We’ve all been there. You’ve found a beautiful piece of older hardware at the thrift store, and bought it for a song. You rush it home, eager to tinker, but you soon find it’s just not working. You open it up to attempt a repair, but you could really use some information on what you’re looking at and how to enter service mode. Only… a Google search turns up nothing but dodgy websites offering blurry PDFs for entirely the wrong model, and you’re out of luck.

These days, when you buy an appliance, the best documentation you can expect is a Quick Start guide and a warranty card you’ll never use. Manufacturers simply don’t want to give you real information, because they think the average consumer will get scared and confused. I think they can do better. I’m demanding a new two-tier documentation system—the basics for the normies, and real manuals for the tech heads out there.

Give Us The Goods

Once upon a time, appliances came with real manuals and real documentation. You could buy a radio that came with a full list of valves that were used inside, while telephones used to come with printed circuit diagrams right inside the case. But then the world changed, and a new phrase became a common sight on consumer goods—”NO USER SERVICABLE PARTS INSIDE.” No more was the end user considered qualified or able to peek within the case of the hardware they’d bought. They were fools who could barely be trusted to turn the thing on and work it properly, let alone intervene in the event something needed attention.

This attitude has only grown over the years. As our devices have become ever more complex, the documentation delivered with them has shrunk to almost non-existent proportions. Where a Sony television manual from the 1980s contained a complete schematic of the whole set, a modern smartphone might only include a QR code linking to basic setup instructions on a website online. It’s all part of an effort by companies to protect the consumer from themselves, because they surely can’t be trusted with the arcane knowledge of what goes on inside a modern device.

This Sony tv manual from 1985 contained the complete electrical schematics for the set.
byu/a_seventh_knot inmildlyinteresting

This sort of intensely technical documentation was the norm just a few decades ago.
Some vintage appliances used to actually have the schematic printed inside the case for easy servicing. Credit: British Post Office
It’s understandable, to a degree. When a non-technical person buys a television, they really just need to know how to plug it in and hook it up to an aerial. With the ongoing decline in literacy rates, it’s perhaps a smart move by companies to not include any further information than that. Long words and technical information would just make it harder for these customers to figure out how to use the TV in the first place, and they might instead choose a brand that offers simpler documentation.

This doesn’t feel fair for the power user set. There are many of us who want to know how to change our television’s color mode, how to tinker with the motion smoothing settings, and how to enter deeper service modes when something seems awry. And yet, that information is kept from us quite intentionally. Often, it’s only accessible in service manuals that are only made available through obscure channels to selected people authorised by OEMs.

Two Tiers, Please

Finding old service manuals can be a crapshoot, but sometimes you get lucky with popular models. Credit: Google via screenshot
I don’t think it has to be this way. I think it’s perfectly fine for manufacturers to include simple, easy-to-follow instructions with consumer goods. However, I don’t think that should preclude them from also offering detailed technical manuals for those users that want and need them. I think, in fact, that these should be readily available as a matter of course.

Call it a “superuser manual,” and have it only available via a QR code in the back of the basic, regular documentation. Call it an “Advanced Technical Supplement” or a “Calibration And Maintenance Appendix.” Whatever jargon scares off the normies so they don’t accidentally come across it and then complain to tech support that they don’t know why their user interface is now only displaying garbled arcane runes. It can be a little hard to find, but at the end of the day, it should be a simple PDF that can be downloaded without a lot of hurdles or paywalls.

I’m not expecting manufacturers to go back to giving us full schematics for everything. It would be nice, but realistically it’s probably overkill. You can just imagine what that would like for a modern smartphone or even just a garden variety automobile in 2025. However, I think it’s pretty reasonable to expect something better than the bare basics of how to interact with the software and such. The techier manuals should, at a minimum, indicate how to do things like execute a full reset, enter any service modes, and indicate how the device is to be safely assembled and disassembled should one wish to execute repairs.

