Connect with us

News

Browser privacy bill amendment blows up over a single line

Published

on

cybersecurity-hacking-7

Support for an amendment that could have protected your browser history privacy tanked because of a line about who would be protected.


Graphic by Pixabay/Illustration by CNET

On Tuesday morning, an amendment to a bill intended to protect browser and search history privacy was riding a wave of support from privacy advocates and lawmakers, just a day before the amendment was expected to go to a vote. 

Then the full details of the proposed amendment were released, and by Tuesday night, support for the privacy protections imploded. The amendment’s downfall appeared to come from one line. 

It all hinged on the phrase “United States persons.”

The amendment was intended for the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act, legislation that would restore surveillance powers from the Patriot Act that expired in March. Those powers included the ability for US agencies like the FBI and CIA to search through browser history without requiring a warrant. 

Privacy advocates and lawmakers have been supporting changes to the new legislation to protect people from government surveillance. Your browsing history and search history can reveal a lot of sensitive information, and without protections, government agencies would be free to view it all without probable cause. 

Supporters of government surveillance argue that the measures are necessary to defend the US from foreign threats.

“Our nation continues to face an array of threats — whether from foreign intelligence services or terror organizations — and we need to ensure that the intelligence community retains the authorities needed to protect our country, while providing robust protections of Americans’ civil liberties,” House intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff said in a statement. 


Now playing:
Watch this:

This bill to protect children may also put your privacy…



9:48

The question is, where exactly to draw the line.

When Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California, and Rep. Warren Davidson, a Republican from Ohio, drafted their amendment to the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act, it was intended to prevent the US government from gathering logs of people’s search histories, websites visited or videos watched without first obtaining a warrant. 

The amendment was drafted after a similar amendment proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Sen. Steve Daines, a Republican from Montana, failed to pass by one vote on May 13. 

The Lofgren-Davidson amendment had many similarities to the Wyden-Daines amendment, but negotiations with Schiff caused a significant difference in the language, sources familiar with the new proposal said. 

The 12th line of the Lofgren-Davidson amendment specifies that the privacy protections are only applied to “United States persons.” Privacy advocates interpreted that phrase to mean that undocumented people living in the US would still be vulnerable to widespread surveillance. Lofgren and Davidson’s office didn’t comment on the definition of “United States persons” in their amendment.  

If the Lofgren-Davidson amendment passes without protections for undocumented immigrants residing in the US, it would mean up to 12 million people do not have privacy protections from the government looking to gather their search history. 

That specific language has tanked its support. 

“As written, the amendment would not prevent warrantless surveillance of internet search history and browsing history of individuals in the US,” American Civil Liberties Union senior legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani said. “A clear bright-line rule prohibiting such surveillance is both consistent with the Fourth Amendment and critical to ensuring that the information of US citizens is not wrongly swept up.”

The original Wyden-Daines amendment did extend that protection, but it was taken out in the Lofgren-Davidson amendment. 

Privacy rights group Fight for the Future had also turned around on the Lofgren-Davidson amendment after seeing the details from the final text.

“Mass government surveillance is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and basic human rights,” Fight for the Future’s deputy director Evan Greer said in a statement. “It shouldn’t matter where you’re from. Everyone should have the basic right to due process and to be free from unreasonable and warrantless government intrusion into their lives.”

The proposed amendment has also lost steam among lawmakers over how Schiff has interpreted its language. While Lofgren and Davidson wrote the amendment to be a blanket protection against surveillance, Schiff has interpreted that the legislation will only prevent warrantless searches against specific US citizens.  

That change would mean that the FBI could still get logs of all visitors to websites or videos without a warrant — enabling a large dragnet while only preventing singled-out searches.

“The House Intelligence Committee chairman’s assertion that the Lofgren-Davidson amendment does not fully protect Americans from warrantless collection flatly contradicts the intent of Wyden-Daines, and my understanding of the amendment agreed to earlier today,” Wyden said in a statement on Tuesday. 

Wyden’s withdrawing was first reported by Gizmodo

Wyden is now calling for the House to vote on his original amendment rather than the Lofgren-Davidson amendment introduced on Tuesday. In a committee hearing on Wednesday morning, Lofgren and Davidson suggested the same. 

“Some comments have been made suggesting there is ambiguity in this amendment,” Lofgren said. “If the committee wants to make sure there is no ambiguity, they could revert to the original request Mr. Davidson and I made on May 20 — a mirror of the Wyden-Daines amendment.”

