Tech-battery.com| Wholesale Phone,Tablet,Camera ,Tool ,Laptop Battery, Adapter and Accessories store in US

A recent crackdown on LGBT accounts on Tencent’s popular WeChat platform has divided Chinese social media.

Dozens of such accounts, mostly run by university students, had been deleted on Tuesday night – sparking fears of a tightening control over gay content.

The closures have garnered a wave of online support for the LGBT community, with many asking the student groups to “hang in there” and “do not give up”.

But others welcomed the move, saying “it was about time” they were silenced.

China decriminalised homosexuality in 1997, but the LGBT community continues to face discrimination in the country.

On Wednesday, at least two student LGBT groups have issued statements in response to their WeChat accounts being removed, which included the erasure of all their previous posts.

The groups are known for advocating LGBT and gender equality, and providing support to students on campus.

“Our activities will not stop due to the closure. On the contrary, we hope to use this opportunity to start again with a continued focus on gender and society, and to embrace courage and love,” Fudan University’s Zhihe Society Fudan University’s Zhihe Society said.

Meanwhile, Tsinghua University’s Wudaokou Purple said that although it was “frustrated” that its “years of hard work” had been “burned” at one go, it has only made them closer.

The schools are two of China’s top institutions.

The US State Department told reporters on Wednesday it was “concerned” that the accounts were deleted when they “were merely expressing their views, exercising their right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech”.

But other Chinese social media users celebrated the move.

“I don’t mind it if the LGBT community quietly does their own thing, but why do they have to keep shoving their ideals in my face through these groups? It’s right to shut them down,” one person said on Weibo.

‘Growing intolerance’
Many of the closed WeChat accounts display messages saying that they had “violated” Internet regulations, without giving further details.

The account names have also been deleted and just read “unnamed”.

“After receiving relevant complaints, all content has been blocked and the account has been suspended,” the notice said.

The crackdown is the latest example of what some call growing intolerance toward the LGBT community.

Last year, Shanghai Pride week, modelled on Pride events in the West, was cancelled without explanation after 11 years of it going ahead.

In 2019, the Oscar-winning Freddie Mercury biopic Bohemian Rhapsody was released in Chinese cinemas, but references to the Queen singer’s sexuality and AIDS diagnosis were censored.

In 2018, Weibo said all posts related to homosexuality would be taken down, although it backtracked after massive outrage.

You may also be interested in…

Microsoft has issued a fix for a critical bug dubbed PrintNightmare.

It says, hackers are using the bug, accidentally disclosed by researchers.

It can help them “install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights” remotely on all versions of Windows.

It affects the Windows Print Spooler, software that manages printing, controlling the order in which print jobs from computers in an office are put in a queue, for example.

Max Heinemeyer, of computer security firm Darktrace, told the BBC PrintNightmare was like, “a cyber bazooka – it is relatively easy for criminals to use and can be leveraged to make a huge impact”.

He praised Microsoft for responding quickly and offering fixes, “even for products no longer under official support”.

The fix, a patch, is available for systems as far back as Windows 7.

Updates are not yet available for Windows 10 version 1607, Windows Server 2016, or Windows Server 2012 but would be “soon”, Microsoft says.

But The Register noted: “The first two versions mentioned are five years old and could well be quite widely used.”

British Airways has settled a legal claim by some of the 420,000 people affected by a major 2018 data breach.

The breach affected both customers and BA staff and included names, addresses, and payment-card details.

The Information Commissioner’s Office handed BA its largest fine to date, of £20m, over the “unacceptable” failure to protect customers.

But BA’s settlement – the amount of which remains confidential – did not include any admission of liability.

Qualifying claimants
While collective legal action is not as common in the UK as similar class-action suits in the US, group actions do happen.

Law firm Pogust, Goodhead, Mousinho, Bianchini and Martins earlier this year said the BA compensation claim had become “the largest group-action personal-data claim in UK history”, with more than 16,000 affected people involved.

And on Tuesday, PGMBM, the lead firm in the action, announced the settlement included compensation for “qualifying claimants who were part of the litigation”.

But because the terms of the settlement are confidential, it is unclear how many of the 16,000 will receive a payout – or how much BA will end up paying.