Of course, this won’t help those of us repairing older gear from the 90s and beyond. If you want to fix that old S-VHS camcorder from 1995, you’re still going to have to go to some weird website and risk your credit card details over a $30 charge for a service manual that might cover your problem. But it would be a great help for any new gear moving forward. Forums died years ago, so we can no longer Google for a post from some old retired tech who remembers the secret key combination to enter the service menu. We need that stuff hosted on manufacturer websites so we can get it in five minutes instead of five hours of strenuous research.

Will any manufacturers actually listen to this demand? Probably, no. This sort of change needs to happen at a higher level. Perhaps the right to repair movement and some boisterous EU legislation could make it happen. After all, there is an increasing clamour for users to have more rights over the hardware and appliances they pay for. If and when it happens, I will be cheering when the first manuals for techies become available. Heaven knows we deserve them!

hackaday.com/2025/12/02/give-u…

Connected devices are ubiquitous in our era of wireless chips heavily relying on streaming data to someone else’s servers. This sentence might already start to sound dodgy, and it doesn’t get better when you think about today’s smart glasses, like the ones built by Meta (aka Facebook).

[sh4d0wm45k] doesn’t shy away from fighting fire with fire, and shows you how to build a wireless device detecting Meta’s smart glasses – or any other company’s Bluetooth devices, really, as long as you can match them by the beginning of the Bluetooth MAC address.

[sh4d0wm45k]’s device is a mini light-up sign saying “GLASSHOLE”, that turns bright white as soon as a pair of Meta glasses is detected in the vicinity. Under the hood, a commonly found ESP32 devboard suffices for the task, coupled to two lines of white LEDs on a custom PCB. The code is super simple, sifting through packets flying through the air, and lets you easily contribute with your own OUIs (Organizationally Unique Identifier, first three bytes of a MAC address). It wouldn’t be hard to add such a feature to any device of your own with Arduino code under its hood, or to rewrite it to fit a platform of your choice.

We’ve been talking about smart glasses ever since Google Glass, but recently, with Meta’s offerings, the smart glasses debate has reignited. Due to inherent anti-social aspects of the technology, we can see what’d motivate one to build such a hack. Perhaps, the next thing we’ll see is some sort of spoofed packets shutting off the glasses, making them temporarily inoperable in your presence in a similar way we’ve seen with spamming proximity pairing packets onto iPhones.

hackaday.com/2025/12/02/build-…

Le autorità olandesi hanno pubblicato i dati che dimostrano come il coinvolgimento degli adolescenti nella criminalità digitale sia solitamente temporaneo. Un’analisi preparata dalla Camera dei Rappresentanti indica che l’interesse precoce per l’hacking spesso svanisce entro i 20 anni, e solo pochi mantengono un interesse duraturo.

Il rapporto sottolinea che gli adolescenti iniziano a commettere vari tipi di reati più o meno alla stessa età. I reati informatici non sono più comuni dei reati legati alle armi o alla droga, e significativamente meno comuni dei reati contro la proprietà. Inoltre, il percorso verso i primi tentativi passa in genere attraverso simulazioni di gioco che consentono loro di sviluppare competenze tecniche.

Secondo i dati raccolti nel corso degli anni, il picco di attività criminale tra i giovani criminali si è verificato tra i diciassette e i vent’anni. Questa tendenza è coerente con altre tipologie di reato. In uno studio condotto nel 2013 su un campione di diverse centinaia di giovani delinquenti, la maggior parte dei partecipanti ha cessato tale attività poco dopo aver raggiunto il picco.

I ricercatori stimano che la percentuale di coloro che continuano a commettere crimini digitali dopo i vent’anni sia pari a circa il quattro percento. La ricercatrice Alice Hutchings ha osservato già nel 2016 che il coinvolgimento a lungo termine deriva da un interesse costante per la tecnologia e dal desiderio di sviluppare competenze, piuttosto che da incentivi esterni.

Gli autori dell’analisi governativa sottolineano che la maggior parte degli studi sta diventando obsoleta a causa dei rapidi cambiamenti nell’ambiente digitale. A titolo di confronto, citano i dati sui costi sociali totali della criminalità minorile, pari a circa 10,3 miliardi di euro all’anno. La maggior parte dell’onere ricade sulle vittime, mentre la parte restante ricade sui servizi pubblici, tra cui la polizia e il sistema giudiziario.