The Wyden-Daines amendment failed in the Senate by one vote, and two senators who likely would have voted to support it were not able to because they weren’t there. 

The Lofgren-Davidson amendment was originally identical to the Wyden-Daines amendment, but was changed after negotiations with Schiff, sources said. The amendment is still expected to go for a vote on Wednesday, but the added terms are likely to have gutted privacy protections for people’s browser histories. 

“This is Rep. Schiff and intelligence hawks working overtime to protect the surveillance state status quo,” Davidson said in a statement. “Hopefully everyone will wake up and defend the Constitution. It’s time for the House to protect one of Americans’ most basic freedoms — the right to privacy.”

By Wednesday afternoon, all hopes for the privacy protection amendments had fizzled out, with the House of Representatives choosing to push forward with the vote to renew surveillance powers, without considering any of the amendments for privacy protections.

News

Aliexpress Standard Shipping vs ePacket – For Which One You Should Go For

Published

on

Aliexpress Standard Shipping vs ePacket - For Which One You Should Go For

Aliexpress Standard Shipping vs ePacket

Want to know the difference between these two shipping modes? With which shipping method you should go?

Out of Aliexpress Standard Shipping and ePacket, which is cheaper? Then no worries. We are here with a closer look at –Aliexpress Standard Shipping vs ePacket. We will help you out to figure these two available shipping ways.

Aliexpress Standard Shipping

Aliexpress Standard Shipping and the company is the top e-commerce site and property of Alibaba Group. Aliexpress Standard Shipping is not the cheapest delivery option but it is a reliable choice.

AliExpress offers shipping options for every taste and budget:

  • For those who are in a hurry.
  • For those who are not.
  • With extra fees.

With Aliexpress Standard Shipping, the parcels usually arrive within 15-45 days.

You will see the tracking number of the parcel on the product’s details page when the shipment is sent. You can track the location of your package also.

Aliexpress Standard Shipping follows different chain:

Seller-> Aliexpress Warehouse->Courier->Customer.

ePacket

As the name implies, the shipping service was designed for e-commerce. It helps the customers to receive parcels quickly from online stores and marketplaces that shipped out from China and Hong Kong.

Before ePacket, products were shipped to the US from China via sea. This was a long journey, and shipping took a long time.

However, ePacket has its own requirements. The maximum length of a package is 24 inches (60 cm) and the total length, height, and thickness of the package cannot be more than 36 inches (90 cm).

Additionally, the package cannot weigh more than 4.4 lbs (2kg). Through ePacket, the product can be delivered to 35 countries.

Shipping time may vary and depends on the destination of the package, customs, holidays, and other delays. On average a package takes 10-20 days to arrive from the United States.

Aliexpress Standard Shipping vs ePacket

The two shipping methods that we are going to explore are AliExpress Standard Shipping and ePacket. Compared to the other free shipping method, AliExpress Standard Shipping and ePacket can cut down shipping time for a few days.

To know which is the best shipping option, consider the advantages and disadvantages of each shipping method.

Aliexpress Standard Shipping- Advantages

  • It provides free shipping to some destination countries like the USA.
  • Products are packed in good quality packaging.
  • Packages usually arrived within 15 to 45 days.
  • Provides many shipping options according to your choice.

Disadvantages

  • Packages usually arrived within 15 to 45 days.
  • It is ideal for small packages.
  • Sometimes you need to pick up your parcels.

ePacket Shipping: Advantages

  • The estimated shipping time is 7 – 30 days.
  • It is cheaper than other shipping services.
  • ePacket is faster than other standard shipping methods being used in China.

Disadvantages

  • ePacket is not available worldwide. ePacket delivers the products only in 35 countries.
  • There is a limitation on the size and weight of parcels.

Which Shipping Method Should I Go With- Aliexpress Standard Shipping vs ePacket?

According to my choice, you should choose ePacket as it is faster and more reliable.

From our experience, AliExpress Standard Shipping generally has a slower delivery timeframe than ePacket. But if it isn’t, then AliExpress Standard Shipping should be your next best choice for affordable shipping and package delivery.

Summing it Up On :

Aliexpress Standard Shipping vs ePacket

This is all about Aliexpress Standard Shipping vs ePacket. Hope you are able to figure out which shipping method is best for you.

Give your feedback in the comment section below.

Thanks for reading!

Is AliExpress Banned In India? Can It Be Banned Soon?

