Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Atari Online News, Etc. Volume 17 Issue 21
Volume 17, Issue 21 Atari Online News, Etc. June 5, 2015
Published and Copyright (c) 1999 - 2015
All Rights Reserved
Atari Online News, Etc.
A-ONE Online Magazine
Dana P. Jacobson, Publisher/Managing Editor
Joseph Mirando, Managing Editor
Rob Mahlert, Associate Editor
Atari Online News, Etc. Staff
Dana P. Jacobson -- Editor
Joe Mirando -- "People Are Talking"
Michael Burkley -- "Unabashed Atariophile"
Albert Dayes -- "CC: Classic Chips"
Rob Mahlert -- Web site
Thomas J. Andrews -- "Keeper of the Flame"
With Contributions by:
Fred Horvat
To subscribe to A-ONE, change e-mail addresses, or unsubscribe,
log on to our website at: www.atarinews.org
and click on "Subscriptions".
OR subscribe to A-ONE by sending a message to: dpj@atarinews.org
and your address will be added to the distribution list.
To unsubscribe from A-ONE, send the following: Unsubscribe A-ONE
Please make sure that you include the same address that you used to
subscribe from.
To download A-ONE, set your browser bookmarks to one of the
following sites:
http://people.delphiforums.com/dpj/a-one.htm
Now available:
http://www.atarinews.org
Visit the Atari Advantage Forum on Delphi!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atari/
=~=~=~=
A-ONE #1721 06/05/15
~ Politwoops Is Shut Down ~ People Are Talking! ~ Supreme Court Ruling!
~ Personal Data Exposed! ~ Pirate Bay'er Released! ~ XCOM 2 This Fall!
~ Fallout 4 Is Revealed! ~ Beijing's Hack Response ~ Win 10 This Summer!
~ Electronics Search Bill ~ Charge People for Email ~ Win 10 Pricing!
-* Focus on China in Fed Hack! *-
-* Video Game Hall of Fame First Class! *-
-* Obama Signs USA Freedom Act, Clips the NSA *-
=~=~=~=
->From the Editor's Keyboard "Saying it like it is!"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I have to admit, this week's issue was looking kind of shaky until
earlier today! Thankfully, A-ONE's best contributor - Fred Horvat -
saved the day wil a number of articles that he thought might be
interesting to include in the magazine. While a number of his stories
had already been included, there were quite a few others that made the
difference in whether or not we had sufficient material for this issue.
Thanks again, Fred - you saved the day again!
Until next time...
=~=~=~=
->In This Week's Gaming Section - Fallout 4 Officially Revealed!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 'XCOM 2' Infiltrates PCs in November!
Video Game Hall of Fame's First Class
And more!
=~=~=~=
->A-ONE's Game Console Industry News - The Latest Gaming News!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Fallout 4 Officially Revealed, Internet Explodes
Get ready to head back into the wasteland.
After innumerable hoax reports and countless months of wishful thinking,
fans of the post-apocalyptic Fallout series finally have something worth
staring at. Bethesda has confirmed that Fallout 4 is, in fact, real.
The publisher posted a countdown clock Tuesday. A trailer went live
Wednesday morning.
As far as teasers go, it's got pretty much everything you could ask for:
mystery, a haunting version of The Ink Spots' "It's All Over But The
Crying," hints of the game's future and past, creepy mutants, an awesome
dog, and, perhaps most importantly, the hair-raising narration of series
mainstay Ron Perlman, including his iconic line "War. War never changes."
The video also seemingly confirms a few rumors. Fallout 4 is at least
partially set in Boston, judging by the inclusion of a Paul Revere statue
and Fenway Park in the trailer. And it hints just hints that we might
be able to explore the world of Fallout in the days before the atomic
apocalypse that plays such an important role in the game's fiction
(though certainly, that could just be a storytelling device of the
trailer).
Hoping to see Dogmeat again? We're not sure if it's him, but a German
Shepherd is the star of the trailer, sniffing around the desolate remains
of a once-happy home before meeting up with his human companion. Please
let us play as the dog. Please.
Thats up in the air, but here's what's certain. The game is being
developed for the Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and PC. Game maker Todd Howard,
who led the creation of the immensely popular Fallout 3 and Bethesdas
equally-vaunted The Elder Scrolls series, is once again in charge.
We know what this game means to everyone, Howard said in a statement.
The time and technology have allowed us to be more ambitious than ever.
Weve never been more excited about a game, and we cant wait to share
it.
The news swept across the web like wildfire. Within an hour of the
announcement, 'Fallout 4' was Twitter's top trending topic. 'Bethesda'
is in the top ten. Well done, marketing people.
When will be get to play it? Right now, there's no telling, though we
suspect Bethesda will give us a little more clarity at its pre-E3 media
briefing, which will be held (and streamed) at 7:00 pm PST June 14.
Fans, though, can pre-order the game on its official website starting
today.
'XCOM 2' Infiltrates PCs in November
Prepare for permadeath. XCOM 2, the sequel to 2012's wonderfully rich
strategy game XCOM: Enemy Unknown, is due to hit PC in November. XCOM 2
comes from publisher 2K and developer Firaxis Games, the very same team
behind Enemy Unknown. They've been teasing a big announcement with a
website for the Advent Administration, a futuristic government that
advertises gene therapies and other technologies that rid humans of all
illness - but the site has been hacked with messages that suggest all is
not as rosy as it seems.
In XCOM 2, it's 20 years in the future and aliens control the Earth. The
XCOM special forces have gone guerrilla and "must strike back to reclaim
control of Earth and free mankind from the aliens' rule," 2K says. So
far, XCOM 2 is confirmed for PC only, with no mention of consoles or
mobile. XCOM 2 is a continuation of the XCOM franchise, which has been
around since 1993. XCOM as a series is historically acclaimed for its
deep turn-based strategy gameplay and heart-breaking use of permadeath
- meaning once characters die, they're gone forever.
Even through the tears over fallen comrades, Joystiq adored XCOM: Enemy
Unknown, calling it "an exemplary turn-based strategy game." Three years
later, we'll see if XCOM 2 continues to carry the tactical torch.
Fun, Colorful Shooter Splatoon Paints With A Purpose
Leave it to Nintendo to find harmony in the words family-friendly and
competitive online shooter. But that unlikely pairing is exactly what
you get in Splatoon. You also get a helluva good time.
Perhaps more notable than the fact that Nintendo released a third-person
shooter for the Wii U is the fact that this game doesnt star any familiar
faces. Splatoon is the first brand new character-driven franchise the
company has created in over 14 years (the last one being the original
Pikmin on the Gamecube). No Mario, no Yoshi, no Donkey Kong, nada.
Nintendo is asking the rookie to stand on its own two tentacles, sans the
cozy surety of an iconic logo, and help breathe life into the struggling
Wii U console.
