMRDEC SAFE will be up and running after the military disabled the service early last month — a preventive measure after unnamed “government-internal agencies” discovered potential security risks, Kerensa Crum, a spokeswoman for the missile research center, said via email.

“We are unaware of any breach,” Crum said. “There is no established timeline for the restoration or sunset of SAFE.”

The research center based at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama developed the file-sharing system to allow it to exchange large data files with its civilian industry partners, Crum said. It was not intended for widespread use by the Army or other branches.

Despite the creators’ intentions, the site was widely adopted within the military and the government.

Via the site, anyone could send messages containing up to 25 documents or 2 gigabytes to military, government or civilian email addresses. That’s significantly more than encrypted email, which is also approved for sending personal and medical information but is limited to 10 megabytes and can’t be sent to all email recipients.

Kelly DeWitt, now the deputy chief of staff at the missile research center, said last year that the center didn’t track usage data but knew several agencies were using it because of its security and file capacity.

Those comments came after news that the White House’s election integrity commission had proposed that state election officials use AMRDEC SAFE to submit the voluminous voter data the commission was seeking for a nationwide database.

Privacy rights groups and some lawmakers pushed back on the proposal, questioning the site’s security for transferring data that would include names, addresses, birthdates, partial Social Security numbers, felony conviction data and military status. It’s not clear whether their concerns prompted a security review that led to the closure of the site.

Within the Navy, some medical clinics relied on the site for sending electronic medical records. A program for selecting enlisted sailors to join the Judge Advocate General Corps required that application packets be submitted via the site this year.

The Marine Corps recently required nomination packets for its aviation awards to be submitted via AMRDEC SAFE and used the site to securely distribute copies of the commandant’s birthday message in October, prior to its public release.

Both services issued guidance on the use of other military operated file-sharing sites approved for distributing sensitive or protected unclassified materials that do not contain personally identifiable or private health information, such as the Army Research Laboratory’s SAFE site (https://safe.arl.army.mil/), which allows 2-gigabyte files.

The Corps’ information technology department is “exploring long-term solutions to the capability gap, including the potential expansion of [the Defense Information Systems Agency’s] Secure File Gateway System to meet the DOD need,” the service said in its guidance.

The Navy also said it would provide guidance on a potential DISA solution.

The Air Force has not issued specific guidance, a spokeswoman at the Pentagon said, but personnel are finding workarounds. In February, the service began blocking unencrypted emails containing personally identifiable information, requiring the use of AMRDEC SAFE if the sender or receiver did not have access to encrypted email.

Army officials in Washington did not immediately respond to questions about guidance or alternatives to the service, but a spokeswoman for the Army’s Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany said staff there have been burning files like medical records to disc or sending them via fax if they’re too large or otherwise can’t be sent via encrypted email.

“There is no other online alternative the is secure enough for Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or Protected health information (PHI),” hospital spokeswoman Stacy Sanning said in an email.

Sanning said the discs must be sent via registered mail. The Navy and Marine Corps guidance also required the use of registered mail, but Marines may also use couriers of FedEx.

The change will have limited effect on operations for Navy medical personnel, the privacy office for the service’s medical bureau said via email Friday.

“Most PII/PHI can still be sent via encrypted email,” the email said.

Some troops and others on social media have lamented the closure in recent weeks, saying it was one of few government sites that were actually useful. One claimed to have found a creative workaround.

“I’m fine with AMRDEC SAFE being down,” quipped a Twitter user named Eric Jonathan Martin. “While you’ve been using the cloud to share files, I’ve been training carrier pigeons to send data through the original cloud: the sky!”
https://www.stripes.com/news/cds-fax...fline-1.560011





Netflix's Worst Nightmare Is Coming True
Stephen McBride

If you’ve been reading RiskHedge, you know I’ve been warning to keep money out of stock market darling Netflix (NFLX).

This was not a popular thing to say when I first wrote it in July.

Back then, Netflix was the hottest stock on Wall Street. It had surged 107% in six months, hitting record highs.

But it turns out July was the right time to sell Netflix. Since then it has crashed 37%:

Netflix’s Best Days Are Over

You can review my reasoning for why Netflix is doomed here and here. It comes down to the lifecycle of disruptive businesses.

