The Juno spacecraft was launched towards Jupiter in August of 2011 as part of the New Frontiers series of spacecraft, on what would originally have been a 7-year mission, including a nearly 5 year cruise to the planet. After a mission extension, it’s currently orbiting Jupiter, allowing for many more years of scientific data to be gathered using its instruments. One of these instruments is the JunoCam (JCM), a visible light camera and telescope. Unfortunately the harsh radiation environment around Jupiter had led many to believe that this camera would fail before long. Now it seems that NASA engineers have successfully tested a fix.
Location of the Juno spacecraft’s science instruments.
Although the radiation damage to JCM was obvious a few dozen orbits in – and well past its original mission’s 34 orbits – the big question was exactly was being damaged by the radiation, and whether something could be done to circumvent or fix it. The good news was that the image sensor itself was fine, but one of the voltage regulators in JCM’s power supply was having a bad time. This led the engineers to try annealing the affected part by cranking up one of the JCM’s heaters to a balmy 25°C, well above what it normally is kept at.

This desperate step seemed to work, with massively improved image quality on the following orbits, but soon the images began to degrade again. Before an approach to Jupiter’s moon Io, the engineers thus tried it again but this time cranked the JCM’s heater up to eleven and crossed their fingers. Surprisingly this fixed the issue over the course of a week, until the JCM seems as good as new. Now the engineers are trying their luck with Juno‘s other instruments as well, with it potentially providing a blueprint for extending the life of spacecraft in general.

Thanks to [Mark Stevens] for the tip.

hackaday.com/2025/07/23/anneal…

A recent news report about Secret Service surveillance of former FBI Director James Comey suggests that the Trump administration is abusing its spying powers.

You may remember that the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security launched an investigation into Comey for posting a picture on Instagram during his beach vacation of seashells spelling out “8647.” Conservatives claimed that Comey’s post was a threat to our 47th president, Donald Trump. Never mind that “86” is slang for banning someone or something, not killing them. There’s also that whole First Amendment thing.

Then, The New York Times reported earlier this month that the Secret Service, as part of its investigation, had Comey “followed by law enforcement authorities in unmarked cars and street clothes and tracked the location of his cellphone” as Comey returned home from his vacation, even though he had already submitted to a phone interview and agreed to an in-person interview.

As the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Jake Laperruque pointed out, that kind of surveillance — real-time location tracking based on cellphone data — generally requires court approval. Although the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on whether it requires a warrant, several other courts have held that it does.

There’s an important exception, however, to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Known as exigent circumstances, it allows for warrantless searches in emergencies. Sources told the Times that the Secret Service invoked that exact exception to justify following Comey.

But Reason Magazine does a good job explaining why that rationale is bunk:

“‘A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement’s need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home…engage in ‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect…or enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause,’ the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Missouri v. McNeely (2013).

“None of those factors apply here: Comey was on the move, but he was not ‘fleeing’—he was coming home from vacation. If the Secret Service really thought he warranted further scrutiny, it had plenty of time to get a warrant from a judge.”

At least three federal appeals courts have permitted warrantless tracking of real-time cellphone location in emergencies. In one case, a man with a criminal history broke a window at his former girlfriend’s home with a gun and threatened to kill her, her seven-year-old, and other family members before fleeing. In another, a man running a drug operation murdered a potential informant, leaving police concerned that other informants who had infiltrated the operation were at risk. And in the third case, a gang member previously charged with drug crimes threatened to “shoot up” an informant.

These cases are a far cry from posting a picture of seashells on social media. And even if authorities truly believed Comey intended to threaten Trump, he had no way of carrying out that threat at the time he was tracked, since Trump was in the Middle East.

In other words, in Comey’s case, the Trump administration expanded the exigent circumstances exception beyond recognition. But it isn’t the only recent example of the government abusing its power to spy using cellphone data. A recent investigation by Straight Arrow News also detected evidence of a cellphone tracking device commonly known as a “stingray” at an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protest, despite DHS policy requiring a warrant for its use except in — you guessed it — exigent circumstances.