Are they nuts? As it turns out, theyre just being Nintendo. Though its
inkwell runs a bit dry, Splatoon is a fun, innovative game that manages to
be both everything and nothing youd expect from the video game pioneer.
Its main mode, Turf Wars, boasts a wonderful premise: cover the world with
ink. Two teams of four face off on a map, but rather than go for
headshots, the goal is to drench as much ground with your teams color as
possible. While taking out enemies is well and good, its secondary to
making a mess of the map.
Theres another benefit to spraying your ink everywhere. Splatoons new
characters the Inklings arent just xtreme, paint-crazy teens. In
human form, your Inkling runs around on two legs. But press a button and
the little weirdo turns into a squid, able to refill ammo, hide, and
nimbly swim through your teams ink.
With these basic tools in its tank, a game of Splatoon is a surprisingly
strategic affair. Do you charge ahead and start splattering? Lay some
paint pathways for your teammates and lurk defensively? A favorite
technique is to hide in a vast ink pool and pop out like a trapdoor
spider to douse an unsuspecting enemy in gaudy green goo. Its truly a
new kind of shooter.
It also makes great use of the Wii U Gamepad. Theres a learning curve
here the motion sensors on the Gamepad are a little sensitive but
once you get the hang of aiming, swimming, and shooting, it gels. Better
still, the Gamepad doubles as a handy top-down map of the inky
battlefield. Not sure where to spray? Peek at the map and start painting.
The better you play, the faster you level up and earn coins to spend in
Inkopolis. Splatoons city functions as its main hub, housing the curious
vendors hawking new guns and gear. Outfitting your Inkling in new duds
tweaks skills, and the more you use a piece of clothing, the more bonuses
youll unlock. The guns come in a handful of styles, but as you level up
youll gain access to modified versions that include interesting
combinations of sub-weapons. I found myself addicted to the
not-so-nuanced Splat Roller, which is good for up close combat and
coating the ground in a thick layer of ink. But snipers, machine gunner,
and shotgun types will all find perfectly suitable Splatoon versions.
Mastering Splatoons mechanics takes some time, and while thats best
spent online, theres a short, Super Mario-lite solo campaign here as
well. Youre tasked with tracking down the prized electric zapfish, which
have been stolen by the nefarious Octarians. Thats really just an excuse
to send you through a variety of fun, imaginative platform levels that
make use of the ink in interesting ways. Youll inflate giant sponges by
pumping them full of paint, ride inky geysers, and battle imposing
bosses. Its good stuff, but over too quickly to really sink in.
Why kid squids? Why zapfish? Why ink? Why not? Splatoon channels an
arcadey, Technicolor playfulness thats been buried beneath years of
brown and gray shooters, tapping into a part of the gamer brain that in
many ways died with the Sega Dreamcast. Haphazardly flinging paint like
a rifle-toting Jackson Pollock is its own reward. Heck, this might be the
first shooter where shooting directly at the ground is a good thing.
And no matter how splendidly or terribly you paint, Splatoon looks
awesome. Like most Nintendo games, it runs fast and smooth, and boasts a
poppy punkish soundtrack that manages to toe the line between irritating
and infectious. Reveling in its vibrant palette, Splatoon is a breath of
fresh air in an ocean of dour, overly serious military-themed shooters.
Unfortunately, things get a bit sticky when it comes to the games online
play. In spite of Splatoons team-based nature, theres no voice chat. On
one hand, I get it. Nintendo wants to create a safe space for players of
all ages, and getting hollered at by an aggro jerk because youre not
doing exactly the right thing at the right time doesnt jibe.
But what about when youre the aggro jerk? I cant count the number of
times I watched helplessly as my terrible team opted to rush off to kill
the bad guys and forget to paint much of anything, or fail to help take
down a troublesome sniper dominating the map. Whats an aggro jerk to do?
Shut up and take it, thats what. With no way to communicate beyond
passive-aggressively firing ink at the godless sky, Splatoons team
dynamics often feel more like luck of the draw than any sort of tactical
affair. Its a great game when you get a great team. Its pretty
frustrating when you dont.
Questionable matchmaking doesn't help. Perhaps there's a dearth of
players out there, but all too frequently, I find myself on the wrong end
of lopsided teams. Maybe split up the two level 20s and give the rest of
us level 11s a chance? I'm no good at new math, but this can't be that
hard.
Theres also the issue of content. Splatoon launched with only five maps,
and while Nintendo has already released one more, it still feels thin. At
level 10 you unlock the ability to play in Ranked Battles, opening up the
fun Zone Control game mode, but two modes in an online shooter?
Splatoons meager maps and modes come up short.
But comparing Splatoon to Call of Duty is kind of ridiculous. Nintendo is
painting on its own canvas here, not trying to mimic the experience found
in other games, and in that, theyve succeeded. Splatoon isnt quite a
masterpiece, but its a promising start for a colorful new artist.
=~=~=~=
->A-ONE Gaming Online - Online Users Growl & Purr!
"""""""""""""""""""
'Pong,' 'Tetris' Make Video Game Hall of Fame's First Class
The first inductees into the new World Video Game Hall of Fame include
"Pong," the game that introduced millions to electronic play, "Doom,"
which triggered a debate over the role of games and violence in society,
and "Super Mario Bros.," whose mustachioed hero has migrated to
everything from fruit snacks to sneakers.
The first six games to enter the hall of fame cross decades and platforms,
but all have impacted the video game industry, popular culture and society
at large, according to the new hall at The Strong museum in Rochester,
where the games were enshrined Thursday.
Joining "Pong," launched in 1972, "Doom," from 1993, and 1985's "Super
Mario Bros." are arcade draw "Pac-Man" (1980); Russian import "Tetris"
(1984); and "World of Warcraft" (2004), which has swallowed millions of
players into its online virtual universe.
The newly created World Video Game Hall of Fame pays homage to an industry
that rivals Hollywood in the entertainment pecking order. The Strong,
which bills itself as the national museum of play and also houses the
National Toy Hall of Fame, has been preserving and collecting games and
artifacts for years through its International Center for the History of
Electronic Games.
"Electronic game play is increasingly influential and important," Strong
President and Chief Executive G. Rollie Adams said. "It's changing how we
play, how we learn and how we connect with each other across boundaries of
geography and culture."
The inaugural hall of fame class was recommended by a panel of judges made
up of journalists, scholars and other experts on the history and impact of
video games. They chose from among 15 finalists that also included: "Angry
Birds," ''FIFA," ''The Legend of Zelda," ''Minecraft," ''The Oregon
Trail," ''Pokemon," ''The Sims," ''Sonic the Hedgehog" and "Space
Invaders."
