Popular shared stories on NewsBlur.
2307 stories
·
46410 followers

yesterdaysprint: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missouri, October...

1 Share


yesterdaysprint:

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missouri, October 23, 1908

Read the whole story
dreadhead
2 hours ago
reply
Vancouver Island, Canada
Share this story
Delete

Florida Man Breaks Into Restaurant, Strips Naked, Eats Noodles He Brought From Home and Plays Bongos tampabay.com/news/publicsaf… pic.twitter.com/uzPLB8UAWA

1 Share

Florida Man Breaks Into Restaurant, Strips Naked, Eats Noodles He Brought From Home and Plays Bongos tampabay.com/news/publicsaf… pic.twitter.com/uzPLB8UAWA



Posted by _FloridaMan on Monday, November 12th, 2018 11:47pm


2559 likes, 899 retweets
Read the whole story
dreadhead
2 hours ago
reply
Vancouver Island, Canada
Share this story
Delete

A new photo!

1 Share

Looking out over Phillips ridge back at the end of summer.
November 13, 2018 at 11:54AM
via Instagram <a href="https://ift.tt/2QEdRuZ" rel="nofollow">https://ift.tt/2QEdRuZ</a>
Read the whole story
dreadhead
3 hours ago
reply
Vancouver Island, Canada
Share this story
Delete

Australian’s 19-Year Squat Is Successful

1 Share

Let’s say you find something that doesn’t belong to you. You know who it does belong to, but you don’t think they take very good care of it. You think you’ll do a better job, and so you just take it. You fix it up, and then you keep it.

Now, that may seem wrong. But it depends.

Let’s say the thing is a car. You walk by this car on the street, and it’s a real classic, so you hate to see that the owner isn’t taking care of it. It’s rusty and a couple of windows are broken, and so forth. A raccoon lives in it. It’s parked in front of somebody’s house, and it’s been there for years, so you’re pretty sure who owns it. You know he doesn’t take care of it. So you have it towed to your house, you fix it up, and then you drive it around town for months or years. Eventually, the real owner sees you and realizes that’s his car.

In this scenario, you are a car thief.

Now let’s say the thing is a house. You walk by this house all the time, and it’s a nice house, so you hate to see that the owner isn’t taking care of it. It’s overgrown and a couple of windows are broken, and so forth. A raccoon lives in it. You’re pretty sure who owns the house, and you know he doesn’t take care of it. He’s certainly not living in it, hence the raccoon, so you decide you should live there instead. So you do. You get it fixed up, and you move in, or maybe you just rent it out to somebody, and you do this for years. Eventually, the real owner realizes there’s somebody living in his house.

In this scenario, you are a homeowner. Maybe.

The difference is a legal doctrine called “adverse possession,” which in some circumstances allows a person to claim legal ownership of property by taking it and keeping it for a long time. This is only indirectly related to the original kind of “adverse possession,” which involved killing someone (the adversity) and taking all his stuff (the possession). That, too, could apply to land, like when the Romans decided their neighbors weren’t really taking very good care of their property (like Gaul). But gradually, the idea emerged that there might be a place for a kind of adverse possession that didn’t involve stabbing.

The general idea is that it’s good for land to be “productive,” so if the legal owner isn’t using it and someone else is, if that goes on for long enough then maybe that new person should be the legal owner instead. The rules vary, but in California, for example, the claimant must have occupied and openly claimed the property as his own, “under such circumstances as to constitute reasonable notice to the owner,” for at least five years. Aguayo v. Amaro, 213 Cal. App. 4th 1102, 1111 (2013). If by the end of that time the owner hasn’t shown up to challenge it, then a court can award the property to the claimant (or “squatter,” depending on how you feel about the person).

Adverse possession is a thing in Australia, too, as the heirs of Henry Thompson Downie learned recently (BBCSydney Morning Herald). About two weeks ago, a court in New South Wales ruled that Mr. Downie’s former home belonged not to them, but to a guy who found it empty in 1998 and basically … just took it.

According to the court’s ruling, Downie’s heirs said their father acquired the property in 1927, and that the family lived there until shortly before the war, when they had to move because the house was “full of white ants.” They lived in various other houses after that, but said “the family never returned to 6 Malleny Street and neither did the family ever talk about it.” Instead, Mr. Downie seems to have decided to rent the house (presumably now ant-free) to a tenant, who was living there when Downie died in 1947. And the tenant kept living there, apparently still paying the same “small amount of rent” to a real-estate agent, for the next 51 years. She died in April 1998.