Netflix pioneered “streaming” video where you watch shows through the Internet rather than on cable TV.

For years, it was the only streaming service in town. Early investors rode this first-mover advantage to 10,000% gains from 2008 to July of this year.

Today I see three other companies in the same position Netflix was back in 2008. I wrote a free special report about those stocks with in-depth research and my suggested buy prices.

But for Netflix, the era of almost zero competition is over.

It’s now coming up against powerful rivals like Disney (DIS)—which I recommended you buy in July.

Disney will launch its own streaming service called “Disney+” next year. It’s going to pull all its shows and movies off Netflix and put them on Disney+ instead.

This is a huge problem for Netflix because Disney has the world’s best content by a long shot. It owns household brands like Marvel… Pixar Animations… Star Wars… ESPN… ABC… X-Men… not to mention all the traditional characters like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.

When it launches next year, Disney+ will be a no-brainer purchase for most families. I’ll certainly be subscribing for my daughter.

Meanwhile, Netflix will lose a lot of its best content… and potentially millions of subscribers who switch to Disney+.
Amazon Is Gaining a Foothold in Streaming, Too

In February, Amazon (AMZN) announced it would spend $5 billion developing original shows and movies this year. In response, Netflix upped its spending by 50%.

Netflix had planned to spend $8 billion on shows and series this year… now it’ll spend roughly $12 billion. It now invests more in content than any other American TV network.

Keep in mind, Amazon is the third-largest publicly traded company on earth. It has much deeper pockets than Netflix or even Disney.

To have any hope of keeping up with its rivals, Netflix must keep ramping up its spending on content.

Problem is, it can’t.

Netflix makes only a small profit, so it’s had to borrow gobs of money to fund its show creation. Its debt has exploded 71% in the past year to $8.3 billion.

That’s not sustainable.

Now, Netflix has three bad choices: continue borrowing billions and bury itself deeper in debt… dramatically raise its subscription prices… or cut back on making new content.

I Recommend Disney

Netflix traded at $400 when I first sounded the warning…

It has dropped to around $275 today. And as I mentioned last time, my research shows it’s worth $190–$200 a share, max.

So, Netflix is still a “no-touch.”

Disney, on the other hand, has gained 11.5% since July and hit multi-year highs earlier in November. That’s more impressive given that most stocks have struggled in the last few months.

Disney is still a great buy at today’s price of $116. My research shows it’s heading for $170—roughly 45% higher than today.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephen...s-coming-true/





Number of Streaming Shows Overtakes Basic Cable, Broadcast for First Time, FX Reports

Streaming services snatched their biggest piece of the TV pie ever in 2018.
Joe Otterson

According to FX’s annual report on the number of scripted originals on TV, the number of streaming shows has surpassed the number of basic cable and broadcast shows for the first time ever. Out of 495 scripted originals that aired in 2018, 160 of them did so on a streaming platform. That is compared to 146 on broadcast and 144 on basic cable. Pay cable accounted for the remaining 45 shows.

Streaming shows also saw the biggest increase year-to-year, growing from 117 last year. Broadcast dipped slightly, dropping from 153 in 2017. Basic cable saw a more sharp decline, compared to the 175 shows that aired on basic cable the previous year. Pay cable was up slightly from 42.

On a percentage basis, streaming shows now account for approximately one third of all scripted originals, with approximately 32%. Broadcast made up 30% and basic cable 29%, with pay cable making up 9%.

The total number of shows across all of TV was up again as well, rising from 487 in 2017. The year-to-year growth was less than that of previous years, however. For example, the number of shows grew from 455 to 487 between 2016 and 2017. The 495 scripted originals this year was also off from FX Networks CEO John Landgraf’s prediction that 520 such shows would air this year.

The decline in scripted basic cable shows comes as networks like WGN America, MTV, and A&E have all but abandoned their scripted series ambitions, focusing instead on acquisitions and unscripted reality shows. Broadcast network Fox has also geared down on its number of scripted originals, with the network having launched just three new shows this fall with two on deck for midseason.
https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/num...rt-1203089218/





Net Neutrality Bill 38 Votes Short in Congress, and Time has Almost Run Out

Bill to restore net neutrality has 180 votes but needs 218 this month.
Jon Brodkin

Legislation to restore net neutrality rules now has 180 supporters in the US House of Representatives, but that's 38 votes short of the amount needed before the end of the month.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, already approved by the Senate, would reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules. But 218 signatures from US representatives (a majority) are needed to force a full vote in the House before Congress adjourns at the end of the year.