British Airways fined £20m over data breach
Gang behind huge cyber-attack demands $70m
The ICO’s multi-million-pound fine “did not provide redress to those affected”, PGMBM chairman Harris Pogust said.

“This settlement now addresses that.”

BA issued a brief statement saying it was “pleased we’ve been able to settle the group action”.

It apologised to customers and reiterated its stance it had acted promptly when it had discovered the problem.

The settlement may now draw a line under the long-running and high-profile data breach.

Following an investigation, the ICO initially said it planned to fine BA a record-breaking £183m for the 2018 incident.

But it lowered that amount substantially after representations from BA.

In its penalty notice of October 2020, the ICO said BA had argued penalties should be “significantly reduced or not imposed at all” because of the financial hardship airlines faced during lockdowns, when few flights were running.

And the ICO had taken this into account when lowering its fine to £20m.

About 200 US businesses have been hit by a “colossal” ransomware attack, according to a cyber-security firm.

Huntress Labs said the hack targeted Florida-based IT company Kaseya before spreading through corporate networks that use its software.

Kaseya said in a statement on its own website that it was investigating a “potential attack”.

Huntress Labs said it believed the Russia-linked REvil ransomware gang was responsible.

The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, a federal agency, said in a statement that it was taking action to address the attack.

The cyber-breach emerged on Friday afternoon as companies across the US were clocking off for the long Independence Day weekend.

Kaseya said one of its applications that runs corporate servers, desktop computers and network devices might have been compromised.

The company said it was urging customers that use its VSA tool to immediately shut down their servers.

Kaseya said in its statement that a “small number” of companies had been affected, though Huntress Labs said the number is already about 200 and counting.

It is not clear what specific companies have been affected – a Kaseya representative contacted by the BBC declined to give details.

Kaseya’s website says it has a presence in over 10 countries and more than 10,000 customers.”This is a colossal and devastating supply chain attack,” Huntress Labs’ senior security researcher John Hammond said in an email to Reuters news agency.

At a summit in Geneva last month, US President Joe Biden said he told Russian President Vladimir Putin he had a responsibility to rein in such cyber-attacks.

Mr Biden said he gave Mr Putin a list of 16 critical infrastructure sectors, from energy to water, that should not be subject of hacking.

REvil – also known as Sodinokibi – is one of the most prolific and profitable cyber-criminal groups in the world.

The gang was blamed by the FBI for a hack in May that paralysed operations at JBS – the world’s largest meat supplier.

FBI accuses Russia-linked hackers of attack on JBS
The ransomware surge ruining lives
Should paying hacker ransoms be banned?
The group sometimes threatens to post stolen documents on its website – known as the “Happy Blog” – if victims don’t comply with its demands.

REvil was also linked to a co-ordinated attack on nearly two dozen local governments in Texas in 2019.

A coding error has been spotted in a video displaying the original source code for the world wide web, used to advertise a $5.4m (£3.9m) auction sale.

Creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee sold a non-fungible token – a certificate of ownership of a digital asset, of the code – through Sotheby’s, on Wednesday.

The NFT included time-stamped files of the source code and an animated video of it being written.

The researcher who spotted the error said it looked like “a simple mistake”.

Mikko Hypponen, from security company F Secure, said the symbols “<” and “>” had been translated into HyperText Markup Language (HTML) as “< >”.

This was a tactic sometimes used deliberately to protect code – known as “escaping” – but in this case it appeared to have been done in error.

“There have already been discussions about whether this would make the NFT more valuable – like a postage stamp with a misprint error,” he said.

Mr Hypponen added he had not personally bid for the NFT, which was sold to an unidentified buyer.

Opening bid
Website creator Mark O’Neill said it appeared “whoever made the video for the website ran the original text file through something that converted it into HTML”.

“It’s embarrassing for Sotheby’s but I trust that nobody has done the same to the original code,” he added.

Sotheby’s and Sir Tim have been contacted by BBC News for comment.

The auction began on 23 June with an opening bid of $1,000.

Proceeds will go to charities chosen by Sir Tim and his wife.