Later that year, along comes Bill Gertos. He was in the area to visit some clients, he said, and noticed the dilapidated and apparently empty house. Having learned about adverse possession by chance years before, he thought this might be an opportunity to try it out. Gertos claimed that he hired a solicitor to try to find out who owned the place, and said “inquiries were made but did not yield any useful information.” (The solicitor is now dead and his firm could find no records of this engagement.) If Gertos was willing to take over the property, pay the bills, and “look after it as it if [were] his own for at least 12 years,” the solicitor told him, it could be his.

Gertos commenced to do this. He spent money restoring the place, paid for repairs and taxes and so forth, and by at least 2003 he was collecting rent from tenants. And again, this was for a house that he did not own. But by 2017, Gertos decided enough time had gone by that he could give this adverse-possession thing a shot, and he applied to be named the owner.

The opinion doesn’t make clear how Downie’s heirs found out about this, having obviously paid little if any attention to the place for the previous 70 years. But they did find out, and they sued. Too late, the Court found:

Mr Gertos’ possession of the land since about late 1998 can be regarded as open, not secret; peaceful, not by force; and adverse, not by consent of the true owner. It has continued without interruption to the present day. In my opinion it is possession by a person in whose favour the limitation period under the Act can run.

In other words, the house and property are now his. And since they are apparently now worth well over $1 million, looks like this was a pretty successful squat.

Read the whole story
acdha
4 hours ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Confirmed: Listening to Whistleblower John Reidy Could Have Saved the Lives of Numerous CIA Assets

1 Share

Back in 2015, I looked at the whistleblower case of John Reidy, a former CIA contractor who had warned of catastrophic failures in a communications system.

Reidy describes playing three roles in 2005: facilitating the dissemination of intelligence reporting to the Intelligence Community, identifying Human Intelligence (HUMINT) targets of interest for exploitation, and (because of resource shortages) handling the daily administrative functions of running a human asset. In the second of those three roles, he was “assigned the telecommunications and information operations account” (which is not surprising, because that’s the kind of service SAIC provides to the intelligence community). In other words, he seems to have worked at the intersection of human assets and electronic reporting on those assets.

Whatever role he played, he described what by 2010 had become a “catastrophic intelligence failure[]” in which “upwards of 70% of our operations had been compromised.” The problem appears to have arisen because “the US communications infrastructure was under siege,” which sounds like CIA may have gotten hacked. At least by 2007, he had warned that several of the CIA’s operations had been compromised, with some sources stopping all communications suddenly and others providing reports that were clearly false, or “atmospherics” submitted as solid reporting to fluff reporting numbers. By 2011 the government had appointed a Task Force to deal with the problem he had identified years earlier, though some on that Task Force didn’t even know how long the problem had existed or that Reidy had tried to alert the CIA and Congress to the problem.

All that seems to point to the possibility that tech contractors had set up a reporting system that had been compromised by adversaries,

When news of CIA’s loss of numerous Chinese assets came out, I again pointed back to Reidy’s warnings.

Today, Yahoo confirms that the communications system weakness first identified by Reidy 11 years ago was indeed exploited first by Iran (where, Yahoo says, Reidy was stationed), then by China, and to a lesser degree, Russia.

Iran was able to use the vulnerability to unwind the US’ network of spies by using Google to identify signatures of the system.

This hunt for CIA sources eventually bore fruit — including the identification of the covert communications system.

A 2011 Iranian television broadcast that touted the government’s destruction of the CIA network said U.S. intelligence operatives had created websites for fake companies to recruit agents in Iran by promising them jobs, visas and education abroad. Iranians who initially thought they were responding to legitimate opportunities would end up meeting with CIA officers in places like Dubai or Istanbul for recruitment, according to the broadcast.

Though the Iranians didn’t say precisely how they infiltrated the network, two former U.S. intelligence officials said that the Iranians cultivated a double agent who led them to the secret CIA communications system. This online system allowed CIA officers and their sources to communicate remotely in difficult operational environments like China and Iran, where in-person meetings are often dangerous.

A lack of proper vetting of sources may have led to the CIA inadvertently running a double agent, said one former senior official — a consequence of the CIA’s pressing need at the time to develop highly placed agents inside the Islamic Republic. After this betrayal, Israeli intelligence tipped off the CIA that Iran had likely identified some of its assets, said the same former official.

The losses could have stopped there. But U.S. officials believe Iranian intelligence was then able to compromise the covert communications system. At the CIA, there was “shock and awe” about the simplicity of the technique the Iranians used to successfully compromise the system, said one former official.

