North Dorset District Council is working with police to identify the source of a ransomware attack this week, the latest incident in what security experts believe to be a growing problem for local authorities.
According to an email seen by The Register, the attack had infected 6,000 files on the council’s servers by Tuesday.
However, the council said yesterday evening the problem had been fixed.
The French parliament has voted in favor of punishing companies that refuse to decrypt data for government investigators – by threatening businesses with big fines and possible jail terms for staff.
This comes amid the FBI’s high-profile battle with Apple in the US to unlock a dead killer’s encrypted iPhone.
French deputies voted to add an amendment to a penal reform bill that would fine companies €350,000 (US$385,350) for a refusal to decrypt and give up to five years in jail for senior executives. Telecommunications company executives would face smaller fines and up to two years in jail for not cooperating with the authorities.
Under new guidelines, the FBI is instructing high schools across the country to report students who criticize government policies and “western corruption” as potential future terrorists, warning that “anarchist extremists” are in the same category as ISIS and young people who are poor, immigrants or travel to “suspicious” countries are more likely to commit horrific violence.
Based on the widely unpopular British “anti-terror” mass surveillance program, the FBI’s “Preventing Violent Extremism in Schools” guidelines, released in January, are almost certainly designed to single out and target Muslim-American communities. However, in its caution to avoid the appearance of discrimination, the agency identifies risk factors that are so broad and vague that virtually any young person could be deemed dangerous and worthy of surveillance, especially if she is socio-economically marginalized or politically outspoken.
In a historic victory for privacy rights advocates, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld a ruling that barred prosecutors from using evidence discovered through the Baltimore Police Department’s use of secret cellphone tracking technology.
The ruling, issued late Wednesday, marks the first time any appellate court in the country has thrown out evidence obtained through warrantless use of the secretive devices, often known by the brand name Stingray.
The brief order, signed by Judge Andrea Leahy, offered no explanation of the reasoning behind the decision but indicated that an opinion would be forthcoming.
In July 2015, I wrote an article about Fourth Amendment protection for self-driving cars that referenced Commonwealth v. Dorelas, a Massachusetts case that considered how specific a warrant must be before police can search a smartphone. (Full disclosure: I helped the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts draft its amicus brief.) Briefly: Defendant Denis Dorelas was arrested following a shooting. While investigating the shooting, witnesses told police that Dorelas had received threatening phone calls and text messages from the other individual involved in the shooting. Based on this evidence, police applied for and received a warrant to search Dorelas’ iPhone…..