‘Royalty free’
Sir Tim created the world wide web, in 1989, by connecting different pieces of information on the early internet through hyperlinks.

He built the first web browser and server, refusing to patent his invention.

In 1993, Cern, the research organisation Sir Tim worked for at the time, relinquished all its rights to the technology and put it in the open domain.

And when the NFT auction was announced, Sir Tim told the Guardian: “The core codes and protocols on the web are royalty free, just as they always have been.

“I’m not selling the web – you won’t have to start paying money to follow links.

“I’m not even selling the source code.

“I’m selling a picture that I made, with a Python program that I wrote myself, of what the source code would look like if it was stuck on the wall and signed by me.”

Amazon is launching a child-friendly version of its Echo Dot smart speaker in the UK, several years after it was made available in the US.

The speaker – which comes with either a panda or tiger design – is billed as a learning tool, allowing children “to have fun and learn with Alexa”.

But critics said that parents should remember that it will also be collecting data on their children.

Amazon said it had imposed tight safety protocols on the device.

“We conduct robust testing and research and have strict measures in place for Echo Dot Kids, Amazon Kids and Amazon Kids+ that protect children and provide parents with transparency and control over the experience, creating a safe space in which kids can learn and have fun,” it told the BBC.

Of the delay in releasing the product in the UK, it said: “There are many elements and challenges that go into expanding into other countries and languages, particularly when it comes to content, services and features that are locally relevant.”

The device comes with one year’s worth of Amazon Kids, which offers Alexa-specific content such as child-friendly skills and audiobooks.

It will also have parental controls which allow adults to block things such as explicit lyrics on music streaming services, as well as set time limits to prevent children from “talking with Alexa late into the night”.

The Magic Word feature rewards children who use the word “please” with positive reinforcement.

However, privacy experts said parents should think twice before buying the device.

“You may want to take a moment to consider whether this is a piece of technology you really want in your child’s bedroom,” said digital privacy expert Attila Tomaschek, from ProPrivacy.

He added that the device would be recording a conversation it had with a child.

“The cute speaker will collect, process and analyse this data, potentially even sharing it with various third parties,” he said.

But Amazon denied that would happen: “We have built privacy and security deeply into the Alexa service. We never share voice recordings with third parties. Parents need to give permission to set up this device and can review, delete or choose not to have voice recordings saved at any time.”

In 2019, a coalition of child protection and privacy groups filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, asking it to investigate the Echo Dot Kids. They said that while the device offered parental controls, it did not offer parents control over how Amazon interacts with their children’s data.

Echo Dot Kids will cost £59.99 and be available from 21 July.

The stock market value of Facebook has topped $1 trillion for the first time after the tech giant won a court victory against US regulators.

A federal court dismissed two lawsuits, from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a coalition of states, sending Facebook shares up 4.2%.

It took the value of Facebook above $1tn, making it the last of the “big five” tech firms to hit the milestone.

The legal actions had accused Facebook of stifling competition.

But Judge James Boasberg ruled that the FTC’s anti-trust complaint against the social networking giant was too vague.

Another separate anti-competition lawsuit filed by a group of 46 states was thrown out because the alleged violations occurred too long ago.

In the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruling, Judge Boasberg wrote that the FTC’s complaint was “legally insufficient” and had to be dismissed, because the FTC had “failed to plead enough facts” to back up its claim that Facebook was stifling competition.

Facebook asks judge to reject anti-trust lawsuit
Facebook facing US legal action over competition
Facebook faces fresh anti-trust investigation
The FTC’s lawsuit had requested that the technology giant, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, be broken up.

“The FTC’s complaint says almost nothing concrete on the key question of how much power Facebook actually had, and still has, in a properly defined anti-trust product market,” wrote Judge Boasberg.

“It is almost as if the agency expects the court to simply nod to the conventional wisdom that Facebook is a monopolist.”

While this is a setback for the FTC that some analysts say could have repercussions for the future of anti-competition law in the US, the watchdog can re-file the charges and has until 28 July to do so.

However, investors saw it as an important victory for Facebook, sending the share price higher. The values of the other tech giants – Apple, Google-owner Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon – have already topped $1tn.