These reports should raise red flags for everyone concerned about surveillance — including journalists and their sources. We already know that the government has tracked at least some physical movements of journalists in past leak investigations. Cellphone location data tracking allows even more all-encompassing surveillance.

If authorities are willing to claim that Comey’s social media post is an emergency justifying warrantless real-time cellphone location tracking, it’s not hard to imagine that they could make a similar (bogus) claim about a suspected whistleblower or a journalist who reports critically on the administration. It wouldn’t be any more meritless than their claims that journalism is inciting crimes or threatening national security.

Concerningly, there’s very little constraint on the government if it decides to abuse the exigent circumstances exception to make emergency requests to cellphone providers for users’ location information. While courts can suppress evidence obtained through illegal searches, they can’t undo the illegal search itself, and officers and officials who abuse the Fourth Amendment face no personal repercussions.

Cellphone providers also seem unable to detect and refuse bogus emergency requests. The three major cellphone carriers — AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile — receive thousands or tens of thousands of emergency requests every year. While they require a certification of emergency from the government authority making the request, clearly that process isn’t foolproof if something like the Comey “emergency” can slip through the cracks.

That makes public scrutiny of real-time cellphone location tracking and the government’s reliance on the exigent circumstances exception all the more important. The Fourth Estate — and confidential sources like those who spoke to the Times — may be our most powerful remaining check on the surveillance state.

freedom.press/issues/emergency…

When journalist Ben Camacho set out to cover protests in Paramount, California, he did not expect to become a part of the story he was reporting. But that’s what happened after he was shot twice with crowd-control munitions by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies June 7.

“As a reporter of color, there’s this dynamic where I’m out there on the field and I look like the majority of people that are protesting. … There’s this kind of other layer that I feel,” said Camacho, co-founder of The Southlander, during a Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) webinar July 9.

Despite having a press badge and camera around his neck, Camacho was hit in the knee and then in the elbow with “less-lethal” projectiles. The pain sent him into shock, screaming and scrambling for cover. The injuries left him unable to work for a week, with lingering pain in his knee and elbow that continues to affect him a month later.

Camacho shared his story alongside three other journalists during “Reporting under fire: Protests and press freedom in Los Angeles,” an event spotlighting a growing crisis in California’s streets and newsrooms.

youtube.com/embed/DOUI5404rQ0?…

Speakers Adam Rose, press rights chair and secretary of the Los Angeles Press Club, Sean Beckner-Carmitchel, an independent videographer, and Tina-Desiree Berg, a journalist for Status Coup, also spoke on the harassment, violence, and intimidation they faced in their own city while covering LA’s immigration protests.

They emphasized practical steps journalists can take to protect themselves while continuing to cover critical stories. Among the advice shared:

• Wear protective gear. Bring a gas mask and ballistic goggles, and keep your press pass clearly visible. Berg recommended wearing Kevlar leggings beneath pants for added protection.
• Travel with colleagues. Watching out for each other can make all the difference, especially if someone is injured.
• Be aware of your surroundings. Always assess your situation and be prepared to move quickly.
• Document everything. Keep records and collect evidence of any violations or incidents.
• Conduct a mental health check-in. Emotional and psychological impacts from covering trauma should not be overlooked. Camacho shared that he gauges how he’s feeling mentally each day before deciding whether to head out into the field.
• Utilize your resources. There are numerous training and mental health resources available to journalists. The Dart Center at Columbia University runs a Journalist Trauma Support Network. Many organizations, such as the LA Press Club, offer grants for journalists.

These precautions were shared alongside firsthand accounts, showing how deeply the panelists’ advice is rooted in their lived realities.

California has seen dozens of press freedom violations in 2025 alone, including detentions, assaults, and equipment seizures, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

Although Rose was not physically targeted, he provided context from his role at the LA Press Club, highlighting the large number of press freedom violations in LA in the first weeks of June alone.

The incidents ranged from journalists being detained and kettled to more severe outcomes like hospitalization and life-changing injuries.