In fact, the Iranians used Google to identify the website the CIA was were using to communicate with agents. Because Google is continuously scraping the internet for information about all the world’s websites, it can function as a tremendous investigative tool — even for counter-espionage purposes. And Google’s search functions allow users to employ advanced operators — like “AND,” “OR,” and other, much more sophisticated ones — that weed out and isolate websites and online data with extreme specificity.

According to the former intelligence official, once the Iranian double agent showed Iranian intelligence the website used to communicate with his or her CIA handlers, they began to scour the internet for websites with similar digital signifiers or components — eventually hitting on the right string of advanced search terms to locate other secret CIA websites. From there, Iranian intelligence tracked who was visiting these sites, and from where, and began to unravel the wider CIA network.

Yahoo describes that Iran and China likely traded technology, which is how China proceeded to use the same technique to target CIA assets.

While Yahoo doesn’t emphasize it, it seems likely that if SAIC and Raytheon hadn’t had so much power when Reidy first started warning of this compromise, it would have been addressed far more quickly. Instead, he lost clearance and was fired.

Which, on top of a lot of other lessons, seems to be a superb example of how ignoring a whistleblower can have catastrophic consequences.

Read the whole story
benzado
4 hours ago
reply
New York, NY (40.785018,-73.97
Share this story
Delete

Jack Dorsey Says Twitter Is ‘Consodering’ an Edit Button to Fix Typos in Tweets

1 Comment

It’s perfectly reasonable for something as advanced as an “Edit” button to take a multi-billion dollar company years to consider.

Read the whole story
jhamill
4 hours ago
reply
Be careful what you ask for. An "Edit" button is a lot more problematic than some extra characters.
California
Share this story
Delete

Indonesia 737 crash caused by “safety” feature change pilots weren’t told of

1 Comment

On November 6, Boeing issued an update to Boeing 737 MAX aircrews. The change, directed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), came because Boeing had never provided guidance to pilots on what to do when part of an updated safety system malfunctioned—the very scenario that the pilots of Indonesia's Lion Air Flight 610 faced on October 29. Not knowing how to correct for the malfunction, the aircrew and their passengers were doomed. All aboard were lost as the aircraft crashed into the Java Sea.

First approved for commercial operation by the FAA on March 8, 2017, the MAX is just beginning to be delivered in large volumes. Lion Air was one of Boeing's primary foreign customers for the MAX, which is also flown by Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and Air Canada. The Lion Air aircraft lost in the accident was virtually brand new, delivered by Boeing in August; this was the first accident involving an aircraft touted for its safety.

But Boeing never told pilots about one key new safety feature—an automated anti-stall system—or how to troubleshoot its failure. The manual update raised an outcry from pilots in the US.

Allied Pilots Association spokesperson and 737 captain Dennis Tajer told Reuters that his union members were only informed of a new anti-stall system that had been installed by Boeing on 737 MAX aircraft after the Lion Air crash. “It is information that we were not privy to in training or in any other manuals or materials,” Tajer told Reuters.

Jon Weaks, president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association, told Bloomberg, “We don’t like that we weren’t notified.” Southwest has ordered 257 737 MAX aircraft; American has orders for 85 still pending.

A stall is a dangerous situation where the lift from an aircraft's wings no longer is enough to counter the weight of the plane, causing it to lose control and fall. Stalls usually happen when an aircraft's angle of attack (AOA)—the angle relative to the horizon that the aircraft's nose is pointing—reaches an angle that reduces the lift the wings can produce at its current air speed; pulling the nose of the aircraft up at lower air speed can result in a stall. If the airplane's tail is in the wake of the wings during a stall, the aircraft can enter what is called a "deep stall," and the pilots may lose the ability to control the aircraft.

In the past, anti-stall systems have either issued audible warnings to pilots or, as in newer systems, used a sensory feedback system that warns the pilot by putting more resistance on the aircraft's control stick or yoke when the pilot is approaching the critical angle. But the new system in the 737 uses data from the aircraft's AOA and airspeed sensors to proactively counter pilot error, adjusting the aircraft's controls to push the nose down if the sensors indicate the aircraft could stall.

Initial data from the investigation of the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 indicates that the AOA sensor was providing "erroneous input," according to a Boeing statement. The Operational Manual Bulletin sent out by Boeing on November 6 provides procedures for dealing with that sort of situation, but no prior training provided by Boeing ever mentioned the automated system.

The failure of an air safety system is exceedingly rare but not unheard of for new aircraft. This accident shows the inherent risk of taking control of critical systems away from humans without their knowledge.

Read the whole story
acdha
5 hours ago
reply
I wonder whether someone at Boeing will face actual criminal charges for this
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories