Microsoft AI chief says it’s ‘dangerous’ to study AI consciousness: People will start to believe in the AIs as conscious entities that they’ll advocate for AI rights, model welfare and AI citizenship
Microsoft AI chief says it’s ‘dangerous’ to study AI consciousness: People will start to believe in the AIs as conscious entities that they’ll advocate for AI rights, model welfare and AI citizenship
The problem with ABC news in my experience is they assume their audience are familiar with the geopolitical situation in Asia and of course most westerners aren't.
Like the whole toilet paper thing during the pandemic. The way they reported it made it sound like it was a global issue rather than an Australia issue. The situation that arose to create that problem simply doesn't exist in other parts of the world, but because of the way they reported it, they made people think that it was an international problem. Then it actually became an international problem. Now granted, a certain amount of brainlessness has to be considered on the behalf of the people reading this stuff but still, it demonstrates the issue.
I read an article that suggests classified ads used to support newspapers and hard journalism, and the Internet and sites like Craigslist took away that revenue to pay reporters.
Yep that's pretty much how it went. Also print ads have lost against digital ads, which pay way less money to publishers and keep paying less each year
I was confused there for a second but apparently the BBC has introduced a paywall only for US users. Site is still completely free to read anywhere else, which is why I didnt even realize that there is a paywall.
Which of course means that US Americans could simply VPN their way around it..
This is a little surprising to me because I read it on a daily basis and haven't seen sign of the paywall yet. I don't know if Ublock Origin is simply squashing that as well, or I'm somehow lucky.
The BBC has been run as a business now and it's absolutely stupid. It was never meant to make a profit that was never really the point. It was supposed to be a public service and a projection of soft power, that seems to have gone out to the window now.
I suspect a lot of the work at the BBC don't actually agree with this, but management don't listen to anyone.
I forgot about the paywall and assumed this was due to their international reputational damage, over things like their pro-Israel “reporting” of the occupations in Palestine.
I'll say it again. Stop tracking me and I'll look at your ads. I look at physical mailers, like I literally look through them, more than I look at Internet ads.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding them of their obligations to protect the privacy and data security of American consumers despite pressure from foreign governments to weaken such protections. He also warned them that censoring Americans at the behest of foreign powers might violate the law.
The letters were sent to companies that provide cloud computing, data security, social media, messaging apps and other services and include: Akamai, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, GoDaddy, Meta, Microsoft, Signal, Snap, Slack and X.
The letters noted that companies might feel pressured to censor and weaken data security protections for Americans in response to the laws, demands, or expected demands of foreign powers. These laws include the European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, which incentivize tech companies to censor worldwide speech, and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which can require companies to weaken their encryption measures to enable UK law enforcement to access data stored by users.
“I am concerned that these actions by foreign powers to impose censorship and weaken end-to-end encryption will erode Americans’ freedoms and subject them to myriad harms, such as surveillance by foreign governments and an increased risk of identity theft and fraud,” Chairman Ferguson wrote.
The letter noted that as companies consider how to comply with foreign laws and demands, they are still required to comply with the FTC Act’s prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices in the marketplace. For example, if a company promises consumers that it encrypts or secures online communications but then adopts weaker security in response to demands from a foreign government, such an action could be considered a deceptive practice under the FTC Act, the letter noted.
The FTC has brought dozens of cases over the past two decades against companies that have failed to keep their promises to consumers to deploy reasonable safeguards to protect consumer data.
FTC Warns Companies(Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Discord, Meta, Microsoft, Signal, Snap, X and more) Against Censoring or Weakening the Data Security of Americans at the Behest of Foreign Powers
Republished here under Public Domain.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding them of their obligations to protect the privacy and data security of American consumers despite pressure from foreign governments to weaken such protections. He also warned them that censoring Americans at the behest of foreign powers might violate the law.
The letters were sent to companies that provide cloud computing, data security, social media, messaging apps and other services and include: Akamai, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, GoDaddy, Meta, Microsoft, Signal, Snap, Slack and X.
The letters noted that companies might feel pressured to censor and weaken data security protections for Americans in response to the laws, demands, or expected demands of foreign powers. These laws include the European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, which incentivize tech companies to censor worldwide speech, and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which can require companies to weaken their encryption measures to enable UK law enforcement to access data stored by users.