“We see these agencies acting lawlessly,” Rose said. “They are shooting journalists with ‘less-lethal’ munitions. They’re detaining and even arresting journalists simply for doing their job.”

The violence has unfolded despite legal protections. California’s Senate Bill 98 created Penal Code 409.7, barring California law enforcement from interfering with journalists’ work during protests.

Yet the reality on the ground tells a different story as federal law enforcement has been brought in.

Berg shared her experiences witnessing the protests that erupted in LA starting June 6, sparked by outrage over Immigration and Customs Enforcement detentions of asylum-seekers.

She said the early days of June protests were some of the most intense she’s ever seen, with multiple law enforcement agencies present in force, including the LA Police Department, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Guard.

“This particular issue has drawn people from all walks of life and all age groups in large numbers,” Berg said. “When you have the large numbers, a large number of protesters out there, accompanied by all these various forms of law enforcement, it could be a more risky, dangerous situation.”

She witnessed police deploying tear gas into crowds, escalating tensions. To her, that weekend marked the beginning of a new wave of unrest.

“I knew at that moment that this was the start of something,” Berg said. “These things sort of just were compounded, and that weekend became, you know, what was the whole full-blown start of these protests.”

Beckner-Carmitchel also shared his encounters while covering protests in the LA area. A tear gas canister struck him in the head, exploded, and left him temporarily blinded and with a large hematoma.

Fortunately, he passed concussion protocols, but the potential for permanent injury was high.

Since then, he said he has been hit by plastic rounds and other projectiles at least three times.

“It’s been difficult to report under these conditions, and I’m sure everyone can agree,” Beckner-Carmitchel said.

But these journalists are not just recounting their stories, they’re seeking accountability. The LA Press Club, Status Coup, and Southlander are now joined in various lawsuits against the LAPD, the LA Sheriff’s Department, and the DHS, arguing their First Amendment rights were violated.

The stories shared during the webinar showed a troubling pattern: reporters targeted for simply doing their jobs of documenting the truth. And yet, despite injury, trauma, and intimidation, they continue to report.

“I get motivated when I’m told not to do something,” Beckner-Carmitchel said. “That’s why I became a journalist in the first place.”

Watch the whole event here.

This article was originally published by the National Press Club Journalism Institute here and is republished with permission.

freedom.press/issues/pressing-…

La domanda "Cosa c’è in tavola?", posta dall'Ufficio dell'Unione europea per la proprietà intellettuale (#EUIPO) in occasione della Giornata mondiale contro la contraffazione nel giugno scorso, accende un faro su una delle emergenze più subdole e dannose del nostro tempo: la contraffazione alimentare.

Lungi dall'essere un problema marginale o confinato ai beni di lusso, il fenomeno colpisce quotidianamente le tavole dei consumatori, minando la salute pubblica, dilapidando le economie nazionali e internazionali e intaccando la reputazione delle eccellenze agroalimentari, in particolare quelle a Indicazione Geografica. L'allarme lanciato dall'EUIPO, supportato da dati concreti e dalle operazioni condotte dalle forze dell'ordine a livello internazionale, rivela la portata di una criminalità organizzata che richiede una risposta sistemica e coordinata.

L'Entità del Fenomeno e l'Impatto Economico

La contraffazione di alimenti e bevande si manifesta come un'emergenza silenziosa, ma dagli effetti devastanti. Solo in Italia, il comparto dei vini e degli alcolici ha registrato perdite per 302 milioni di euro a causa di questa piaga, secondo le stime dell'EUIPO.

A livello europeo, l'impatto economico è ancora più drammatico: tra il 2013 e il 2017, il settore europeo del vino e degli alcolici ha subito una perdita complessiva di 2,3 miliardi di euro all'anno, con quasi 5.700 posti di lavoro perduti. Le perdite fiscali per gli Stati membri superano i 2 miliardi di euro annuali. Il fenomeno non risparmia neppure prodotti quotidiani come biscotti, pasta e dolciumi, che, secondo la valutazione 2022 della minaccia dei reati contro la proprietà intellettuale, sono stati la seconda categoria più sequestrata alle frontiere esterne dell'UE nel 2020. La Cina e la Turchia emergono come i principali Paesi di origine di questi prodotti contraffatti.