‘Doing nothing over the the last half decade’
Separately, Judge Boasberg also dismissed an anti-competition lawsuit brought by a coalition of 45 US states together with the FTC.

This lawsuit had also sought to force Facebook to divest Instagram and WhatsApp. It related to Facebook’s acquisition of the two apps in 2012 and 2014.

In March, Facebook petitioned the federal court in the US to dismiss them, describing the FTC complaint as “nonsensical”.

The firm said the FTC’s case “ignores the reality of the dynamic, intensely competitive high-tech industry in which Facebook operates”.

In his ruling on this case, Judge Boasberg said that the states did not provide “a reasonable justification” for why they had waited between six to eight years to decide to sue Facebook – an argument the social networking giant previously made.

He added that the states had failed to provide “a factual dispute” and only gave a “half-hearted contention that Facebook was not prejudiced but rather ‘benefitted from the states not filing sooner’, since it has been and remains a very profitable company”.

“Ultimately, this anti-trust action is premised on public, high-profile conduct, nearly all of which occurred over six years ago – before the launch of the Apple Watch or Alexa or Periscope, when Kevin Durant still played for the Oklahoma City Thunder and when Ebola was the virus dominating headlines,” wrote Judge Boasberg.

He added that the states’ allegations made it clear that the lawsuit could easily have been filed between 2012 and 2014: “The system of anti-trust enforcement that Congress has established does not exempt plaintiffs here from ‘the consequences of [their] choice’ to do nothing over the last half decade. “

Binance, the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchange, has been issued a warning by the UK’s financial regulator.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has ruled that the firm cannot conduct any “regulated activity” in the UK.

It also advised people to be wary of adverts promising high returns on cryptoasset investments.

Binance said the FCA notice would have no “direct impact” on the services it provides from its website Binance.com.

Binance’s existing crypto exchange is not UK-based so despite the FCA ruling, there will be no impact on UK residents who use the website to purchase and sell cryptocurrencies.

The FCA does not regulate cryptocurrencies, but requires exchanges to register with them. Binance has not registered with the FCA and therefore is not allowed to operate an exchange in the UK.

The FCA move comes amid pushback from regulators around the world against cryptocurrency platforms.

Binance.com is an online centralised exchange that offers users a range of financial products and services, including purchasing and trading a wide range of digital currencies, as well as digital wallets, futures, securities, savings accounts and even lending.

Binance Group is currently based in the Cayman Islands, while Binance Markets Limited is an affiliate firm based in London. The firm has multiple entities dotted around the world and Binance Group was previously based in Malta.

Fears over risk-taking by cryptoasset investors
Donald Trump calls Bitcoin ‘a scam’
World Bank rejects El Salvador Bitcoin request
The FCA said that Binance Markets Limited (BML), which is owned by Binance Group, is not currently permitted to undertake any regulated activities without the prior written consent of the FCA. It has until Wednesday to comply with the ruling.

The regulator also stressed that no entity in the Binance Group holds any form of authorisation, registration or licence to conduct regulated activity in the UK.

At first sight, the Financial Conduct Authority’s move to bar Binance from operating in the UK will have little impact. After all, it won’t stop the company’s many UK customers from using its exchange based in the Cayman Islands to buy and sell Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Nevertheless, the FCA is sending a strong signal that it is worried about the dangers of investing in cyptocurrencies in general.

The reason it wants them all to register is because it’s concerned about their potential use as a cover for illicit activity – and it wants consumers to be very careful indeed.

As well as forbidding Binance from setting up an exchange in the UK, the regulator is ordering its UK division to stop any form of advertising here by 30 June. More significantly, it has until the end of this week to show the FCA that it has stored records of all of its UK customers, ready to be handed over if necessary.

And there’s a message to UK consumers to check whether any crypto company is registered with the regulator and, if it isn’t, to consider withdrawing their assets.

The FCA cannot stop people from trading in cryptocurrencies – but it has got out its biggest red flag and is waving it vigorously.

Google has delayed its plan to block third-party cookies from its Chrome internet browser.

Cookies track users’ internet activity and allow digital publishers to target advertising.

They are already blocked by a number of Google’s rivals, including Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla.