“I am concerned that these actions by foreign powers to impose censorship and weaken end-to-end encryption will erode Americans’ freedoms and subject them to myriad harms, such as surveillance by foreign governments and an increased risk of identity theft and fraud,” Chairman Ferguson wrote.
The letter noted that as companies consider how to comply with foreign laws and demands, they are still required to comply with the FTC Act’s prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices in the marketplace. For example, if a company promises consumers that it encrypts or secures online communications but then adopts weaker security in response to demands from a foreign government, such an action could be considered a deceptive practice under the FTC Act, the letter noted.
The FTC has brought dozens of cases over the past two decades against companies that have failed to keep their promises to consumers to deploy reasonable safeguards to protect consumer data.
reminding them of their obligations to protect the privacy and data security of American consumers despite pressure from foreign governments to weaken such protections
Yeah, but that mostly goes the other way around. If it comes to privacy, Europe isn't the best but the US is a laughing stock.
Yeah, europe yet again is trying to get this law to break encryption but don't act as if the US hasn't been trying the same since forever
Max (stylized in all uppercase; Russian: Макс, [ˈmaks] MAKS) is a Russian messenger released by VK in 2025. As of July 2025, it is in beta-testing stage. By analogy with the Chinese platform WeChat, a universal mobile application ("superapp") is being developed on the basis of Max, which allows, in addition to using the functions of the messenger, to also receive electronic Gosuslugi, verify identity through a digital ID, use a strengthened electronic signature, and also make payments. :::
Russia’s new state-backed messaging app Max will come pre-installed on all devices sold in the country starting on Sept. 1, the government announced Thursday.
Max (stylized in all uppercase; Russian: Макс, [ˈmaks] MAKS) is a Russian messenger released by VK in 2025. As of July 2025, it is in beta-testing stage. By analogy with the Chinese platform WeChat, a universal mobile application ("superapp") is being developed on the basis of Max, which allows, in addition to using the functions of the messenger, to also receive electronic Gosuslugi, verify identity through a digital ID, use a strengthened electronic signature, and also make payments. :::
Russia’s new state-backed messaging app Max will come pre-installed on all devices sold in the country starting on Sept. 1, the government announced Thursday.
FYI, there isn't much difference between this and mandatory encryption backdoors. Both are fundamentally authoritarian... So when your gov's push for encryption backdoors, they are a domestic enemy en par with Putin and all other dictatorships.
Whether or not that's a defense depends on the details of the French legal system. In most countries, there are rights you're not allowed to sign away. No idea whether security of the person is one of those rights in France.
Hosted by the Brooklyn Public Library, this Burner Phone 101 workshop introduced participants to phone-related risk modeling, privacy-protective smartphone practices, the full spectrum of burner phone options, and when to leave phones behind entirely.
Hosted by the Brooklyn Public Library, this Burner Phone 101 workshop introduced participants to phone-related risk modeling, privacy-protective smartphone practices, the full spectrum of burner phone options, and when to leave phones behind entirely…
so I thought it wouldn't be available because it needs connection to MS servers I think? anyway, I was looking at the sites on the megathread and MS flight simulator is available on several websites, like fitgirl repacks, steamrip etc (I assume that's the 2020 version but there is a 2024 one as well on gamebounty). so now I'm actually curious, has anyone tried it? does it work well?
The Fitgirl Repack is the 2020 version. There is a portable version released by Digitalzone (Archive size 9.49GB, based on the online-fix.me p2p release), which works online, but still needs a microsoft account according to release notes (so a burner account is preferable). Haven't tried it, but the Digitalzone portables i did try in the past all worked well so i expect the same here.
If you want to play airplane simulation and you want to really fly and enjoy flying then I still recommend you to buy the X-plane 12, because it is much closer to flying than the FS. x-plane.com/
A central Japan city said Thursday it will seek to pass an ordinance recommending all residents limit smartphone use to two hours a day outside of work and school amid concerns over the impact of excessive technology exposure, though there will be no penalties proposed.
The ordinance drafted by the city of Toyoake in Aichi Prefecture is likely to be the first such municipal regulation in Japan that targets a limit on the use of smartphones and other electronic devices, according to the city. If passed by the local assembly, the ordinance will come into effect on Oct. 1.