Nominations for the hall can come from anyone and be from any platform
arcade, console, computer, handheld or mobile. But they must have had a
long stretch of popularity and left a mark on the video game industry or
pop culture.
"Doom," for example, introduced the idea of a game "engine" that separated
the game's basic functions from its artwork and other aspects, but even
more significantly was one of the early games cited in the debate that
continues today over whether violent games inspire real-life aggression.
"World of Warcraft," is the largest MMORPG "massively multiplayer online
role-playing game" ever created. As of February, it had more than
10 million subscribers, represented by avatars they create, according to
The Strong.
Sixteen-year-old gamer Shaun Corbett, of Rochester, said after the
induction ceremony that he was expecting "Doom," ''Super Mario Bros." and
"Pac-Man" to get in.
"'Tetris' I wasn't expecting but I can see where they're coming from. It
made puzzle games popular," Corbett said.
He said his fascination with video games started with Pokemon.
"I enjoyed watching the show. I enjoyed playing the card game," he said.
"I got the video game on the Game Boy Advance for Christmas when I was 7
and I just have a lot of good memories of playing it with my cousins, my
parents showing me how it worked."
More than 150 million Americans play video games, according to the
Entertainment Software Association, and 42 percent play for at least three
hours a week. In 2014, the industry sold more than 135 million games and
generated more than $22 billion in revenue, according to the ESA.
Nominations for the hall of fame's class of 2016 are open from now through
the end of March.
=~=~=~=
A-ONE's Headline News
The Latest in Computer Technology News
Compiled by: Dana P. Jacobson
China in Focus As Cyber Attack Hits Millions of U.S. Federal Workers
Hackers broke into U.S. government computers, possibly compromising the
personal data of 4 million current and former federal employees, and
investigators were probing whether the culprits were based in China,
U.S. officials said on Thursday.
Cyber investigators linked the breach to earlier thefts of healthcare
records from Anthem Inc, the second largest U.S. health insurer, and
Premera Blue Cross, a healthcare services provider.
In the latest in a string of intrusions into U.S. agencies' high-tech
systems, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) suffered what appeared
to be one of the largest breaches of information ever on government
workers. The office handles employee records and security clearances.
A U.S. law enforcement source told Reuters a "foreign entity or
government" was believed to be behind the cyber attack. Authorities were
looking into a possible Chinese connection, a source close to the matter
said.
A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said such accusations had been
frequent of late and were irresponsible. Hacking attacks were often
cross-border and hard to trace, he said.
The FBI said it was investigating and aimed to bring to account those
responsible.
Several U.S. states were already investigating a cyber attack on Anthem in
February that a person familiar with the matter said is being examined for
possible ties to China.
John Hultquist of Dallas-based iSight Partners told Reuters that the
latest attack on OPM and the earlier breaches at Anthem and Premera Blue
Cross appear to have been the work of cyber espionage hackers working on
behalf of a state, not those focused on cybercrime.
He said they may have widened their net to gather personally identifiable
information for more elaborate, finely-tuned attacks in the future. "This
is usually done by criminals, but based on their behavior, we believe
these are espionage actors," said Hultquist.
OPM detected new malicious activity affecting its information systems in
April and the Department of Homeland Security said it concluded at the
beginning of May that the agency's data had been compromised and about
4 million workers may have been affected.
The agencies involved did not specify exactly what kind of information
was accessed.
The breach hit OPM's IT systems and its data stored at the Department of
the Interior's data center, a shared service center for federal agencies,
a DHS official said on condition of anonymity. The official would not
comment on whether other agencies' data had been affected.
OPM had previously been the victim of another cyber attack, as have
various federal government computer systems at the State Department, the
U.S. Postal Service and the White House.
Chinese hackers were blamed for penetrating OPM's computer networks last
year, and hackers appeared to have targeted files on tens of thousands of
employees who had applied for top-secret security clearances, the New
York Times reported last July, citing unnamed U.S. officials.
"The FBI is working with our inter-agency partners to investigate this
matter," the bureau said in a statement. "We take all potential threats
to public and private sector systems seriously, and will continue to
investigate and hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace."
The U.S. government has long raised concerns about cyber spying and theft
emanating from China and has urged Beijing to do more to curb the
problem.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a regular daily news
briefing in Beijing that China hoped the United States would have more
trust and cooperate more.
"Without first thoroughly investigating, always saying that 'it's
possible', this is irresponsible and unscientific," said Hong.
There was no comment from the White House.
Since the intrusion, OPM said it had implemented additional security
precautions for its networks. It said it would notify the 4 million
employees and offer credit monitoring and identity theft services to
those affected.
"The last few months have seen a series of massive data breaches that
have affected millions of Americans," U.S. Representative Adam Schiff,
the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, said in a statement.
Tens of millions of records may have been lost in the attacks on Anthem
and Premera Blue Cross.
iSight's Hultquist said similar methods, servers and habits of the
attackers pointed to one state-sponsored group being responsible for all
three breaches.
The largest federal employee union said it was working with the
administration to ensure measures were taken to secure the personal
information of affected employees. "AFGE will demand accountability,"
American Federation of Government Employees President J. David Cox Sr.
said in a statement.
In April, President Barack Obama responded to a growing rash of attacks
aimed at U.S. computer networks by launching a sanctions program to target
individuals and groups outside the United States that use cyber attacks to
threaten U.S. foreign policy, national security or economic stability.
The move followed indictments of five Chinese military officers who were
charged with economic espionage. U.S. officials also pointed the finger
directly at North Korea for a high-profile attack on Sony over a film
spoof depicting the assassination of North Korea's leader.
China has routinely denied accusations by U.S. investigators that hackers
backed by the Chinese government have been behind attacks on U.S.
companies and federal agencies.
U.S. military officials have become increasingly vocal about cyber
espionage and attacks launched by China, Russia and other rivals. A
Pentagon report in April said hackers associated with the Chinese
government repeatedly targeted U.S. military networks last year seeking
intelligence.
Hack Exposes Personal Data of 4 Million Federal Workers
Officials suspect hackers gained the personal data of 4 million current
and former federal employees.Image by Dennis Skley, CC BY-ND 2.0
A cyberattack on the US government's personnel office compromised the data
of up to 4 million current and former federal employees, officials said
Thursday.
The FBI said it is investigating a hack of network security at the Office
of Personnel Management. Federal officials suspect Chinese hackers are
behind the data breach, believed to be the largest in a recent wave of
attacks targeting federal agencies, according to The Wall Street Journal.
"The FBI is working with our interagency partners to investigate this
matter," the FBI said in a statement. "We take all potential threats to
public and private sector systems seriously, and will continue to
investigate and hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace."