I costi annuali precisi della criminalità digitale sono difficili da stimare a causa della mancanza di dati a lungo termine. Tuttavia, i dati indiretti ci permettono di stimare l’entità del problema. Ad esempio, uno studio commissionato dal governo del Regno Unito ha rilevato che i danni annuali causati da tre attacchi a un importante ospedale potrebbero superare gli 11 milioni di sterline. Questi importi sono paragonabili o superiori ai costi di molte categorie di criminalità nei Paesi Bassi.

In precedenza, le agenzie governative del Paese hanno ripetutamente sottolineato la difficoltà di quantificare l’impatto degli attacchi digitali. Ad esempio, un rapporto preparato da Deloitte per il governo olandese nel 2016 stimava le perdite annuali per le organizzazioni derivanti da incidenti informatici in circa 10 miliardi di euro, una cifra paragonabile al costo totale della delinquenza minorile.

L'articolo La maggior parte degli adolescenti abbandona la criminalità digitale entro i 20 anni proviene da Red Hot Cyber.

I proprietari di Porsche in Russia riscontrano sempre più problemi con gli allarmi da parte della fabbrica, rendendo impossibile l’utilizzo delle loro auto. Le loro auto non si avviano, si bloccano subito dopo l’avviamento o visualizzano errori relativi al motore. I responsabili della concessionaria Rolf hanno dichiarato a RBC di aver notato un aumento delle chiamate di assistenza dal 28 novembre a causa del blocco degli allarmi via satellite.

Secondo la responsabile del servizio clienti dell’azienda, Yulia Trushkova, attualmente non esiste alcuna correlazione tra i modelli e i tipi di motori e, in teoria, qualsiasi veicolo può essere immobilizzato.

Attualmente, l’immobilizzazione può essere aggirata resettando l’unità di allarme di fabbrica e smontandola. La causa del malfunzionamento non è ancora stata determinata, ma l’azienda osserva che è possibile che sia stata eseguita intenzionalmente. Situazioni simili, secondo Rolf, si sono verificate anche tra i proprietari di Mercedes-Benz, ma tali incidenti sono molto più rari.

In precedenza, il canale Telegram SHOT aveva riferito che centinaia di Porsche in tutta la Russia erano state dichiarate “illegali” a causa di un malfunzionamento del sistema di allarme di fabbrica, attribuito a problemi di comunicazione. I conducenti di Mosca, Krasnodar e altre città hanno segnalato problemi. Alcuni proprietari hanno riferito di aver temporaneamente bypassato il sistema scollegando la batteria per circa dieci ore per consentire al sistema di allarme di scaricarsi e riavviarsi.

Secondo la rivista Avto.ru, i proprietari di modelli Cayenne, Macan e Panamera si sono rivolti principalmente ai centri di assistenza per reclami simili. I reclami relativi a motori che si spengono e blocchi del motore si verificano da anni, ma sono diventati diffusi quest’autunno. Secondo i dati preliminari, il problema è prevalente nei veicoli prodotti prima del 2020 e dotati del vecchio sistema di localizzazione GSM/GPS VTS (Vehicle Tracking System). Il canale Telegram “Porsche Club Russia” cita come causa principale un malfunzionamento del modulo satellitare, con limitazioni e blocchi della comunicazione. I conducenti sottolineano che scollegare la batteria è visto come una soluzione temporanea, che consente loro di raggiungere un centro di assistenza.

Gli allarmi satellitari di questi veicoli si basano su sistemi di navigazione e sono progettati per migliorare la sicurezza e monitorare le condizioni del veicolo, anche in caso di tentativi di furto o fattori esterni. Se il veicolo è bloccato, il sistema antifurto può impedire l’avviamento del motore, del motorino di avviamento o dell’accensione, nonché interrompere l’alimentazione del carburante e attivare le spie luminose del veicolo in modalità anomala.