Net neutrality advocates previously said they needed 218 signatures by December 10 to force a vote. But an extension of Congress' session provided a little more time.

"[Now that the Congressional session has officially been extended, members of Congress could be in town as late as December 21st," net neutrality advocacy group Fight for the Future wrote yesterday. "This means we have until the end of the year to get as many lawmakers as possible signed on to restore net neutrality."

Three new supporters, but chances are slim

A discharge petition that would force a vote on the CRA resolution gained three new supporters in the past two weeks, with Reps. Joseph Morelle (D-New York), Susan Wild (D-Penn.), and Frederica Wilson (D-Florida) signing on.

The petition's chances are slim, because even getting all Democrats on board wouldn't be enough to force a vote. Republicans have a 236-197 House majority, but only one House Republican has signed the petition.

Forcing a vote in the House might be complicated, but not impossible, if 218 signatures are secured right before the end of December.

"If 218 members agree that the CRA needs to be addressed this year, there are procedural mechanisms that can force a vote in the House," a Democratic aide told Ars.

Even if it passes the House this year, President Trump could veto the CRA resolution.

Democrats will control the House in January, but they would have to start over with a new net neutrality bill and would face a tougher path in the Senate, where Republicans increased their majority from 51-49 to 53-47 in the recent election.

"There's a good chance we won't make it to 218 signatures on the CRA discharge petition in time—but every extra vote we pick up between now and the end of the year will help put us in the best possible position," Fight for the Future wrote. "No matter what happens with the CRA, we will continue to fight for a free and open Internet in the courts, state legislatures, and the incoming Congress in 2019."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...everse-repeal/





Net Neutrality Could Get a Reprieve Once Democrats Take Control of the House

Public support for the concept combined with adoption from the Democrats has sparked renewed optimism.
Brandi Vincent and Jason Abbruzzese

Somebody tell John Oliver — the battle over net neutrality is back on.

Democrats are expected to use their upcoming control of the House to push for strong net neutrality rules — put in place by the Federal Communications Commission under President Barack Obama but pulled back by President Donald Trump’s FCC — highlighting how the once-wonky concept has become a national issue.

While net neutrality advocates are expecting a setback in the near term (a Senate effort to undo the FCC’s decision is expected to fail), public support for the concept combined with adoption from the Democrats has sparked renewed optimism.

“The FCC’s repeal sparked an unprecedented political backlash, and we've channeled that internet outrage into real political power,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights-focused non-profit organization. “As we head into 2019, net neutrality supporters in the House of Representatives will be in a much stronger position to engage in FCC oversight.”

The FCC did not respond to a request for comment.

Net neutrality refers to the concept that internet networks (and the companies that run them) should not block or manipulate web traffic. While most internet providers have agreed to abide by rules against blocking legitimate websites, net neutrality advocates have argued that major internet providers could prioritize internet traffic for profit, effectively scuttling the open nature of the internet and turning it into a system closer to cable TV.

Net neutrality rules have been the subject of a decade-long push and pull that began in 2008, when the FCC punished Comcast for interfering with uploads to file-sharing service BitTorrent. Since then, the FCC’s rules and role in enforcing net neutrality have been the subject of a series of commission votes and court rulings.

Comcast is the owner of NBCUniversal, the parent company of NBC News.

Net neutrality as a political flashpoint, however, is a relatively new phenomenon. The topic became entered the national consciousness in large part due to John Oliver, who tackled the topic on his HBO show with a humorous segment on the topic and then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who helped push for the net neutrality rules and later received an apology from Oliver.

Despite Oliver’s segment, it was something of a surprise when Obama endorsed strong net neutrality rules in 2014. Now, most Democrats have now come out strongly in favor of the rules.

“Americans have greatly benefitted from an accessible and unrestrained internet,” said Sen. Corey Booker, D-N.J. “It’s why I’ve been fighting to preserve net neutrality protections since the Trump administration entered office and began their efforts to repeal them.”