A central Japan city said Thursday it will seek to pass an ordinance recommending all residents limit smartphone use to two hours a day outside of work and school amid concerns over the impact of excessive technology exposure, though there will be no…
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding them of their obligations to protect the privacy and data security of American consumers despite pressure from foreign governments to weaken such protections. He also warned them that censoring Americans at the behest of foreign powers might violate the law.
The letters were sent to companies that provide cloud computing, data security, social media, messaging apps and other services and include: Akamai, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, GoDaddy, Meta, Microsoft, Signal, Snap, Slack and X.
The letters noted that companies might feel pressured to censor and weaken data security protections for Americans in response to the laws, demands, or expected demands of foreign powers. These laws include the European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, which incentivize tech companies to censor worldwide speech, and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which can require companies to weaken their encryption measures to enable UK law enforcement to access data stored by users.
“I am concerned that these actions by foreign powers to impose censorship and weaken end-to-end encryption will erode Americans’ freedoms and subject them to myriad harms, such as surveillance by foreign governments and an increased risk of identity theft and fraud,” Chairman Ferguson wrote.
The letter noted that as companies consider how to comply with foreign laws and demands, they are still required to comply with the FTC Act’s prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices in the marketplace. For example, if a company promises consumers that it encrypts or secures online communications but then adopts weaker security in response to demands from a foreign government, such an action could be considered a deceptive practice under the FTC Act, the letter noted.
The FTC has brought dozens of cases over the past two decades against companies that have failed to keep their promises to consumers to deploy reasonable safeguards to protect consumer data.
Max (stylized in all uppercase; Russian: Макс, [ˈmaks] MAKS) is a Russian messenger released by VK in 2025. As of July 2025, it is in beta-testing stage. By analogy with the Chinese platform WeChat, a universal mobile application ("superapp") is being developed on the basis of Max, which allows, in addition to using the functions of the messenger, to also receive electronic Gosuslugi, verify identity through a digital ID, use a strengthened electronic signature, and also make payments. :::
Russia’s new state-backed messaging app Max will come pre-installed on all devices sold in the country starting on Sept. 1, the government announced Thursday.
A Chinese national was sentenced today to four years in prison and three years of supervised release for writing and deploying malicious code on his then-employer’s network.
Wired, Business Insider, Index on Censorship magazine and more outlets got tricked into publishing AI-Generated, fabricated articles that feature people who do not seem to exist.
Tra le molte raffigurazioni ritrovate in Egitto della dea Iside, l’importante figura del pantheon egiziano compare talvolta seduta in meditazione, tra le grandi e inconfondibili fronde di quello che poteva essere soltanto un albero di banano.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
People in the USA do have more rights than people here on Airstip One.
Though we are both under the big black boot of government friendly fascism.
Since October 2007, we have had Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or RIPA.
We cannot refuse to give up a password or access to an encrypted device.
Section 53 of RIPA makes it a criminal offence to not comply with a Section 49 notice, carrying a sentence of up to two years in prison, and up to five years in cases involving national security, terrorism or child indecency.
We have no Fifth Amendment covering self-incrimination laws to protect us from over zealous police and state.
Who in society is going to argue against laws that are sold to us to protect our children?
I am an old retired psychotherapist. I remember the introduction of the CRB (criminal records bureau) check, here on Airstrip one in the early 2000's. Now called a DBS check.
The CRB scanned the Police National Computer for any criminal offences that you had committed, this also included juvenile, aged under 17 offences. Which empowered all employers to use the CRB checks to get rid of staff and refuse to employ certain people. Discrimination was rife.
You were now judged, not on your competence to do your job, but whether you had a criminal record.
I would not have minded so much if they solely searched for any offence that were linked to child abuse, terrorism or national security, but they provided your entire life criminal offences.
My enhanced CRB check showed that I had gotten fined £3 for riding my bicycle on a pavement in the mid 60's when I was 11 years old. My mum had to pay. My dad earned about £10 per week as a lorry driver.
What a danger to society I was! An employer could refuse to employ me just because of that little bit of information.
Sold to the UK population as a means to protect our children from sexual predators. Of course no one complained.
Yet, forward just a few years and you needed a CRB check to work at:
The airport, the local supermarket, as a gardener in a school, as a handyman sweeping the car park of the local doctors practice.
you needed to have a CRB check if you came within 100M of a child or vulnerable adult.