La casa automobilistica tedesca Porsche AG ha cessato le consegne ufficiali di auto in Russia nel 2022, citando “la grande incertezza e gli attuali sconvolgimenti”. Tuttavia, l’azienda gestisce ancora tre filiali russe: Porsche Russia, Porsche Center Moscow e PFS Russia.

I tentativi di vendere queste attività si sono finora rivelati infruttuosi. Autonews aveva precedentemente riportato, citando la sede centrale dell’azienda, che il Gruppo Volkswagen, che include Porsche, ha annullato i suoi obblighi di fornire assistenza post-vendita e ricambi per i veicoli precedentemente venduti in Russia.

L'articolo Le Porsche in Russia non si avviano più! Un presunto bug non fa partire il motore proviene da Red Hot Cyber.

Le forze dell’ordine in Svizzera e Germania hanno segnalato lo smantellamento di Cryptomixer, un importante servizio di mixing attivo dal 2016 che aiutava i criminali a riciclare fondi ottenuti illecitamente. Secondo l’Europol, negli ultimi anni il servizio ha elaborato oltre 1,3 miliardi di euro in Bitcoin (circa 1,5 miliardi di dollari).

L’Operazione Olympia ha avuto luogo a Zurigo a fine novembre. Durante i raid, durati dal 24 al 28 novembre, le forze dell’ordine, con il supporto di Europol ed Eurojust, hanno sequestrato tre server contenenti oltre 12 terabyte di dati, bloccato domini sulla rete Internet tradizionale e sulla rete Tor e confiscato Bitcoin per un valore di 24 milioni di euro (circa 29 milioni di dollari). Nessun arresto è stato segnalato nei comunicati stampa ufficiali.

“Cryptomixer era un servizio di mixing ibrido che operava simultaneamente su internet e sul darknet. Facilitava l’occultamento di proventi illeciti per gruppi estorsivi, forum ombra e mercati darknet. Il suo software bloccava il tracciamento dei fondi sulla blockchain, rendendo la piattaforma una delle preferite dai criminali informatici che cercavano di riciclare proventi illeciti provenienti da varie attività criminali (tra cui traffico di droga, traffico di armi, attacchi ransomware e frodi con carte di pagamento)”, riferiscono i rappresentanti dell’Europol.

Le autorità sottolineano che tali servizi garantiscono ai criminali l’anonimato in una fase critica, ovvero quando devono convertire i beni rubati in moneta fiat o altre criptovalute. Sebbene tali piattaforme possano teoricamente avere applicazioni legali, nella pratica i loro principali utenti rimangono gruppi criminali che cercano di eludere l’identificazione e l’arresto.

Vale la pena notare che questa non è la prima grande operazione delle forze dell’ordine contro i mixer di criptovalute.

Ad esempio, a del marzo 2023, l’Europol ha coordinato un’operazione simile contro ChipMixer, uno dei più grandi servizi di mixing di criptovalute sul darknet. La polizia tedesca e l’FBI sequestrarono quattro server, 7 TB di dati e 46,5 milioni di dollari in Bitcoin.

Ricordiamo inoltre che alla fine di novembre i fondatori del mixer di criptovalute Samourai sono stati condannati al carcere negli Stati Uniti, colpevoli di riciclaggio di oltre 237 milioni di dollari.

La chiusura di Cryptomixer rappresenta un altro duro colpo per l’ecosistema criminale delle criptovalute e dimostra che la comunità internazionale delle forze dell’ordine sta combattendo sempre più contro gli strumenti che consentono ai criminali di nascondere le loro attività illegali nello spazio digitale.

L'articolo Smantellato Cryptomixer, il servizio di mixing che aiutava i criminali a riciclare Bitcoin proviene da Red Hot Cyber.

Michigan’s Grand Blanc Township thinks it has discovered a trick to weasel out of accountability: charging a reporter more for government records than most people earn in two years.