Democrats will officially take control of the House on Jan. 3, and speculation about who the party will run against Trump in 2020 has already begun in full.

Gigi Sohn, a former lawyer at the FCC who is now a fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology, Law and Policy, said she expects Democrats to use their new power to push for the restoration of strong net neutrality rules — and for the topic to be on the lips of presidential hopefuls.

“I have no doubt that bills to restore the 2015 rules will be introduced in both the Senate and the House relatively early on,” Sohn said. “Every Democratic candidate for president, this is going to be one of their top issues.”

Jessica Rosenworcel, an FCC commissioner who has been a vocal supporter of net neutrality, noted that it has become a national issue — and one that has broad approval from Americans. She pointed to a University of Maryland study that found 83 percent of people surveyed were against the FCC’s move to undo the rules around net neutrality.

“The only place that this has become partisan is in Washington, D.C.,” Rosenworcel said. “We awoke a sleeping giant.”

On the state level, governors are already taking executive actions to protect net neutrality, and through bipartisan efforts, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced legislation to put in place net neutrality protections and standards.

Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, helped organize a grassroots campaign around the passing of California’s S.B. 822, one of the earliest laws to establish rules around net neutrality on the state level. Falcon said he is “extraordinarily confident” that proponents of net neutrality will win.

“It really just boils down to how one side of the polling is in this space,” Falcon said.

Though California’s bill, deemed a “gold standard,” will remain stagnant until pending litigation around last year’s FCC rollback of the federal rules is resolved, it represents opportunities advocates are pursuing to preserve net neutrality across all branches of government.

The consolidated appeals against the FCC’s deregulation of Internet providers will be decided in D.C.’s Circuit Court. Oral arguments are set to begin on Feb. 1, 2019.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...-house-n945501





Millions Of Comments About The FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Were Fake. Now The Feds Are Investigating.

People's names and addresses were listed on the FCC's website beside net neutrality comments they didn't make. Now the FBI is interested.
Kevin Collier

The Justice Department is investigating whether crimes were committed when potentially millions of people’s identities were posted to the FCC’s website without their permission, falsely attributing to them opinions about net neutrality rules, BuzzFeed News has learned.

Two organizations told BuzzFeed News, each on condition that they not be named, that the FBI delivered subpoenas to them related to the comments.

The reports are the first that federal investigators are taking in interest in the case, which was already subject to an investigation previously announced by the New York Attorney General’s office.

Both organizations had previously been subpoenaed by New York and said the scope of those subpoenas were similar.
Do you have information about fraudulent FCC comments? If so, please contact us. To learn how to reach us securely, go to tips.buzzfeed.com. You can also email us at tips@buzzfeed.com.

The comment scheme took place over the course of months beginning in April 2017 after the Trump administration's FCC chair, Ajit Pai, moved to overturn Obama-era rules enforcing net neutrality, a regulation that prevented internet providers from choosing which web traffic gets to flow at full speed.

The rule enjoyed broad public support, according to multiple polls, and required a period of public comment before Pai's change could go into effect. More than 20 million comments have since appeared on the site, with the New York Attorney General’s office estimating that up to 9.5 million of those were filed in people’s names without their consent.

As part of the New York Attorney General’s previously announced investigation, the agency in October issued subpoenas to 14 organizations — 11 of which are either politically conservative or related to the telecommunications industry and opposed net neutrality, and three of which supported it. The offices of the attorneys general of both Massachusetts and Washington, DC, are supporting the New York investigation, and also issued subpoenas. Their participation has not been previously reported.

The federal subpoenas arrived a few days after the state ones, the two organizations told BuzzFeed News.

The size of the federal investigation is unclear: Other organizations that had received subpoenas from the state attorneys general offices didn’t respond to requests for comment. The DC attorney general and the FBI did not reply to requests for comment.

Earlier this week, the FCC issued a decision on two Freedom of Information requests, filed by BuzzFeed News and the New York Times. In it, the commission voted not to release the records that the news organizations had requested: data from web-server logs that could shed additional light on the suspicious comments.