The Chinese consulate in San Francisco did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
Investigators told the Journal that the hack, detected in April, is
believed to be separate from an attack detected last year. The New York
Times reported last year that Chinese hackers worked their way into US
government servers in March 2014 in an attempt to steal information on
thousands of federal employees with top-secret clearance.
Computer hacking is a sore subject between the US and China. Both
countries have publicly accused each other of breaking in to servers to
steal information.
In May 2014, the US Justice Department filed charges against five alleged
Chinese military hackers. They are charged with hacking American
corporations and stealing information. China has denied the allegations.
The security breach is the latest in a recent wave of cyberattacks that
have targeted government agencies and that are suspected of originating
overseas. After a security breach of an unclassified network used by
White House advisers was revealed last year, suspicion immediately fell
on hackers thought to be working for the Russian government.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which includes the
National Weather Service, also revealed last year that four of its
websites were compromised by an "Internet-sourced attack." Chinese
government hackers were suspected in that attack, as well as one on the
US Postal Service, in which data for more than 800,000 employees was
compromised.
The Office of Personnel Management is the federal government's human
resources department, responsible for conducting the majority of the
government's background checks for security clearances, among other
responsibilities. The agency said it detected the intrusion in April and
has since added additional security defenses to its network.
"The intrusion predated the adoption of the tougher security controls,"
the OPM said in a statement.
The OPM also said it plans to notify approximately 4 million individuals
whose personally identifiable information may have been compromised in
the breach. The agency also warned that additional exposure of personal
information may still come to light.
"We take very seriously our responsibility to secure the information
stored in our systems, and in coordination with our agency partners, our
experienced team is constantly identifying opportunities to further
protect the data with which we are entrusted," OPM Director Katherine
Archuleta said in a statement.
Data Obtained in U.S. Government Hack Dates Back to 1985
Data stolen in the recent hack of U.S. government computers includes
security clearance information and background checks dating to 1985, a
U.S. official said, underlining the far-reaching scale of one of the
largest known thefts of federal government data.
"This is deep. The data goes back to 1985. This means that they
potentially have information about retirees, and they could know what they
did after leaving government," said the official, speaking on condition of
anonymity.
Access to information from the breach at Office of Personnel Management
computer networks, such as birthdates, Social Security numbers and bank
information, could help hackers test potential passwords to other sites,
including those containing information about critical weapons systems,
said the official.
"That could give them a huge advantage."
Beijing Calls Reports China Involved in US Hack 'Irresponsible'
Beijing on Friday labelled as "irresponsible" reports that Chinese hackers
were behind a massive cyber-attack on personal data of millions of current
and former US federal employees.
The US government on Thursday said that hackers accessed the personal
data of at least four million current and former federal employees.
Officials told US media that China was suspected.
"Cyber-attacks are generally anonymous and conducted across borders and
their origins are hard to trace," foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei
said at a regular briefing.
"Not to carry out a deep investigation and keep using words such as
'possible' is irresponsible and unscientific," he added.
"As a result of the incident," uncovered in April, the US Office of
Personnel Management said it "will send notifications to approximately
four million individuals."
It added that additional exposures "may come to light."
The government's personnel department handles hundreds of thousands of
sensitive security clearances and background investigations on
prospective employees each year.
It was not immediately clear whether the hack affected President Barack
Obama, other senior government officials or the intelligence community.
The Washington Post and other US media cited government officials as
saying that Chinese hackers were behind the breach.
"We have seen a lot of media reports and opinions like this recently,"
Hong said.
The Chinese embassy in Washington countered that such attacks would not
be allowed under Chinese law.
"Chinese laws prohibit cyber-crimes of all forms. China has made great
efforts to combat cyber-attacks in accordance with Chinese laws and
regulations," embassy spokesman Zhu Haiquan said.
US Admiral Michael Rogers, who heads the National Security Agency and US
Cyber Command, has said that future attacks could prompt a response with
conventional weapons.
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are said to be leading an
investigation into the attack. The FBI in a statement said it "will
continue to investigate and hold accountable those who pose a threat in
cyber-space."
The government said it will, through a third party, offer $1 million in
identity theft protection services at no cost.
"Protecting our federal employee data from malicious cyber-incidents is
of the highest priority," Office of Personnel Management director
Katherine Archuleta said.
Her agency said the intrusion may have begun late last year and "predated
the adoption of the tougher security controls".
The new measures include restricting remote access, screening business
connections and deploying anti-malware software.
The incident is the latest in a series of major breaches that have shown
the vulnerability of the federal government.
Last year Russian hackers are believed to have accessed unclassified
computer systems at the White House and State Department.
Hackers stole information on 100,000 taxpayers from online computers of
the US Internal Revenue Service.
The United States has struck an increasingly strident tone about
cyber-attacks in recent months.
Admiral Michael Rogers, who heads the National Security Agency and US
Cyber Command, has said that future attacks could prompt a response with
conventional weapons.
In February, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said a
steady stream of low-level cyber-attacks posed the most likely danger to
the United States, rather than a potential digital "armageddon."
Obama has ranked China and Russia's cyber-attack capabilities as "very
good," Iran's as "good," and North Korea's as not "particularly good."
China operates a vast domestic security and surveillance apparatus.
In a recent white paper, Beijing said it would "expedite the development
of a cyber-force" within the People's Liberation Army.
In 2013, US Internet security firm Mandiant said its hundreds of
investigations showed that groups hacking into US newspapers, government
agencies, and companies "are based primarily in China and that the Chinese
government is aware of them".
One group, it said, was believed to be a branch of the People's Liberation
Army called Unit 61398, and digital signatures from its cyber-attacks were
traced back to a building in Shanghai.
Last year, five members of the unit were indicted by US federal
prosecutors on charges of stealing information from companies, including
nuclear plant manufacturer Westinghouse, SolarWorld and US Steel.
China is increasingly concerned about US cyber-spying and has ordered
many government departments to avoid using foreign technology.
Obama Signs USA Freedom Act into Law, Clipping NSA's Powers
President Obama on Tuesday signed into law the USA Freedom Act.
Some are calling it a significant scaling back of national security
policy formed after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, while others
are saying that it's at least a good first step in that it means the NSA
will be slightly inconvenienced in its spying and there will be a
smidgen more accountability and transparency for it and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.
With the passage of the Freedom Act, US lawmakers resurrected the three
spying-centric Patriot Act provisions that presidential candidate Senator
Rand Paul single-handedly forced into retirement when those provisions
expired at midnight on Monday morning.
The three renewed provisions:
Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This is the business records provision
that supports the NSA's bulk collection of telephone records, which has
resulted in the agency having collected the phone records of millions of
US persons not suspected of any crime.
Under the new legislation, the bulk phone metadata will be taken out of
the hands of the NSA and will instead stay with the telecoms.
The NSA can still get at it with the FISA Court's say-so, as long as the
government says it has a reasonable suspicion that a target's phone data
is relevant to a terror investigation, and that at least one party to a
given call is overseas.
The "lone wolf" provision. This allows US intelligence and law enforcement
agencies to target surveillance at suspected terrorists who are acting
alone without any direct ties to terrorist groups or rogue nations.
This amendment to the Patriot Act specifically says that it doesn't apply
to US citizens, and White House officials claim that it's never actually
been used.
The "roving wiretap" provision. This renewed provision allows federal
spies to monitor a suspected terrorist person rather than a specific phone
or electronic device, without getting a renewed FISA Court warrant.
It enables the government to keep track of suspected terrorists regardless
of how many phones they use.
The target doesn't have to be linked to a foreign power or terrorism, and
the FISA Court doesn't need to be told who's being targeted when they
issue a warrant.
The legislation could have been a lot worse.
Prior to Tuesday's vote, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell had
tried to tack four amendments onto the Freedom Act that would have
weakened key provisions of the bill, which the House of Representatives
passed overwhelmingly last month.
The Senate shot down three of those amendments.
Namely:
A requirement that companies give the government 180 days notice before
they could change data retention practices to keep call detail records
for less than 18 months.
An amendment that would have stretched the effective date of the bill
from six months to one year after enactment, thereby extending the NSA's
bulk collection program.
An amendment that would have gutted the bill's accountability provision
by limiting the duties and access of the public interest advocate and by
removing the requirement that the Court provide written notice explaining
when and why it chose not to appoint an amicus advocate.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) clipped a clothespin over its
nose so it could clap for the newly passed, sort of better surveillance
law, which it says is a good start.
From the EFF's Cindy Cohn and Mark Jaycox:
It's no secret that we wanted more. In the wake of the damning evidence
of surveillance abuses disclosed by Edward Snowden, Congress had an
opportunity to champion comprehensive surveillance reform and undertake a
thorough investigation, like it did with the Church Committee. Congress
could have tried to completely end mass surveillance and taken numerous
other steps to rein in the NSA and FBI.
It's a lot easier to kill bad bills than it is to come up with good bills
that protect people's rights and can actually get through both the Senate
and House of Representatives, they said.
The USA Freedom Act, for all of its warts, shows that the digital rights
community can actually accomplish just that, they said.
Now that the legislation has neutered the phone records surveillance
program and cracked the FISA Court to let in a bit of light and
transparency, it's time to turn to the task of tackling broader digital
surveillance.
From the EFF:
We fought hard to get to this moment in history. Our long-term goals are
ambitious - the end of overbroad surveillance of all digital
communications, a recognition of the privacy rights of people outside the
United States, and strong accountability and oversight for surveillance
practices. Today's Senate vote did not accomplish these things, but it
did move us a bit closer. ... It will also hopefully embolden Congress to
feel that they can bring a sensible balance to surveillance policy and
practice.
California Passes Law Requiring Warrant To Search Computers, Cellphones and Tablets
The hodgepodge of US state and federal laws about phone searches, some of
which say that police need a warrant and some of which say they don't,
just got a bit messier.
As the LA Times reports, California on Wednesday joined the ranks of
states that require police to have a warrant if they want to search
computers, mobile phones, tablets and other devices, or if they want to
siphon off location data from any of those devices.
The new bill, SB 178, was approved unanimously by California's Senate.
The bill comes from Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who introduced a
similar law two years ago.
Governor Jerry Brown vetoed that earlier version, saying that it was
redundant with federal law and that the bill's requirement that people be
notified if their devices are searched would compromise criminal
investigations.
The new bill addresses such concerns with a broad exception to the
notification requirement when it could hamper an ongoing law enforcement
investigation or jeopardise efforts to protect the public, Leno said.
SB 178 also provides exceptions for when the owner of a device gives
consent to a search and when police believe that they need access to
device information in the event of an emergency involving imminent danger
of death or serious physical injury.
The LA Times quotes what Leno said to his colleagues about the law:
What the bill does is brings our state statute into the 21st century to
catch up with technology with regards to privacy. Of course law
enforcement needs a warrant before it can go into your mailbox and read
your mail, but it does not currently need a warrant to read your emails
or text communications or other electronic communications.
The other thing the bill does is align California with those states that
have similarly ruled that phone records are constitutionally protected,
including Montana, Maine, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.
Even with the broad exceptions stitched into the passed version of the
law, prosecutors and police don't like it.
The California District Attorneys Association, the California Police
Chiefs Association and the California State Sheriffs Association have
criticized it as being redundant with other privacy-protecting laws, as
well as presenting roadblocks to investigations.
By proposing new procedures, the bill "undermines critical efforts to stop
child exploitation, mandates the destruction of evidence by law
enforcement, and violates the California Constitution," the prosecutors
group said in a letter to Leno that the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) posted.
The sheriffs' group added that the bill...
...conflates existing procedures for obtaining certain electronic
information under state and federal law, contains burdensome and
unnecessary reporting requirements, and will undermine investigations
that are fully compliant with the 4th Amendment.
The Feds have gone back and forth on this issue in recent cases, the most
recent time siding with the prosecutors and police associations who
criticized SB 178.
Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that police do not, in fact,
need a warrant when seeking phone records from wireless carriers, thereby
flip-flopping on its own decision from last year.
The reversal of the court's June 2014 decision left the question of
warrantless phone tracking in limbo, with state courts and some higher
courts coming to contradictory decisions.
Until the Supreme Court takes on the issue, someone living in California,
or in any of the other states that now require a warrant for searching
phone or other device data, is still facing a muddle of contradictory
laws, regardless of what their state lawmakers have done to try to
protect their privacy.
Violent Facebook Threats Conviction Thrown Out by US Supreme Court
His Facebook posts mused, among other things, about mass shooting school
children, sticking his ex-wife's head on a stick, blowing up police
stations, and slitting the throat of an FBI agent.
But on Monday, the US Supreme Court threw out the conviction of Anthony
Elonis, saying that the fact that ordinary people would find such rants
threatening isn't enough to convict people who make violent statements
on Facebook and other social media.
What you also need in order to convict, the court ruled: to prove that
there was actual intent, or that the person posting the threats thought
that they'd be construed as actual threats.
Elonis's wife left the Pennsylvania man in 2010, taking their two kids
with her.
Around the same time, he lost his job at an amusement park in Allentown,
Pennsylvania.
That's when he began making threatening Facebook posts, including a
comment on his sister-in-law's post about taking her niece and nephew
(Elonis's son) trick-or-treating:
Tell [my son] he should dress up as matricide for Halloween. I don't know
what his costume would entail though. Maybe [my ex-wife's] head on a
stick?