Continue Reading

Gaming

IT ministry banned 118 more apps including PUBG: Here’s the full list

Published

on

The Indian government once again banned 118 Chinese applications. The name of PUBG is also included in these apps. 118 other mobile applications of China have been banned by the IT Ministry.

The Ministry of Information Technology had received several complaints from various sources, stating that users’ data is being stolen incorrectly through some mobile apps available on Android and iOS platforms. 

Here is the full list of apps banned by the government on September 2:

Other Apps which are banned by the Government are :

21.Tencent Weiyun

22.Pitu

23.WeChat Work

24.Cyber Hunter

25.Cyber Hunter Lite

26. Knives Out-No rules, just fight!

27.Super Mecha Champions

28.LifeAfter

29.Dawn of Isles

30.Ludo World-Ludo Superstar

31.Chess Rush

32.PUBG MOBILE Nordic Map: Livik

33.PUBG MOBILE LITE

34.Rise of Kingdoms: Lost Crusade

35.Art of Conquest: Dark Horizon

36.Dank Tanks

37.Warpath

38.Game of Sultans

39.Gallery Vault – Hide Pictures And Videos

40.Smart AppLock (App Protect)

& 10 Bands Equalizer

 

61.Web Browser – Fast, Privacy & Light Web Explorer

62.Web Browser – Secure Explorer

63.Music Player – Audio Player

64.Video Player – All Format HD Video Player

65.Lamour Love All Over The World

66.Amour- video chat & call all over the world.

67.MV Master – Make Your Status Video & Community

68.MV Master – Best Video Maker & Photo Video Editor

69.APUS Message Center-Intelligent management

70.LivU Meet new people & Video chat with strangers

91.Murderous Pursuits

92.Tencent Watchlist (Tencent Technology

93.Learn Chinese AI-Super Chinese

94.HUYA LIVE – Game Live Stream

95.Little Q Album

96.Fighting Landlords – Free and happy Fighting Landlords

97.Hi Meitu

98.Mobile Legends: Pocket

99.VPN for TikTok

100.VPN for TikTok

101.Penguin E-sports Live assistant

102. Buy Cars-offer everything you need, special offers and low prices

103.iPick

104.Beauty Camera Plus – Sweet Camera & Face Selfie

105.Parallel Space Lite – Dual App

106.”Chief Almighty: First Thunder BC

107.MARVEL Super War NetEase Games

108.AFK Arena

109.Creative Destruction NetEase Games

110.Crusaders of Light NetEase Games

111.Mafia City Yotta Games

112.Onmyoji NetEase Games

113.Ride Out Heroes NetEase Games

114. Yimeng Jianghu-Chu Liuxiang has been fully upgraded

115.Legend: Rising Empire NetEase Games

116.Arena of Valor: 5v5 Arena Games

117.Soul Hunters

118.Rules of Survival

Continue Reading

Gaming

PUBG Banned In India : India’s Third Surgical Strike On Chinese Apps !!

Published

on

The Indian government banned PUBG 

A ban is imposed on PUBG as well as on 118 Chinese applications.

The Ministry of Information Technology had received several complaints from various sources, stating that users’ data is being stolen incorrectly through some mobile apps available on Android and iOS platforms. Let me tell you that even before that 57 applications of China were banned, including Tiktok’s name.

India’s 3rd Surgical Strike on Chinese Apps

The Indian government has conducted another digital strike against China. The Ministry of Information and Technology on Wednesday banned 118 mobile applications, including the mobile game PubG. This is India’s third digital strike on China’s mobile apps. Earlier, at the end of June, India had banned 47 apps from China including Tiktok, and then 59 Chinese apps at the end of July. The government has cited national security behind this decision.

Why PUBG is banned in India Now?

The statement said that the government has banned 118 such apps which are a threat to India’s sovereignty and integrity, defense of India, the security of the state, and peacekeeping. It said that the Ministry of Information Technology (IT) has received several complaints from various sources. The complaints also include reports of some mobile app users (users) on platforms such as Android and iOS being stolen and stored on servers outside the country.

It is said in the statement that such information is being compiled, analyzed, etc., which are a threat to national security and the defense of India. These ultimately pose a risk to India’s sovereignty and integrity. This is a very serious issue, which required quick action.

According to data analytics firm Senser Tower,

PUBG Mobile is the world’s highest-grossing gaming app. PUBG Mobile’s lifetime collection is about Rs 22,457 crore. 

PUBG VS Free Fire: Reasons Why Free Fire is Getting More Popular Than PUBG

Continue Reading

Trending