Microsoft should be in the courts re: limiting your program use/choice

Using Microsoft’s Windows product is a sure way to have your computer life being monitored where data is collected and passed on to other entities.

If you value your computing privacy, then alterative operating system such as Linux may suit your purpose.

But there is a huge problem with that, being that Microsoft is actively destroying the open-source community.

What’s also concering is the new trend by manufacturers to have ‘users’ or ‘consumers’ to subscribe to their services where previously there was no such demand from the consumer with regards to hardware, software or even vehicles.

Microsoft is acting in an anti-competitive manner, being detrimental to other software organisations, therefore stifling progression and should be sued in the courts.

See further details within:

Wireless keyboards a privacy and security risk

When it comes to security many people may mention internet connections, WiFi, passwords etc.

But one of the important and overlooked aspect is the input devices or HID (Human Interface Device) as the computer likes to have it named, such as the mouse and keyboard and why not throw in a (electronic) pencil while you're at it.

Before chosing your next wireless combo, it may pay to see if the transmission is encrypted between the USB dongle and the input device.

You may want to look at something that has AES 128bit encryption

If you're after true peace of mind, then good a ol' trusty wired connection would suffice.

Killer drones to be release on general population by police

This policy coming to the police state of Australia too?

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote soon on a policy that would allow the San Francisco Police Department to use deadly force by arming its many robots. This is a spectacularly dangerous idea and EFF’s stance is clear: police should not arm robots.

TAKE ACTION

EMAIL YOUR SUPERVISOR: don't let SFPD arm robots 

Police technology goes through mission creep–meaning equipment reserved only for specific or extreme circumstances ends up being used in increasingly everyday or casual ways. We’ve already seen this with military-grade predator drones flying over protests, and police buzzing by the window of an activist's home with drones.

As the policy is currently written, the robots' use will be governed by this passage:

 “The robots listed in this section shall not be utilized outside of training and simulations, criminal apprehensions, critical incidents, exigent circumstances, executing a warrant or during suspicious device assessments. Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD.”

This is incredibly broad language. Police could bring armed robots to every arrest, and every execution of a warrant to search a house or vehicle or device. Depending on how police choose to define the words “critical” or “exigent,” police might even bring armed robots to a protest. While police could only use armed robots as deadly force when the risk of death is imminent, this problematic legal standard has often been under-enforced by courts and criticized by activists.

The combination of new technology, deadly weapons, tense situations, and a remote control trigger is a very combustible brew. 

This occurs as many police departments have imported the use of robots from military use into regular policing procedures, and now fight to arm those robots.

In October 2022, the Oakland police department proposed a similar policy to arm robots. Following public outrage, the plans were scrapped within a week. 

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will be voting on whether to pass this bill on first reading at their November 29, 2022 meeting, which begins at 2pm. You can find an email contact for your Board of Supervisors member here, and determine which Supervisor to contact here. Please tell them to oppose this. Here's text you can use (or edit):

Do not give SFPD permission to kill people with robots. This broad policy would allow police to bring armed robots to every arrest, and every execution of a warrant to search a house or vehicle or device. Depending on how police choose to define the words “critical” or “exigent,” police might even bring armed robots to a protest. While police could only use armed robots as deadly force when the risk of death is imminent, this problematic legal standard has often been under-enforced by courts and criticized by activists. For the sake of your constituents' rights and safety, please vote no. 

Source:eff.org