Even University students now have to have a CRB checks if they are on a psychology, counselling or psychotherapy course, because they may come into contact with children and or vulnerable adults.
This is the slow creep of government policies expanding, with no oversight, sold to us under the guise that they are protecting children and vulnerable adults.
fear is a great driver for change. scare someone enough and they will give up their granny.
I think this is also linked to Airstrip One's governments, continually attempting to remove all encryption from devices by using child protection as a reason
Airstrip One was the name of Britain in George Orwell's book 1984.
Airstrip One is a part of Oceania.
In 1984, Oceania formed after the United States merged with the British Empire.
Its just my way of saying that my country is heading deeper into totalitarianism and fascism.
CCTV, facial recognition, the militarism of our police, police powers to kill people without facing criminal charge, the constant monitoring of its people, the uncontrolled power of big tech, big pharma, big agro and the rich. To me anyway, seems to indicate we are on the road to totalitarianism and fascism.
Just watch out for the emergence of a charismatic person who "others" people like immigrants, homeless folks, poor people, disabled folks, or people different races/religion. I am in the US and it is scary here. I would leave but am trapped, and honestly Canada and the EU are not looking much better despite their constant judgements.
The anti-immigrant right wing fascists have been out in force in my area.
They have been having get togethers in my local high street. Big muscles, shaven heads, tattoos, anabolic steroid body building users, standing with their legs apart to intimidate those walking past them, wankers. They have serious male identity issues.
I went out for a drive this morning down to my local river for a long walk.
All the mini roundabouts in my local area, there are about 10 of them on the way to the river, have been painted red with the George Cross.
I remember the skinheads from the Mid 70's. Gangs of short haired boys, with Doc marten boots and Ben Sherman shirts, travelling around in cars, beating up anyone with a black or brown skin.
I knew quite a few of them and I always thought they were wankers, Absolutely useless on a "one on one" fist fight, but in gang they would attack any single male. Brave bastards they were.
The most frustrating thing of all is that they considered themselves pure bloods. Pure blood english. There is no such thing. simple minded wankers.
They have not even thought about our history, with everyone in Europe invading and occupying us at one time or other. The Romans, The Vikings, The Normans, the Jutes and Anglo-Saxons etc etc, they were not english. Pure bloods they say.
This Reminds me of your ICE teams over there.
You can see the similarities in Nineteen Eighty-Four:
Each state is self-supporting and self-enclosed: emigration and immigration are forbidden, as are international trade and the learning of foreign languages
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
The diamond sensor works by detecting magnetic tracer fluid (iron oxide nanoparticles) that is introduced into the patient during or before breast cancer surgery. The tracer fluid is injected into the tumour and then travels to the lymph nodes alongside metastasized cancer cells. A magnetic field sensor based on a diamond can then locate the tracer fluid and pinpoint the lymph nodes to be surgically removed to stop the cancer spread.
Its compact design is achieved by using a tiny diamond (0.5 mm3) and a small permanent magnet that is attached to the probe head. This eliminates the need for bulky electronics allowing for a handheld versatile tool.
The diamond sensor works by detecting magnetic tracer fluid (iron oxide nanoparticles) that is introduced into the patient during or before breast cancer surgery. The tracer fluid is injected into the tumour and then travels to the lymph nodes alongside metastasized cancer cells. A magnetic field sensor based on a diamond can then locate the tracer fluid and pinpoint the lymph nodes to be surgically removed to stop the cancer spread.
Its compact design is achieved by using a tiny diamond (0.5 mm3) and a small permanent magnet that is attached to the probe head. This eliminates the need for bulky electronics allowing for a handheld versatile tool.
The Vera Rubin Observatory is ready to revolutionize astronomy: To answer big cosmic questions, “you need something like Rubin. There is no competition.”
SAN FRANCISCO – August 19, 2025 – Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY), a leader in global edge cloud platforms, today released its Q2 2025 Threat Insights Report, exposing a striking shift in the nature and scale of automated web traffic.
SAN FRANCISCO – August 19, 2025 – Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY), a leader in global edge cloud platforms, today released its Q2 2025 Threat Insights Report, exposing a striking shift in the nature and scale of automated web traffic.
SAN FRANCISCO – August 19, 2025 – Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY), a leader in global edge cloud platforms, today released its Q2 2025 Threat Insights Report, exposing a striking shift in the nature and scale of automated web traffic.