Elonis had adopted a pseudonym, "Tone Dougie", to post what he called his
"rap lyrics" to Facebook, often interspersing then with disclaimers that
the "lyrics" were fictitious and not intended to depict real persons,
adding statements that said Elonis was exercising his First Amendment
rights.
But many who knew Elonis saw his posts as threatening, including his
boss, who fired him for threatening co-workers, and his wife, who sought
and was granted a state court protection-from-abuse order against him.
In April, while the Supreme Court was poised to rule on whether he was
wrongly imprisoned for his Facebook posts, Elonis was arrested after
allegedly hurling a pot at his girlfriend's mother when she tried to
evict him, hitting her in the forehead and breaking her glasses.
Regarding the earlier case with the Facebook threats, a grand jury had
indicted Elonis on five counts for making threats to injure patrons and
employees of the amusement park, his then-estranged wife, police
officers, a kindergarten class, and an FBI agent.
The Obama administration defended its prosecution of Elonis, saying that
someone can be charged under a federal law as long as a reasonable person
would view statements like these as a threat.
A Philadelphia-based federal appeals court upheld the conviction, and
Elonis wound up serving more than three years of a 44-month sentence in
prison.
When the Supreme Court agreed to take on an appeal, it marked the first
time it's ruled on people's rights to post on social media - a potential
free-speech landmark, given the enormous reach of online communication,
the ability of thousands of people to instantly read postings, and the
equally instant misinterpretations that can arise if such speech is
taken out of context.
As it is, the First Amendment doesn't protect anybody from saying
anything they like.
Among the exceptions to protected speech covered by the First Amendment
are true threats: i.e., those made with intent to carry them out.
In Monday's decision, the Supreme Court found that the jury who convicted
Elonis were given incorrect instructions when they were told they didn't
have to take his mental state into consideration.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion:
The jury was instructed that the Government need prove only that a
reasonable person would regard Elonis's communications as threats, and
that was error.
In a 7-2 ruling, the court ruled to reverse the decision and hand the
case against Elonis back to the lower courts.
The court noted that the mental state requirement would be satisfied if
prosecutors could prove Elonis made the Facebook posts for the purpose
of issuing a threat or with knowledge that they would be viewed as
threats.
Dissenting opinions came from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A.
Alito Jr., who criticized the finding as causing more confusion instead
of clarifying the First Amendment questions Elonis's case brought up.
From Justice Alito's dissent:
The Court refuses to explain what type of intent was necessary. Did the
jury need to find that Elonis had the purpose of conveying a true threat?
Was it enough if he knew that his words conveyed such a threat? Would
recklessness suffice? The Court declines to say. Attorneys and judges are
left to guess.
What Monday's decision means for lower courts is that they won't have a
standard when trying cases, he wrote, which could lead to a bit of a
mess:
If purpose or knowledge is needed and a district court instructs the jury
that recklessness suffices, a defendant may be wrongly convicted. On the
other hand, if recklessness is enough, and the jury is told that
conviction requires proof of more, a guilty defendant may go free. We
granted review in this case to resolve a disagreement among the Circuits.
But the Court has compounded - not clarified - the confusion.
The Supreme Court avoided the conundrum by finding that criminal law in
general, including the one used to convict Elonis, already requires a
higher burden of proof when it comes to threats.
Roberts defended the limited decision, writing that it's sufficient to
correct a misinterpretation by most lower courts that the poster's intent
is immaterial and what matters only is how the message is received, and
that the majority's prudence "is nothing new."
Civil libertarians are pleased with the limited ruling.
Advocates for victims of domestic abuse are not.
Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union,
told the Washington Post that the law has, for centuries, ... required
the government to prove criminal intent before putting someone in jail.
That principle is especially important when a prosecution is based on a
defendant's words. The Internet does not change this long-standing rule.
Kim Gandy, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence,
told the newspaper that threats are a "core tactic" in domestic abuse:
Threats play a central role in domestic abuse and is a core tactic that
many abusers employ. [Threats cause devastating harm] regardless of
whether the abuser intended to threaten or only intended to vent or to
make a joke.
It's hard to crawl inside somebody's head and suss out whether their
threats reflect true intent, are meant as jokes, are artistic expression
or are just the result of letting off steam.
That's why context is so important.
One example of courts apparently ignoring context came in the so-called
"Twitter Joke" trial, which attracted attention within Great Britain and
internationally when the UK's Royal Courts of Justice found that
authorities went too far in prosecuting a man for threatening to blow
Nottingham's Robin Hood airport "sky high" if his flight to Northern
Ireland to visit his girlfriend was cancelled because of inclement
weather.
The decision overturning the conviction said that the more one looked at
it, the clearer it became that the message wasn't a terrorist threat, let
alone any form of threat, but rather was a shout-out to the man's Twitter
followers, drawing attention to his predicament.
In Monday's ruling, the Supreme Court didn't decide whether Elonis meant
his threats or not.
That's up to the lower courts to decide, using a different litmus test
than they'd used before.
And thus we're left, still, with the question of whether a man who's been
given a restraining order and has been arrested for assaulting a woman
with a pan actually meant it when his Facebook postings suggested actions
such as these:
There's one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I'm not going
to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the
little cuts.
[There are] enough elementary schools in a 10-mile radius to initiate the
most heinous school shooting ever imagined. And hell hath no fury like a
crazy man in a kindergarten class.
...and whether he should have been prosecuted and found guilty of illegal
threats, or whether that would have been an assault on his First Amendment
rights to free speech, if those posts are indeed simply rap lyrics.
The free-speech advocate in me applauds the court's caution with regards
to overzealous prosecutions of those who post threats on social media.
Still, it's hard to be positive about a ruling that doesn't seem to do
much for those people who've been threatened online.
The Pirate Bay Co-Founder Released From Swedish Prison
Fredrik Neij, the third and the last founder of the infamous file-sharing
website The Pirate Bay, was released on Monday from a Swedish prison.
Neij, who goes by the online moniker "TiAMO", was arrested by Thai
immigration authorities at the end of November 2014 while he was trying
to cross the border illegally from Laos to Thailand and then extradited
to a prison in Skänninge, Sweden.
However, after his ten-month prison sentence, Neij is now a free man and
has already reunited with family and friends, TorrentFreak reports.
The 37-year-old fugitive Swede man was first convicted of aiding copyright
infringements by a Swedish court in 2009 and escaped arrest by fleeing to
Laos.
However, Neji's passport was revoked in 2012, and then after two years
in November 2014, he was arrested under an Interpol warrant near the
Laotian border after four years on the run.
Before his arrest, Neji was living and hosting a file-sharing website
called BayFiles, which was shut down afterwards.
All four co-founders of The Pirate Bay have now served prison sentences.
The first Founder Gottfird Svartholm, who used the online alias
"Anakata", was convicted on both copyright and computer hacking charges
by a Danish court and is imprisoned, serving a three-and-a-half year
sentence.