“What is the Federal Communications Commission hiding?” Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel asked in a dissenting opinion. “[i]nstead of providing news organizations with the information requested, in this decision the FCC decides to hide behind Freedom of Information Act exemptions and thwart investigative journalism.”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...ality-comments





At Least One Major Carrier Lied About its 4G Coverage, FCC Review Finds

Verizon was accused of filing false 4G coverage map, triggering investigation.
Jon Brodkin

Four months after receiving a complaint claiming that Verizon "grossly overstated" its 4G LTE coverage in government filings, the Federal Communications Commission says that at least one carrier is apparently guilty of significant rules violations.

The FCC did not name any specific carrier in its announcement and did not respond to our question about whether Verizon is among the carriers being investigated. But the investigation was apparently triggered by a complaint about Verizon filed in August by the Rural Wireless Association (RWA).

The RWA, which represents rural carriers, made its case to the FCC by submitting speed test data. The speed tests showed the Verizon network wasn't providing 4G LTE service in areas that Verizon claimed to cover, according to the RWA.

Inaccurate coverage maps could make it difficult for rural carriers to get money from the Mobility Fund, a government fund intended for unserved areas.

"A preliminary review of speed test data submitted through the challenge process suggested significant violations of the Commission's rules," FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said Friday in his announcement of the FCC investigation.

The FCC said its investigation focuses on "whether one or more major carriers violated the Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) reverse auction's mapping rules and submitted incorrect coverage maps."

Verizon denied filing false coverage map

The FCC last year required Verizon and other carriers to file maps and data indicating their current 4G LTE coverage in order to help the FCC determine where to distribute up to $4.5 billion in Mobility Fund money over the next 10 years.

The RWA said that Verizon "fil[ed] a sham coverage map as a means of interfering with the ability of rural carriers to continue to receive universal service support in rural areas." Verizon denied any wrongdoing at the time, saying, "we are confident that our Mobility Fund map is fully consistent with the FCC's mapping specifications."

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said he supports Pai's decision to investigate.

"It is deeply concerning that FCC staff's preliminary analysis of the challenge data shows that one or more major carriers potentially violated the Commission's MF-II mapping rules and submitted incorrect maps," Carr said Friday. "Today's announcement aligns with concerns I shared with Chairman Pai, and I look forward to working with him and our able staff to complete this investigation."

Carr noted that he "heard from providers serving the Oklahoma panhandle and communities across rural America." The RWA says that Verizon falsely claims to cover almost all of the Oklahoma Panhandle, an area of 14,778.47 square kilometers. But 89 percent of speed tests from the Oklahoma Panhandle were "below 5Mbps download speed or did not register 4G LTE service at all on Verizon-designated handsets," the RWA said.

The FCC is in the middle of a challenge process that lets carriers dispute the data submitted by other carriers. Rural providers say they have had to devote "enormous time and financial resources" to drive tests in order to challenge Verizon's maps.

The FCC has suspended the next phase of the challenge process pending the results of the investigation. "We must ensure that the data is accurate before we can proceed," Pai said.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-review-finds/





Comcast Rejected by Small Town—Residents Vote for Municipal Fiber Instead

Comcast offered to wire up Charlemont, Mass. for $462,000—town said, "no."
Jon Brodkin

A small Massachusetts town has rejected an offer from Comcast and instead plans to build a municipal fiber broadband network.

Comcast offered to bring cable Internet to up to 96 percent of households in Charlemont in exchange for the town paying $462,123 plus interest toward infrastructure costs over 15 years. But Charlemont residents rejected the Comcast offer in a vote at a special town meeting Thursday.

"The Comcast proposal would have saved the town about $1 million, but it would not be a town-owned broadband network," the Greenfield Recorder reported Friday. "The defeated measure means that Charlemont will likely go forward with a $1.4 million municipal town network, as was approved by annual town meeting voters in 2015."

About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports.

Charlemont has about 1,300 residents and covers about 26 square miles in northwest Massachusetts. Town officials estimate that building a municipal fiber network reaching 100 percent of homes would cost $1,466,972 plus interest over 20 years.

An increase in property taxes would cover the construction cost. But the town would also bring in revenue from selling broadband service and potentially break even, making the project less expensive than Comcast's offer.