They are for anything that's E2E encrypted such as Messenger and WhatsApp, so that the link isn't revealed to Meta servers.
As far as I know, for things like posts on Facebook, the server does the scraping. This is especially the case in the web version, since client-side scraping of arbitrary sites would require those sites to have an open CORS policy, which comes with security risks.
There's a Sharing Debugger tool on the Facebook developer site that lets you force rescrape a site.
The article is actually discussing a feasibility study for the far future (25 years from now as per the article):
For the first time, researchers from King’s College London have assessed the possible impact that generating solar energy in space could have for Europe. They found it could cut energy battery storage needs by more than two-thirds.
The study, published in Joule, analysed the potential of a design by NASA for solar generation, which is planned to be in use by 2050. The findings show the design could also save money by reducing the cost of the whole power system in Europe by up to 15%, including energy generation, storage and network infrastructure costs – an estimated saving of 35.9 billion euros per year.
Space-based solar power generation involves in-space continuous collection of solar energy. This involves placing large solar panels on satellites in orbit, where they are exposed to much more sunlight and can continuously collect energy without being affected by clouds or the day-night cycle. This energy would then be transmitted to one or more stations on Earth. It is then converted to electricity and delivered to the energy grid or batteries for storage.
It's a cool idea and I'd imagine we'd need an array spanning the globe rather than just over one continent
You could build a circle of satellites on the dawn dusk line, just have them do polar orbits. I think there's such a thing as a solar stationary orbit.
The thing is, 25 years isn't really that far in the future. Not when you count all the lead in time. Firstly you have to invent the microwave power transmission array, that's probably going to take it a decade, and that's been optimistic, then you've somehow got to arrange to launch hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of solar power satellites, then you have to figure out a way for the satellites to transmit the energy to the transmission array, and you have to build the receiving array on earth.
It took them 10 months just to build our companies new building, and it's the most generic thing you've ever seen. How are they going to do all this in 25 years?
There would absolutely have to be safety measures on this to avoid that exact scenario from occurring. I cannot remember the author of the book right offhand, but there's a book called PowerSat that goes through something very similar to this. As long as the beam is diffuse and not incredibly focused, it should be fine if something flies through it like a bird or if the beam gets knocked off course, it wouldn't damage infrastructure. There would also need to be good auto cut off functionality built into the thing so that if it realized it was off target, maybe by like a focusing laser or something, it would automatically shut itself down.
Fusion does not exist and wouldn't be in time if we started buildong commercial plants today. Low lead time is the only shot we have.
Space based solar has already been demonstrated, but will not provide substantial power since the receiver is basically a giant solar array and dead zone where life gets toasted.
In short. Presumably the idea would be to 1. only beam down what is needed, and 2. have it replace fossil fuels, which are very much responsible for the change in the planet's energy imbalance.
It would also reduce the energy cost of less efficient 'on Earth' solar arrays, which have problems like intermittency that orbital solar panels wouldn't have.
IF this is anywhere near technically feasible it seems like exploring the idea publicly like this isn't a bad thing.
BUT, after a couple decades of watching proposed miracle tech going nowhere, I can say that ultimately hopium really isn't healthy: we needed to get real a decade or two (or three or four) ago. Relying on non-functioning future tech like carbon capture/storage (or this, if it isn't actually feasible) is nothing more than justification for not making necessary changes now.
Trivial amounts compared to the solar energy hitting the entire surface of half the Earth.
The problem isn’t incoming energy, it’s outgoing energy. Greenhouse gases reduce the amount of energy radiated back into space and that’s what increases the mean global temperature.
Adding a few hundred square miles of surface area wouldn’t change much.
Naw, you just beam it back to earth as a laser. That way you could highjack the signal and fill a house with popcorn kernals a to start a huge neighborhood block party.
RD1 generates power 99% of the year and collects solar radiation by autonomously redirecting its reflectors toward a concentrator to focus sunlight throughout each day. RD2 uses flat panels, with solar cells facing away from Earth and microwave emitters facing toward the Earth. RD2 generates power 60% of the year due to its limited capability to reposition itself or redirect solar radiation toward its solar cells.
Microwaves or even Masers. This is nothing new, lot's of studies and experiments. It's not infeasible, efficiency not that bad either. But solarpanles on earth have only advantages, especially integrated in roofs or walls.