I Pericoli per la Salute Pubblica

Ben oltre il danno economico, la contraffazione alimentare cela un rischio ben più grave: quello per la salute pubblica. Dalle indagini e dai sequestri, è emerso che alcuni prodotti fraudolenti contengono sostanze altamente pericolose. La relazione SOCTA 2021 di Europol ha evidenziato la presenza di metanolo, mercurio, fipronil e vari pesticidi in alimenti e bevande contraffatti. Questi contaminanti, spesso utilizzati per ridurre i costi di produzione o alterare le caratteristiche del prodotto, rappresentano una minaccia diretta e gravissima per i consumatori, che inconsapevolmente introducono nel proprio organismo elementi tossici e nocivi. La sofisticazione dei metodi criminali, che includono la manipolazione di etichette e imballaggi o il riutilizzo di bottiglie originali, rende ancora più difficile per il consumatore medio distinguere il prodotto autentico da quello fraudolento.

Le Indicazioni Geografiche e la Loro Vulnerabilità

Il sistema delle Indicazioni Geografiche (IG), che include DOP, IGP e STG, rappresenta un baluardo di qualità, autenticità e valore territoriale per l'Europa, con oltre 3.600 prodotti registrati. Paesi come Francia, Italia e Germania sono leader in questo settore. Tuttavia, proprio la loro reputazione e il loro successo li rendono bersagli privilegiati per la contraffazione. Il vino, che da solo costituisce oltre il 50% del consumo totale di prodotti IG nell'UE, è particolarmente esposto a frodi e imitazioni. La contraffazione delle IG non solo danneggia i produttori legittimi e l'economia locale, ma compromette anche la fiducia dei consumatori in un sistema nato per garantire eccellenza e tracciabilità.

La Risposta delle Forze dell'Ordine in ambito Internazionale

La crescente portata e sofisticazione del fenomeno impongono una risposta robusta e coordinata a livello internazionale. L'EUIPO collabora attivamente con le forze di polizia e le istituzioni europee per rafforzare i controlli e smantellare le reti criminali. L'evoluzione del commercio elettronico, che ha offerto ai contraffattori nuove vie di distribuzione, ha reso ancora più impellente la collaborazione trasnazionale. Un esempio lampante di questa sinergia è l'operazione congiunta Europol-Interpol #OPSON 2024.

Questa operazione, specificamente mirata alla contraffazione alimentare, ha portato a risultati impressionanti: il sequestro di 22.000 tonnellate di alimenti e 850.000 litri di bevande contraffatte, per un valore commerciale stimato in 91 milioni di euro. L'operazione ha inoltre permesso di smantellare undici reti criminali e di segnalare 278 persone all'autorità giudiziaria. Questi successi dimostrano che la lotta alla contraffazione alimentare è intrinsecamente legata alla lotta contro la criminalità organizzata, poiché i proventi di queste attività illecite spesso finanziano altri reati gravi come il traffico di droga, il riciclaggio e persino il terrorismo.

Il Ruolo del Consumatore e la Prevenzione

La campagna "Cosa c’è in tavola?" dell'EUIPO, oltre a sensibilizzare, offre consigli pratici ai consumatori per proteggersi:

• È fondamentale acquistare prodotti solo da rivenditori e canali di distribuzione ufficiali, inclusi i siti web dei marchi.
• I consumatori dovrebbero verificare attentamente l'etichettatura del prodotto, la sua origine e la presenza dei loghi di certificazione IG (DOP, IGP, STG). La presenza di errori di stampa, confezioni difettose o altri segni sospetti deve far scattare un campanello d'allarme.
• L'utilizzo di strumenti di autenticazione, come QR code o ologrammi, può ulteriormente aiutare a garantire l'autenticità.