While the second founder, Peter Sunde served an eight-month sentence in
Sweden last year. The Pirate Bays financier Carl Lundström was also
arrested and sentenced to four months of home arrest in 2012.
The Pirate Bay is a widely popular file-sharing website predominantly
used to share copyrighted material free of charge, and despite the
criminal convictions, the site remains functioning today, although it
has moved to different Web domains several times.
It's still unclear how the website managed to reappear every time after
shutdown, but The Pirate Bay claimed last year that it ran the notorious
website on 21 "raid-proof" virtual machines, which means if the police
raid one location, the site would hardly take few hours to get back in
action.
Neij is expected to return now to his house in Laos where he previously
lived with his wife and children. TorrentFreak posted a picture of Neij
"enjoying his freedom" with a beer cane in one hand. He is the last
founder of The Pirate Bay to be released from prison.
Twitter Shuts Down Political Transparency Tool Politwoops
When US soldier and former Taliban POW Bowe Bergdahl was released last
year, half a dozen politicians tweeted their "welcome home" messages and
their thanks to a "true American hero."
Sometime between Bergdahl's Rose Garden ceremony at the White House and
the US Army charging him with desertion and misbehaviour before the
enemy, those tweets popped out of public view like so many of those
Anthony Weiner pics.
They didn't entirely disappear from view, however, thanks to Politwoops,
an archive of deleted tweets from US politicians that up until a few days
ago was automatically following tweet deletions from the president, vice
president, members of Congress, governors and anyone running for those
positions.
In fact, here are those Tweets, preserved by Politwoops in spite of their
creators having deleted them in an effort to back off from what had
become politically embarrassing endorsements.
Many firmly believe that politicians and those running for public office,
as public figures, have a different, lesser expectation of privacy than
others on the Twitter platform, and that being able to see a politician's
flip-flopping is a valuable way to get some transparency into what
they're up to.
Twitter believes that too, it said recently, even as it killed Politwoops
by yanking its access to Twitter's developer API.
That API had enabled the Sunlight Foundation-funded site to track the
deleted tweets of hundreds of politicians.
A Twitter spokesperon provided this statement to Gawker on Wednesday:
Earlier today we spoke to the Sunlight Foundation, to tell them we will
not restore Twitter API access for their Politwoops site. We strongly
support Sunlights mission of increasing transparency in politics and
using civic tech and open data to hold government accountable to
constituents, but preserving deleted Tweets violates our developer
agreement. Honoring the expectation of user privacy for all accounts is
a priority for us, whether the user is anonymous or a member of Congress.
It is true indeed that preserving deleted tweets goes against Twitter's
developer agreement.
Here's what the Developer Agreement says about the matter:
Only surface Twitter activity as it surfaced on Twitter. For example,
your Service should execute the unfavorite and delete actions by removing
all relevant Content, not by publicly displaying to other users that the
Tweet is no longer favorited or has been deleted.
The matter might seem cut and dried: Politwoops broke the rules, and
Twitter pulled the plug.
But Twitter isn't coming out of this looking good, regardless of the slow
clap it gave to Sunlight's mission.
As Sunlight Foundation President Christopher Gates said in his eulogy for
Politwoops, the public service has been running since 2012: that's three
years spent violating Twitter's developer terms, but doing so,
apparently, with Twitter's blessing:
Days after Politwoops launched in 2012, Twitter contacted the Sunlight
Foundation and told us, 'Your service violates our API Terms of Service
on a fundamental level.' We explained the goals of the project and agreed
to create a human curation workflow to ensure that the site screened out
corrected low-value tweets like typos, links and Twitter handles. We
implemented this layer of journalistic judgment with blessings from
Twitter and the site continued.
Gates says Politwoops' staff is "truly mystified" at the change of heart
but will honor Twitter's decision, even though...
It stands at odds with a fundamental understanding of our democracy. A
member of Congress does not and should not have the same expectation of
privacy as a private citizen. Power can only be accountable with a
generous application of transparency.
After posting the news, Gawker received an anonymous email from someone
claiming to be a Twitter employee with knowledge of the company's
negotiations with the Sunlight Foundation.
Gawker says it cant verify whether the sender is actually employed by
Twitter, so take the email with a grain of salt.
Here's a version of the email that Gawker said it lightly edited for
clarity:
I work at Twitter and am definitely a Politwoops fan despite knowing it
violates our Terms of Service. (Definitely not in a decision making
position though.) As you know, Sunlight had a phone call with a colleague
here at Twitter. My understanding is, we were going to consider a quiet
reversal but lets just say it didnt go well. (Lots of why us and not
others.) And frankly I think we wound up digging in because of that. No
More Politwoops :( :(. At least a few of us here still think that is a
f*cking shame though.
The Washington Post's Philip Bump, for one, calls Twitter's move a
"terrible decision."
While the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal came out of a vigilant watcher
who was already suspicious of the politician, there's plenty of room for
an automated tool when it comes to keeping an eye on public figures, Bump
notes:
Politwoops acted something like a campaign tracker: always there, always
paying attention. Sometimes that can yield fake, biased news. Sometimes it
can yield something that changes a political campaign. We need more
services like Politwoops (as I've argued before), not fewer.
There are, in fact, ways around Twitter's ban.
According to The Next Web, screenshots don't violate developer agreements,
even when automated.
But it sounds like the Sunlight Foundation, respectful of Twitter's
decision as it is, is above tricks like that.
And thus, we'll have to see this window into political "oops!" tweets
closed, and to witness transparency obscured because of it.
Microsoft's Windows 10 Finally Has a Release Date
Microsoft has set a release date for Windows 10 to arrive in the summer.
The software maker announced Monday that it will begin offering its newest
software to power PCs and tablets as a free upgrade on July 29. Windows 10
Mobile, the companys companion software designed to power smartphones, is
expected to arrive later this year. Windows 10 will be free for users who
have bought a computer in the past six years or so, powered by Windows 7
or later, or tablets running Windows 8.1.
Windows 10 marks the next iteration of the one of the worlds most
ubiquitous pieces of software. Microsofts operating system powers a
majority of personal computers and acts as the backbone of many of the
worlds businesses. Despite its dominance, Microsoft critics see the
company and its products as a tech titan in decline, as mobile phones and
competing, cheaper software have chipped away at Windows. The companys
goal with Windows 10 is both to repair the damage done by the
ill-received Windows 8 and convince consumers that upgrading is worth the
time and effort.
Rumors originally swirled around a July release date for Windows 10 back
in April when Lisa Su, head of chipmaker AMD, discussed the timeline on a
conference call. Microsoft has mostly remained mum, however, coyly
avoiding discussion of a launch date even during its developer conference
in April. Some industry watchers became concerned the software may not be
ready in time.