"With 59 percent of households taking broadband service, the tax hike would be 29 cents [per $1,000 of assessed home value], similar to that for Comcast," a Recorder article last month said. "But if 72 percent or more of households subscribe to the municipal-owned network, there is no tax impact, because subscriber fees would pay for it."

Currently, Comcast covers about 9.5 percent of Charlemont, while Verizon DSL is available in about 88 percent, according to estimates by BroadbandNow.

The town plans to charge $79 a month for standalone Internet service with gigabit download and upload speeds and no data caps, though the price could rise to $99 a month if fewer than 40 percent of households buy the service. The town also plans to offer phone and TV service at rates cheaper than Comcast's.

Pros and cons

A document distributed to town meeting voters listed the estimated prices as well as pros and cons for both the Comcast proposal and the municipal fiber option.

Pros for going with Comcast included "no risk to the town from potential future competition," "less town borrowing," a fixed cost to the town, Comcast's promotional pricing, and a $10-per-month, 15Mbps Internet package for people with low incomes. Comcast cons were as follows:

• Monopoly service provider
• Uses older, slower HFC [hybrid fiber-coaxial] technology
• Limited control over network buildout
• No control over future pricing
• Customer service record
• Speed caps and potential to slow down competitive content (over#-the-#top TV)

The cons of building a municipal network included higher up-front borrowing, the fact that the town would be responsible for the network and need volunteers to run a board, and "potential competitive risk from less expensive solutions."

But Charlemont officials listed these benefits of the town-run approach:

• 100% fiber-to-the-home technology (faster than HFC technology)
• Town-owned and controlled
• At take rates above 40% generates revenue that will reduce the tax burden
• Not#-for-#profit to keep prices as low as possible
• Transparent billing and marketing
• No extra taxes/fees except government-mandated phone taxes
• Same speed for all subscribers and content

Charlemont is one of about 20 small towns in western Massachusetts that are working on broadband plans with Westfield Gas & Electric. Charlemont also received a $960,000 stage grant to design the municipal network.

"Working with [Westfield Gas & Electric], the town has already completed the design for the municipal network," Charlemont Broadband Committee Chairman Robert Handsaker said, according to The Recorder. "The design work included mapping of all utility poles, design of the fiber distribution network and preliminary designs and cost estimates for the individual connection to each home."

Leading up to the special town meeting, the town Broadband Committee opposed the Comcast offer while the town Finance Committee supported the Comcast offer. But town meeting voters had the final say.

"The fiber network project has been on hold for the last several months, awaiting a town vote on the Comcast proposal," Handsaker said.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...fiber-instead/





Trump Wants to Tax Internet Businesses

Give money to the poor telco monopolies
Nick Farrell

President Donald “Prince of Orange” Trump’s FCC is considering taxing internet companies and giving the money to the ISP monopolies.

The hope is that the fabulously rich telcos will use the money to provide rural broadband. However, the telcos have not done so with the money they have received so far and there is no requirement for them to actually do so.

What appears to Trump is the fact that it is taxing internet companies such as Google and Facebook which do not support them, and giving their profits to telcos which do.

The scheme is just so bizarre and transparently pro-monopoly it is a wonder the FCC thinks it can get away with it. It has been dreamed up by the FCC's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), which includes members like AT&T, Comcast, Google Fibre, Sprint, and other ISPs and industry representatives.

If adopted by states, the recommended tax would apply to subscription-based retail services that require internet access, such as Netflix, and to advertising-supported services that use the internet, such as Google and Facebook. The tax would also apply to any small or medium-sized business that charges subscription fees for online services or uses online advertising.

The tax would apply to any provider of broadband access, such as cable or wireless operators.

The collected money would go into state rural broadband deployment funds that would help bring faster Internet access to sparsely populated areas. Similar universal service fees are already assessed on landline phone service and mobile phone service nationwide.

Those phone fees contribute to federal programmes such as the FCC's Connect America Fund, which pays AT&T and other carriers to deploy broadband in rural areas.

The BDAC tax proposal is part of a "State Model Code for Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment and Investment".

Once finalised by the BDAC, each state would have the option of adopting the code. An AT&T executive who is on the FCC advisory committee argued that the recommended tax should apply even more broadly, to any business that helps financially from broadband access in any way. The committee adopted a slightly narrower recommendation that would apply the tax to subscription services and advertising-supported services only.