Are they really losses when the leaking, unfocused energy turns all buildings in a kilometer radius into microwave ovens? Just fill them up with popcorn packets and invite everyone over for movie night. We could watch one of the James Bond movies where the villain has an orbital deathray. I think there's at least a couple of them.
I saw this documentary about a device that can concentrate solar energy, called a "Solex Agitator." The project went sideways when this guy, who looked an awful lot like Christopher Lee, stole the prototype and tried to sell it to the highest bidder.
The British government somehow got involved and sent a spy to...
I think climate change mitigation can be the next scam after AI. Once AI bubble bursts they will start looking for new investments and I think climate change is ready to start generating profits. People are desperate enough to start investing money in things that will limit effect of climate change. Who will profit? Corporation that will work on those projects. Anything space related (solar panels in space, geoengineering) will require Space X/Blue Origin. Google, Microsoft and Amazon are already invested in nuclear fusion and modular reactors. Tesla is an energy provider. Any CO2 sequestration projects will require new startups, obviously backed by the same corporations. My guess is very soon we will see governments paying those companies to solve the problem they created. Even more money will be pumped to the 1%. It went form "climate change isn't real", to "climate change isn't caused by humans", to "it is caused by humans but nothing can be done about it". Next step will be "we can fix it if you pay us".
A good reminder of the definition of a parasite is it cannot live without a host. These corporations and capitalists can't live without us but we can live without them which makes them a parasite.
This energy would then be transmitted to one or more stations on Earth. It is then converted to electricity and delivered to the energy grid or batteries for storage.
Yeah this article is severely lacking in any concrete details.
I'd also like to know how exactly it is that they plan to deploy massive arrays of solar panels to space. Most earth-based solar farms are huge and take up entire fields, some are a few kilometres across in size. That's many orders of magnitude more massive than anything we've previously ever launched.
Plus whatever power transmission system they come up with would have to be powerful to be of any use but if it's that powerful would present an active danger and would effectively constitute a space-based weapon system.
It's a cool sci-fi idea but it is all pie in the sky.
Yeah I've seen that. Microwave power beaming would work in theory it's just electromagnetic radiation after all. But the vast majority of it is going to get absorbed by water molecules, because that's what microwave radiation does, that's why it cooks your food.
They're probably going to bake a lot of seagulls as well.
This is an idea from the 1960s back when they thought solar panels would be like computer chips and remain super expensive in terms of area but become exponentially better at the amount of sunlight they could convert into electricity.
It makes absolutely zero sense to spend billions of dollars putting solar panels in space and beaming the power back to earth now that they are so cheap per unit area. The one thing you could argue a space based solar array could do would be to stretch out the day length so you need less storage, but that's easier to accomplish using long electrical cables.
Or make more use of renewables. Nuclear has never been cost-efficient, it's just that the costs have been buried in state subsidies to the industry and its supply chain.
Nuclear has never been cost-efficient, it's just that the costs have been buried in state subsidies to the industry and its supply chain.
A lie repeated again and again.
French Cour des Comptes has released a report, back in 2012, the costs of the french nuclear fleet, everything included: 121 billions of euros between 1960 and 2010.
2,4 billions a year. To provide decarbonized and reliable electricity for decades.
To put in perspective, Germany is more than a trillion of euros in for their Energiewende, or about 40 billions of euros a year for ~25 years, and they still have one of the costliest and dirtiest electricity or Europe, while still not being close to stop coal and having no plan to get out of gas.
And for more perspective, EDF had 118 billions of dollars of revenues in 2024, mostly coming from nuclear, and 11 billions of net results, including the payback of the interests of the debt that the french government imposed on EDF.
Anyone claiming nuclear has never been or can’t be profitable or cost-efficient is either uneducated or a liar.
When done right, nuclear is profitable as fuck, that's empirically proved.
That might have been true in the past, but right now renewable energy is by far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear energy. (Just look into the final end user prices they produce)
Energie-Faktenchecks (Stand 13.05.2025) - Im neusten Energie-Update habe ich zum ersten Mal in längerer Zeit das Heizungskapitel aktualisiert mit einer Übersicht bezüglich der Heizungsarten und deren Kosten.
but right now renewable energy is by far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear energy.