But critics say Google’s ban forces ad sellers to go direct to the tech giant for this information instead – giving it an unfair advantage.

This is because it plans to replace the system with another one of Google’s own design, which it claims is better for privacy but still allows marketing. Its proposals are already under investigation by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

The ban had been planned for 2022, and has now been put back until 2023.

In a blog, Vinay Goel, privacy engineering director for Google’s Chrome browser said: “It’s become clear that time is needed across the ecosystem” in order to “get this right”.

According to GlobalStats, Chrome has a 65% market share worldwide.

Farhad Divecha, founder of digital marketing agency AccuraCast, said the delay was good news for his industry.

“We welcome this delay and only hope that Google uses this time to consult with the CMA as well as different parties that will be affected by the changes, including advertisers, agencies, publishers, and ad-tech and tracking solutions providers,” he said.

Google’s new privacy proposals are known as the Privacy Sandbox .

One of its ideas is the introduction of something called The Federated Learning of Cohorts, or “Floc”.

The idea is that a browser enabled with Floc would collect information about browsing habits and assign users to a group, or “flock”, with similar browsing histories. Each would share an ID which would indicate their interests to advertisers.

This too has faced a lot of criticism, including from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) which described it as “[Internet] users begin[ning] every interaction with a confession: ‘Here’s what I’ve been up to this week, please treat me accordingly’.”

Apple claims that allowing developers to distribute apps outside its official App Store would “expose users to serious security risks”.

A new report from the company argues strongly against allowing so-called sideloading of apps.

The report suggests a range of hypothetical problems including ransomware and financial scams.

It comes as Apple is under pressure from regulators and some developers over its App Store.

The company is awaiting the outcome of its legal battle with Epic Games over what the games studios says are unfair terms set by Apple.

Epic Games has made no secret of its ambition to create a competing storefront – but Apple does not allow third-party app stores to be downloaded from its own App Store.

Separately, Apple is under investigation in the EU, UK, and US over its App Store policies, as an increasing number of developers have spoken out against the so-called “Apple tax” over the past year.

Similar allegations are lodged against Apple’s main rival in the space, Google, which is also embroiled in a legal battle with Epic Games.

Apple is also concerned that forthcoming EU regulation of digital markets could effectively force Apple to enable sideloading.

The 16-page report from Apple appears to be a compilation of all the tech giant’s arguments against relinquishing exclusive control of app sales on its iPhone and iPad platforms.

Apple charged over ‘anti-competitive’ app policies
Apple investigated over ‘unfair’ App Store claims
“Some have suggested that we should create ways for developers to distribute their apps outside of the App Store, through websites or third-party app stores,” the report says.

“Allowing sideloading would degrade the security of the iOS platform and expose users to serious security risks.”

It also claimed that allowing sideloading “would expose users to scammers who will exploit apps to mislead users, attack iPhone security features, and violate user privacy”.

Accompanying the claims were a series of theoretical scenarios which Apple said showed “a family’s everyday experience” in “this more uncertain world” – accompanied by illustrations of a thieving cartoon fox, apparently representing unscrupulous developers.

It referenced news reports and blogs it said suggested real-world examples of those kinds of activities on Android systems, where sideloading is permitted.

The report also touted Apple’s app review process – itself controversial among developers – as the primary way to defend users from threats.

Some developers took issue with the report, suggesting it was cherry-picking or misrepresenting examples, while others ridiculed the cartoons suggesting the thief could be seen as Apple siphoning off its large cut of sales.

“Is this fox meant to represent the bad guys or Apple taking 30%?” tweeted developer and blogger Benjamin Mayo.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
View original tweet on Twitter
Tim Sweeney, the head of Epic Games and a vocal Apple critic, characterised the report as a “a sea of lies”.

Marco Arment, a well-known developer behind popular apps Overcast and Instapaper, has previously said he is against sideloading on iOS.

But reacting to Apple’s paper, he wrote that “the best thing Apple could do to protect the safety and security of iOS touted so heavily in that sideloading PDF [is] lift the most anticompetitive [in-app purchases] rules”.

“Without them, no government would have enough reason to force larger changes like sideloading or alternative app stores.”