The BDAC model code doesn't need approval from FCC commissioners “it is adopted by the BDAC as a model code for the states to use, at their discretion".
https://www.fudzilla.com/news/47782-...net-businesses





The First Long-Term Study on How Screen Time Affects Children's Brains Suggests More than 2 Hours a Day could do Damage
Julia Naftulin

• A new and ongoing study from the National Institutes of Health is testing how screen time affects children's brains, CBS News reported.
• When complete, the study will have followed more than 11,000 children for a decade, monitoring how digital screens like smartphones, video games, and tablets are changing the young brain.
• The first brain scans from the study have been analyzed, and researchers have concluded that children who spend more than seven hours a day on screens experience "premature thinning of the cortex," Gaya Dowling, one of the study's authors, said in an interview with "60 Minutes."
• The study also found that children who have more than two hours of screen time a day got lower scores on tests focused on thinking and language skills.

A first-of-its-kind study from the National Institutes of Health is analyzing how screen time affects children's brains, CBS News reported. Over the next decade, the study will follow more than 11,000 children, who are currently 9 to 10 years old, as they grow up around screens.

"We'll be able to see not only how much time are they spending, how they perceive it impacting them, but also what are some of the outcomes," Gaya Dowling, one of the study's authors, said in an interview with "60 Minutes." "And that will get at the question of whether there's addiction or not."

The first findings from the study show as little as 2 hours of screen time can be detrimental

Although researchers are just beginning their study of the connection between screens and addiction, early results have found that as little as two hours of screen time daily could negatively affect children. In fact, the study found that children who have more than two hours of screen time a day got lower scores on tests focused on thinking and language skills.

According to Dr. Dimitri Christakis, the lead author of the American Academy of Pediatrics' most recent screen-time guidelines, these negative effects occur because children don't know how to translate two-dimensional skills learned on a screen to the real, three-dimensional world. "If you give a child an app where they play with virtual Legos, virtual blocks, and stack them, and then put real blocks in front of them, they start all over," he said on "60 Minutes."

The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests toddlers stay away from screens as much as possible

The newest screen-time guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics stress the importance of face-to-face communication and suggest parents avoid screen time for toddlers between the ages of 18 and 24 months, with the exception of video calling. The guidelines also suggest parents accompany young children whenever they are using screens.

"Co-viewing is best when possible and for young children they learn best when they are re-taught in the real world what they just learned through a screen," the guidelines noted.

The NIH study could help solidify guidelines about screen time for young people

As the NIH study continues, researchers hope to retrieve information that can better inform screen-related health guidelines.

As Dowling noted, a full picture of the screen-time effects won't be possible until years down the line, when the study is complete. The NIH, has, however, finished enrolling the 11,000 children participating in the research project.

Dowling told "60 Minutes" that the researchers hope to determine whether screens have an addictive nature through their work over the next decade.
https://www.thisisinsider.com/how-sc...-study-2018-12





Porch Pirates are Trying to Steal Christmas, but Doorstep Vigilantes are on High Alert
Petula Dvorak

The Porch Pirates are in overdrive.

Their crimes are unfolding on doorsteps across the nation as Christmas presents, ordered from online retailers, arrive by the hundreds of millions. And plenty of those packages disappear.

The thieves are totally legit villains now because they have an official villain name. Search “Porch Pirates” on Twitter or other social media, and you’ll see what I mean.

But some of the 26 million victims who say they’ve had boxes swiped from their porches are heroically fighting back, determined to protect their precious packages.

They’re using booby traps, secret cameras, geo-trackers and bait boxes. The scenes of Good vs. Evil being posted online make for days of great comic-book reading, complete with shaming doorbell video clips of sneaky pirates, clumsy pirates, grandma pirates in flowery tunics, at least one pirate in a bra, even regretful pirates who’ve returned to the scene of the crime to leave an apology note.

And paid crimefighters are now in on the action, with police chiefs calling Porch Pirates the scourge of the holiday season and investigators setting up sting operations like the Fort Worth Police Department’s “Operation Grinch Pinch” or the police in Wheeling, W.Va., leaving snarky notes wishing the duped bad guys “Merry Christmas.”