Microsoft has not disclosed when computer makers will begin selling PCs
pre-loaded with Windows 10 or when retailers will sell individual licenses
in the event you are not eligible for a free upgrade or wish to build your
own computers. However, a leak from online retailer Newegg on Saturday
indicated that PC makers would receive the software August 31. Newegg also
leaked screenshots revealing that the software sold on its own would cost
hardware makers $109, while the Professional version will run $149,
according to the listings, which were first spotted by ZDNet.
Through its Windows Insider program, which lets eager users sign up to
receive developer versions of the software-in-progress, Microsoft has
been more transparent with Windows 10 than previous releases. Since its
unveiling in September, interested users have watched the softwares
evolution firsthand. Some of the key changes Microsoft has made include
a revamped Start button and the removal the unpopular tablet-focused
interface of Windows 8. Theres also a new browser, Edge, to replace the
decades-old Internet Explorer, as well as a more robust version of
Cortana, Microsofts voice-enabled digital software assistant.
The most important aspect of Windows 10, however, is the companys
philosophy powering it: one Windows to rule them all.
Microsoft remains the worlds largest software maker with Windows running
on more than 90 percent of the worlds computers, according to
NetMarketShare. But the company had a late start on smartphones and has
struggled to keep its software relevant while developers focused on
Apples iOS mobile operating system, Googles Android and the Web at
large. PCs sales have also been on a steady decline.
With Windows 10, Microsoft is making a big gamble that its Windows
software can power a web of devices, attracting customers to own
computers, tablets and smartphones all powered by one companys software.
Its a gamble thats worked for Apple, whose iPhones, iPads and Macs are
well regarded for working well with one another.
Microsoft executives, including CEO Satya Nadella, have stressed the
importance of thinking of Windows and Microsoft software as services, not
products we buy. The companys already begun applying this model to its
Office software suite, which includes programs like Word, Excel and
Outlook. Microsoft now available offers it as subscription service,
called Office 365, instead of selling individual disks to customers at a
one-time flat rate.
The company has not yet said if there will ever be a Windows 11, or a
version of Windows we consumers will pay for like past releases. Users
who update to Windows 8 will get new features and benefits for a long,
long time, said Joe Belfiore, Microsofts vice president of operating
systems, said at Build earlier this month.
Though it still makes most of its money selling its traditional software
to businesses, Microsofts fastest growing business division is its cloud
services
group, which is on track to make $6.3 billion in sales this
year. Nadella, who oversaw Microsofts cloud business before assuming the
role of chief executive in February 2013, hopes to see annual sales there
grow to $20 billion over the next three years.
By 2018, Microsoft hopes to have more than 1 billion devices running
Windows 10. Thats ambitious, particularly considering Microsofts
previous release, Windows 8 which arrived in 2012, powers less than
15 percent of the worlds computers.
Microsoft Prices Windows 10 Licenses at $119 for Home, $199 for Pro
Microsoft has a grand plan to get its next operating system, Windows 10,
running on 1 billion devices in three years - by giving it away for
free. Well, sort of.
The software, which Microsoft announced Monday will begin rolling out
July 29, will be offered as a free upgrade for all Windows 7 and
Windows 8.1 PC and tablet users. For the PC market, those two versions
power 74.1 percent of all devices, according to NetMarketShare.
For everyone else, Windows 10 will cost the same as its predecessor,
Windows 8, the company confirmed to CNET on Monday.
A copy of Windows 10 Home will run $119, while Windows 10 Pro will cost
$199. For those who wish to upgrade from the Home edition to the Pro
edition, a Windows 10 Pro Pack will cost $99.
Microsoft may have given the impression it was making a critical pricing
change to its flagship operating system when it announced in January that,
like competitor Apple, it would offer an upgrade free of charge. However,
the company has been transparent from the beginning that the upgrade is
only eligible for one year, until July 29, 2016, and has said at various
points in the past few months that pricing for single licenses would stay
on par with previous releases. Now, there is the possibility that future
versions of Windows may follow this same path, meaning Microsoft may
never go fully free with its OS.
Microsoft says copies of the software will be available online and in
stores. Retailer Newegg, which appeared to have leaked pricing and release
date information this past weekend, still has pages for Windows 10 Home
and Pro live on its website, although its pricing says $110 for Home and
$150 for Pro and is not updated to reflect Microsoft's confirmed pricing.
For those eligible for the free upgrade, the process will only grant you
an equitable version of the software. That means if you had Windows 7
Home, you get Windows 10 Home. If you had Windows 8.1 Pro, you get
Windows 10 Pro. See here for more details. For more information on how to
check your upgrade eligibility and reserve your upgrade for the July 29
rollout, check out CNET's guide.
As for why one would be buying Windows 10 in the first place, single
licenses are useful for the minority of users who don't have an eligible
machine or wish to build their own computer in the coming months and
install Windows themselves.
Finally: A Service That Lets You Charge People To Email You
If I were to charge people to email me, I could likely retire before the
year is done. I get more than 100 emails per day on a slow day, and my
inbox can easily top 200 emails on a busy day. This, of course, is why I
had no choice but to destroy email.
Of course, it wouldnt be ethical for me to charge companies to pitch
me, so I would never use a service like Wrte.io. For others out there
without ethical barriers, however, a service that lets you charge people
to email you might just be your new favorite thing in the world.
Wrte.io is brilliantly simple and simply brilliant. It works like this:
You get a special @wrte.io email address and either give it out to
people as your main email address or just forward messages from your
current account to that address. When someone emails you at that new
address, he or she automatically gets a reply that states how much it
costs to email you and includes a link to a simple payment gateway where
the person can pay by credit card or bitcoin.
Once the payment is verified, the email is forwarded to your personal
email address. The money paid to send you that email will then be
deposited in your Stripe account or donated to charity via Watsi, if
you prefer. The service charges a fee that varies depending on how
much you charge to receive emails.
Wrte.io is currently in open beta and anyone can sign up.
=~=~=~=
Atari Online News, Etc. is a weekly publication covering the entire
Atari community. Reprint permission is granted, unless otherwise noted
at the beginning of any article, to Atari user groups and not for
profit publications only under the following terms: articles must
remain unedited and include the issue number and author at the top of
each article reprinted. Other reprints granted upon approval of
request. Send requests to: dpj@atarinews.org
No issue of Atari Online News, Etc. may be included on any commercial
media, nor uploaded or transmitted to any commercial online service or
internet site, in whole or in part, by any agent or means, without
the expressed consent or permission from the Publisher or Editor of
Atari Online News, Etc.
Opinions presented herein are those of the individual authors and do
not necessarily reflect those of the staff, or of the publishers. All
material herein is believed to be accurate at the time of publishing.