Independent journalist Anna Matson filed two requests for records about the township’s fire chief, Jamie Jent, being placed on administrative leave. That decision — later lifted after outcry from residents and firefighters — reportedly came after he raised concerns about staffing issues following the tragic September shooting at the township’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The government told her she’d have to pay a combined $164,000 in labor costs ($100,000 for her first request and $64,000 for a second) for finding and reviewing the records in order for them to respond to the request. That’s ridiculous. Michigan’s legislature should act to ensure that other local governments don’t get any ideas.

There’s nothing unusually burdensome about Matson’s requests. If the township’s recordkeeping is so shoddy and its search capabilities so lacking that it costs six figures’ worth of employee time to find some emails and documents, that’s the township’s problem, not Matson’s. If anything, it begs another Freedom of Information Act request to figure out how the township reached that level of incompetence, and what officials are spending money on instead of basic software.

The township doubled down on evasiveness when Matson showed up to a board meeting last week to contest the fees, and it made nonsensical excuses to enter into closed session so that it could discuss its secrecy in secret.

Maybe the township thinks the fees will discourage the press from trying to hold it accountable. More likely, it will do the opposite: inspire reporters to keep digging. Intrepid journalists see obvious obstruction tactics like these and think, “I must be on to something.” We’re confident Matson will eventually uncover whatever the township doesn’t want her and her readers to see.

Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, like the federal FOIA and state public records laws across the country, was intended to let everyone — not just rich people — find out what their government is up to and how their money is being spent.

The law allows agencies to charge reasonable fees — copying costs, mailing expenses, and limited labor charges calculated at the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee capable of doing the work. Agencies aren’t permitted to charge for the first two hours of labor, and they can only charge for search and review time if not doing so would result in “unreasonably high costs.”

Officials are taking advantage of the media’s weak financial position to hold accountability for ransom.

We’re not fans of charging any labor costs for FOIAs. Tax dollars already pay for agencies to maintain public records. Allowing the public to access them is a basic government function. But putting that aside, how does finding records about one employee during a limited time frame — which was all her first request sought — cost six figures? The $64,000 price tag for the second request for departmental records is equally absurd and also shows the arbitrariness of the whole thing — how does the broader request cost less than the narrower one?

This obstruction tactic is hardly a local innovation. Last year, Nebraska’s legislature had to step in after the state’s Department of Environment and Energy tried charging the Flatwater Free Press more than $44,000 to review environmental records. It claimed figuring out what exemptions to the public’s records law applied would be time-consuming — essentially making the press pay for their time figuring out legal arguments to not give it the records it wanted.

The Trump administration — which has attempted to close FOIA offices and fired officials who released embarrassing information pursuant to FOIAs — recently demanded journalist Brian Karem pay a $50,000 bond just to expedite a lawsuit for documents about the classified records Trump took to Mar-a-Lago. It’s far from the first instance of fee bullying by the federal government, regardless of who is president.

Trump, of course, claims he did nothing wrong by taking those documents, but doesn’t want to let the public be the judge. The situation in Grand Blanc Township is similar — the same government that may have punished a fire chief for speaking up about public safety wants to punish a journalist for asking questions about it. It’s secrecy stacked on secrecy.

It’s no coincidence that so many of these overcharging cases involve requests by independent journalists or small local outlets. The government knows the news industry is struggling economically. That’s no secret. Officials are taking advantage of the media’s weak financial position to hold accountability for ransom. If they get their way, transparency will become a luxury only affordable to major media outlets that are unlikely to have much interest in public records from Grand Blanc Township in the first place.

The township needs to rescind its invoice, apologize to Matson, and get her the records she’s entitled to right away. Beyond that, state legislators need to put politics aside and follow Nebraska’s example by narrowing what the government can charge the public for its own records and making those limits unambiguous (and of course, they should also remove absurd provisions exempting the governor and legislature from transparency).

And if agencies have the nerve to defend these shakedowns in court, judges should hold government lawyers accountable for whatever frivolous legal arguments they concoct to justify charging well over the cost of a house in Detroit for basic transparency.

freedom.press/issues/censorshi…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The White House has launched a media bias tracker to catalog instances of supposedly distorted coverage by the press. Predictably, the site is long on hyperbole and short on substance.

The following statement can be attributed to Seth Stern, director of advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF):

“If Trump thinks the media is getting stories wrong or being unfair to him, he should release the public records, correspondence, and legal memoranda that prove it, instead of wasting time and taxpayer money on silly websites.

“He’s got more power than anyone to correct the record with documented facts and has countless platforms on which to do so. Instead, he calls reporters ‘piggy’ and posts empty rants that don’t refute anything, while doing everything in his power to hinder Americans’ access to public records containing verifiable facts.

“Trump’s anti-speech antics are highly unpopular, and I doubt many people take his ramblings about ‘fake news’ seriously at this point. He has made it extremely clear that his beef is not with media bias but with journalists not flattering him and regurgitating his lies. It’s a safe bet that his bias tracker will not have anything to say about the influencers and propagandists he favors over serious journalists.

“People understand the obvious conflict inherent in an image-obsessed presidential administration appointing itself the arbiter of media bias. I expect that after the initial wave of publicity, few Americans will be paying attention to this latest stunt, let alone consulting it when deciding what news to consume. The gimmick is wearing thin.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/white-hou…

404 Media

2025-08-13 21:53:37

Trump Administration Outlines Plan to Throw Out an Agency's FOIA Requests En Masse

The Department of Energy (DOE) said in a public notice scheduled to be published Thursday that it will throw out all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests sent to the agency before October 1, 2024 unless the requester proactively emails the agency to tell it they are still interested in the documents they requested. This will result in the improper closure of likely thousands of FOIA requests if not more; government transparency experts told 404 Media that the move is “insane,” “ludicrous,” a “Pandora’s Box,” and “an underhanded attempt to close out as many FOIA requests as possible.”

The DOE notice says “requesters who submitted a FOIA request to DOE HQ at any time prior to October 1, 2024 (FY25), that is still open and is not under active litigation with DOE (or another Federal agency) shall email StillInterestedFOIA@hq.doe.gov to continue processing of the FOIA request […] If DOE HQ does not receive a response from requesters within the 30-day time-period with a DOE control number, no further action will be taken on the open FOIA request(s), and the file may be administratively closed.” A note at the top of the notice says it is scheduled to be formally published in the Federal Register on Thursday.

The agency will send out what are known as “still interested” letters, which federal agencies have used over the years to see if a requester wants to withdraw their request after a certain period of inactivity. These types of letters are controversial and perhaps not legal, and previous administrations have said that they should be used rarely and that requests should only be closed after an agency made multiple attempts to contact a requester over multiple methods of communication. What the DOE is doing now is sending these letters to submitters of all requests prior to October 1, 2024, which is not really that long ago; it also said it will close the requests of people who do not respond in a specific way to a specific email address.

FOIA requests—especially complicated ones—can often take months or years to process. I have outstanding FOIA requests with numerous federal agencies that I filed years ago, and am still interested in getting back, and I have gotten useful documents from federal agencies after years of waiting. The notion that large numbers of people who filed FOIA requests as recently as September 2024, which is less than a year ago, are suddenly uninterested in getting the documents they requested is absurd and should be seen as an attack on public transparency, experts told 404 Media. The DOE’s own reports show that it often does not respond to FOIA requests within a year, and, of course, a backlog exists in part because agencies are not terribly responsive to FOIA.

“If a requester proactively reaches out and says I am withdrawing my request, then no problem, they don’t have to process it,” Adam Marshall, senior staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told me. “The agency can’t say we’ve decided we’ve gotten a lot of requests and we don’t want to do them so we’re throwing them out.”

“I was pretty shocked when I saw this to be honest,” Marshall added. “I’ve never seen anything like this in 10 years of doing FOIA work, and it’s egregious for a few reasons. I don’t think agencies have the authority to close a FOIA request if they don’t get a response to a ‘still interested’ letter. The statute doesn’t provide for that authority, and the amount of time the agency is giving people to respond—30 days—it sounds like a long time but if you happen to miss that email or aren’t digging through your backlogs, it’s not a lot of time. The notion that FOIA requesters should keep an eye out in the Federal Register for this kind of notice is ludicrous.”

The DOE notice essentially claims that the agency believes it gets too many FOIA requests and doesn’t feel like answering them. “DOE’s incoming FOIA requests have more than tripled in the past four years, with over 4,000 requests received in FY24, and an expected 5,000 or more requests in FY25. DOE has limited resources to process the burgeoning number of FOIA requests,” the notice says. “Therefore, DOE is undertaking this endeavor as an attempt to free up government resources to better serve the American people and focus its efforts on more efficiently connecting the citizenry with the work of its government.”

Lauren Harper of the Freedom of the Press Foundation told me in an email that she also has not seen any sort of precedent for this and that “it is an underhanded attempt to close out as many FOIA requests as possible, because who in their right mind checks the federal register regularly, and it should be challenged in court. (On that note, I am filing a FOIA request about this proposal.)”

“The use of still interested letters isn't explicitly allowed in the FOIA statute at all, and, as far as I know, there is absolutely zero case law that would support the department sending a mass ‘still interested’ letter via the federal register,” she added. “That they are also sending emails is not a saving grace; these types of letters are supposed to be used sparingly—not as a flagrant attempt to reduce their backlog by any means necessary. I also worry it will open a Pandora's Box—if other agencies see this, some are sure to follow.”

Marshall said that FOIA response times have been getting worse for years across multiple administrations (which has also been my experience). The Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have cut a large number of jobs in many agencies across the government, which may have further degraded response times. But until this, there hadn’t been major proactive attempts taken by the self-defined “most transparent administration in history” to destroy FOIA.

“This is of a different nature than what we have seen so far, this affirmative, large-scale effort to purport to cancel a large number of pending FOIA requests,” Marshall said.

Limitations on Use of “Still-Interested” Inquiries

^{www.justice.gov}

Alice Ceresa, tradotta e traduttrice
a cura di Tania Collani, Tatiana Crivelli
edu.sefeditrice.it/catalogo/al…
Società Editrice Fiorentina

il pdf del libro è liberamente scaricabile

Alice Ceresa, tradotta e traduttrice

Questo volume indaga per la prima volta la dimensione plurilingue e transnazionale dell’opera di Alice Ceresa (1923-2001), una delle voci più originali della letteratura in lingua italiana del Novecento.

^{edu.sefeditrice.it}

Giovedì 4 dicembre, h. 12:30, “Oggettistica”_
Incontro in collegamento con l’Università di Perugia

info:
slowforward.net/2025/12/01/4-d…

per assistere in diretta:
https://t.ly/0jBvh

slowforward

2025-12-01 08:31:46

4 dicembre, “oggettistica”: incontro in collegamento con l’università di perugia

grazie a Fabrizio Scrivano per questo invito

cliccare per ingrandire

link per assistere: t.ly/0jBvh

#dipartimentoDiLettere #fabrizioScrivano #letteratura #mg #oggetti #oggettiLetterari #oggettistica #oggettivita #teoriaDellaLetteratura #tic #ticEdizioni #universitaDegliStudiDiPerugia #universitaDiPerugia

qr.ae/pC5s1X

non capisco una cosa, ma anche per i più scettici, se putin dice di aver conquistato la città per 4 volte, non è la dimostrazione che o le 3 volte prima erano false, o l'ha persa già 3 volte e quindi una quarta conquista suona nel migliore dei casi "molto temporanea"? a casa mia a uno che racconta balle puoi credere giusto la prima volta... siamo così coglioni che raccontano N volte una balla e ogni volta ci ricaschiamo? tipo i no vax... a sentire loro chi si vaccinava doveva morire in 1 anno massimo. direi che è evidente che non è successo. ci potevi credere all'inizio ma adesso è palese che era una cazzata, no? a casa mia mi freghi la prima volta ma non le successive... si chiama imparare dall'esperienza.