No. Building a solar or wind plant is cheaper and faster than building a nuclear plant, sure, but that's not what we're aiming for. The goal is to decarbonize electricity by phasing out fossils.
Replacing all fossil-based electricity production nationwide is quite cheap for nuclear when done right (e.g. France, planning for decades and multiple reactors at once, while actually politically supporting your industry, instead of throwing a project once in a while and letting it fight in courts by itself against NIMBY and anti-nuclears).
Replacing fossils with solar and wind power is science fiction. There is not a single country in the world that has decarbonized its electricity without significant decarbonized and controllable electricity capacities, or to name them: hydro or nuclear. Except that you just can't build hydro anywhere, and most countries' capacities are limited.
You can't claim that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, because solar and wind just can't do what nuclear can, and can at best be complementary to other controllable power sources.
lol, what an insane idea... A physical cable back to Earth is impossible, otherwise we'd already have space elevators. Any other wireless transmission would have all the same weather problems and energy losses, it would be WAY cheaper to just build more solar panels on the ground.
Imgonnatrythis
in reply to Pro • • •Technology reshared this.
Pro
in reply to Imgonnatrythis • • •Echo Dot
in reply to Pro • • •The problem with ABC news in my experience is they assume their audience are familiar with the geopolitical situation in Asia and of course most westerners aren't.
Like the whole toilet paper thing during the pandemic. The way they reported it made it sound like it was a global issue rather than an Australia issue. The situation that arose to create that problem simply doesn't exist in other parts of the world, but because of the way they reported it, they made people think that it was an international problem. Then it actually became an international problem. Now granted, a certain amount of brainlessness has to be considered on the behalf of the people reading this stuff but still, it demonstrates the issue.
ohwhatfollyisman
in reply to Pro • • •like this
clove likes this.
don't like this
Pro doesn't like this.
Technology reshared this.
Pro
in reply to ohwhatfollyisman • • •like this
giantpaper likes this.
underline960
in reply to Pro • • •The report doesn't clearly establish a link between paywalls and a drop in site visits (which I would have liked to see).
One of the un-paywalled sites lost traffic mostly due to changes in the Google algorithm.
Overall, it just seems like a regular update of the website traffic rankings, juiced up by a clickbait headline.
like this
HeerlijkeDrop likes this.
themurphy
in reply to Pro • • •hansolo
in reply to themurphy • • •noobface
in reply to hansolo • • •dan1101
in reply to themurphy • • •ominouslemon
in reply to dan1101 • • •like this
clove likes this.
Echo Dot
in reply to dan1101 • • •slowbyrne
in reply to Pro • • •Microw
in reply to Pro • • •I was confused there for a second but apparently the BBC has introduced a paywall only for US users. Site is still completely free to read anywhere else, which is why I didnt even realize that there is a paywall.
Which of course means that US Americans could simply VPN their way around it..
like this
yessikg likes this.
Zonetrooper
in reply to Microw • • •like this
yessikg likes this.
shalafi
in reply to Microw • • •LemmyThinkAboutThat
in reply to Microw • • •This screenshot is from July 2025 when I got hit with a paywall and was served with a ton of cookies, so I set my VPN to UK, lol.
EDIT: This was around the same time as POTUS hit UK with tariffs.
Echo Dot
in reply to LemmyThinkAboutThat • • •The BBC has been run as a business now and it's absolutely stupid. It was never meant to make a profit that was never really the point. It was supposed to be a public service and a projection of soft power, that seems to have gone out to the window now.
I suspect a lot of the work at the BBC don't actually agree with this, but management don't listen to anyone.
Codpiece
in reply to Pro • • •FarraigePlaisteaċ
in reply to Pro • • •like this
clove e yessikg like this.
melsaskca
in reply to Pro • • •like this
giantpaper likes this.
systemglitch
in reply to melsaskca • • •Pfft, fuck America, they deserve it while they allow a criminal to ruin the country and the world.
100% fuck America.
clove likes this.
datavoid
in reply to Pro • • •like this
clove e giantpaper like this.
reddig33
in reply to datavoid • • •like this
giantpaper likes this.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer
in reply to Pro • • •like this
giantpaper likes this.
Rai
in reply to Pro • • •like this
yessikg likes this.
crocswithsocks
in reply to Pro • • •Rooty
in reply to Pro • • •