La contraffazione alimentare è una minaccia complessa e multifaccettata che incide profondamente sulla salute dei cittadini, sull'economia e sul patrimonio culturale e produttivo europeo. La sua natura criminale, spesso legata a reti organizzate transnazionali, richiede una risposta integrata che veda le autorità, le forze di polizia, i produttori e i consumatori agire in sinergia. Le operazioni di successo come OPSON 2024 e le campagne di sensibilizzazione come quella dell'EUIPO dimostrano che, pur essendo una "battaglia che dobbiamo combattere insieme", la costante vigilanza e la cooperazione internazionale sono gli strumenti essenziali per proteggere la nostra tavola e garantire la sicurezza e l'autenticità dei prodotti alimentari che consumiamo.

Giornalista perugina, affetta da sclerosi multipla, è stata protagonista della campagna Eutanasia Legale

Si tratta della nona persona in Italia – la prima in Umbria – ad aver ottenuto il via libera al suicidio assistito. Mercoledì 23 luglio, alle ore 17:30, ci sarà un commiato civile presso la Casa Funeraria I.F.A. Passeri in via Gaetano Donizetti 115/A a Perugia

La vita è degna di essere vissuta, ma dobbiamo essere noi a decidere quando (Laura Santi)

Laura Santi, 50enne perugina, è morta a casa sua, a Perugia lunedì 21 luglio, a seguito della auto-somministrazione di un farmaco letale. Accanto a lei, suo marito Stefano, che le è sempre stato vicino anche negli ultimi anni di battaglia sul fine vita. Dopo anni di progressione di malattia e dopo l’ultimo anno di peggioramento feroce delle sue condizioni, le sue sofferenze erano diventate per lei intollerabili.

Affetta da una forma progressiva e avanzata di sclerosi multipla, la giornalista aveva avuto il via libera dalla sua ASL di riferimento il mese scorso dopo due anni e mezzo dalla sua richiesta per l’accesso al suicidio assistito e un lungo percorso giudiziario. Il farmaco e la strumentazione necessaria sono stati forniti dall’azienda sanitaria, mentre il personale medico e infermieristico che l’ha assistita nella procedura è stato attivato su base volontaria.

“La vita è degna di essere vissuta, se uno lo vuole, anche fino a 100 anni e nelle condizioni più feroci, ma dobbiamo essere noi che viviamo questa sofferenza estrema a decidere e nessun altro”, queste le parole di Laura Santi, affidate all’Associazione Luca Coscioni, di cui è stata attivista e consigliera generale.

“Io sto per morire. Non potete capire che senso di libertà dalle sofferenze, dall’inferno quotidiano che ormai sto vivendo. O forse lo potete capire. State tranquilli per me. Io mi porto di là sorrisi, credo che sia così. Mi porto di là un sacco di bellezza che mi avete regalato. E vi prego: ricordatemi. Sì, questo ve lo chiedo, ricordatemi. E nel ricordarmi non vi stancate mai di combattere. Vi prego, non vi rassegnate mai. Lo so, lo so che lo fate già, però non vi rassegnate mai. Non vi stancate mai, anche quando le battaglie sembrano veramente invincibili”.

Laura Santi ha dovuto affrontare un lungo e complesso iter giudiziario, civile e penale, per vedere riconosciuto il diritto ad accedere al suicidio medicalmente assistito.

Dopo tre anni dalla richiesta iniziale alla ASL, due denunce, due diffide, un ricorso d’urgenza e un reclamo nei confronti dell’azienda sanitaria, solo nel novembre 2024 ha ottenuto una relazione medica completa che attestava il possesso dei requisiti stabiliti dalla sentenza 242\2019 della Corte costituzionale e a giugno 2025 la conferma dal collegio medico di esperti e poi del comitato etico sul protocollo farmacologico e delle modalità di assunzione.

La lettera di saluto di Laura

L'articolo Laura Santi è morta proviene da Associazione Luca Coscioni.