But the doorstep vigilantes are the most entertaining. There’s even a guy in Tacoma, Wash., who is marketing a device that sets off a 12-gauge blank the moment a pirate lifts the bait package.

One D.C. woman fed up with having nearly $1,000 worth of packages stolen from her Capitol Hill porch left a pretty awesome present for her pirates — a box heavy with her two dogs’ poop.

“It didn’t stop them, though,” reports Andrea Hutzler.

What did stop them was a Nancy Drew combination of sleuthing and teamwork after a porch camera spotted a white truck driving away. A neighborhood email discussion group identified the truck and got the license plate. Police used the license plate to track down the driver, who ultimately turned on the partner, Hutzler said.

That didn’t stop other Porch Pirates from swooping in.

How’d she finally stop the thefts?

“We moved. We’re in Northern Virginia now,” she said. “I’ve lived in Illinois, Houston, New Orleans, overseas. It never happened anywhere but D.C.”

My husband and I have been fighting this for years. The first time it happened was with an Internet router we ordered online.

It was snowing, and the thief left footprints. We followed them, only to find the bubble wrap, the receipt, the empty box, then the road, where the prints ended.

The second time we had a package stolen — thinking we would thwart this by requiring a signature — the person who intercepted the package signed for it. The signature read “Cathy Lanier,” who was then Washington’s police chief.

So we stopped having anything valuable sent to the house. Then, the thefts became annoying. When a five-pound tub of purple fondant I ordered to make a princess cake for a daughter’s friend vanished, I snooped around the neighborhood, found the box, found the tub, found the wad of purple fondant in the bushes. I learned how to make my own fondant that year.

Porch Pirating is not an easy crime to track because not everyone reports it. If you look just at the Google search for “Amazon package stolen,” as the folks at Schorr packaging did, you’ll see San Francisco at the top of the list, with Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston, Portland and Washington close behind.

But another survey suggested that big cities aren’t the only places where the thieves operate. A survey done last year by video security company Blink found that rural residents in North Dakota, Vermont, Maine, New Mexico, Mississippi and Arkansas reported the highest numbers of folks who have had packages swiped. That map also looks a little like the opioid crisis map from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Packages in less-populated, rural neighborhoods are targets for addicts-turned-thieves.

Of course, not all the packages swiped are from Amazon. (Amazon was founded by Jeffrey P. Bezos, who owns The Washington Post.) But as consumer habits shift toward e-commerce and Amazon packages are plastered with Amazon logos, Porch Pirates would probably opt for the Amazon package over the one with Santa stickers, a return address starting with “Grandma” and “Fragile! Cookies inside!” written all over it.

And Amazon is anything but transparent about how many packages are stolen.

I parried for a while with one of their PR guys, who spoke on background and declined to be quoted, and he didn’t provide me with a number of packages reported stolen, the monetary damage these thefts do to Amazon or what, exactly, Amazon’s policy is on replacing anything reported stolen. It’s a case-by-case basis, he said, which was my own personal experience. Sometimes they sent me another thing, no problem. Other times I got stiffed.

The Amazon guy pointed to Amazon lockers as a theft-prevention option. (Sure, but they aren’t always as convenient as they sound.) And he explained the package tracking that Amazon does. They even have new features where you actually let the driver into your home or car to leave the package there. Gee, thanks.

Porch Pirates are basically shoplifters. When shoplifters go to bricks-and-mortar shops, they cost retailers about $42 billion annually. Stores have security guards and cameras, and they take the hit when something is stolen.

In the e-commerce version of shoplifting, theft prevention is now on us, David, while Goliath just shrugs.

And it’s not vigilante citizens out there, it’s cash-strapped police departments setting up sting operations and following leads from home camera clips doing the legwork that big-box stores used to be responsible for.

Pretty slick, eh?

Happy Shopping. Don’t forget the booby trap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...48f_story.html

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

December 8th, December 1st, November 24th, November 17th

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."
- Hugo Black
__________________
Thanks For Sharing
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 16th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-07-11 06:43 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 9th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 06-07-11 05:36 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 30th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-01-10 07:49 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 16th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-01-10 09:02 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 5th, '09 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 02-12-09 08:32 AM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)