C-3PO actor Anthony Daniels posts emotional tweet after finishing ‘Episode IX’

Image: Christopher Polk/Getty Images

2018%252f10%252f17%252f52%252flauraps.2264f.jpg%252f90x90By Laura Byager

In every Star Wars movie, viewers have been able to depend on the golden droid C-3PO as a calming, comic presence even as the franchise has expanded and changed over the last 40-odd years. 

SEE ALSO: John Boyega posts very teasing photo from the set of ‘Star Wars: Episode IX’

But by the looks of it, the next instalment in the Skywalker saga might be the last we’ll see of 3PO and his good manners.

Actor Anthony Daniels, who has worn the golden droid suit since the earliest Star Wars days, just tweeted out what seems an awful lot like a goodbye to 3PO. Daniels tweeted that he’d had his last day shooting Star Wars: Episode IX, adding that he felt sadness about the whole thing.  

“Today was 3PO’s last on Episode IX,” Daniels wrote. “He’s sad — so am I. But we’re so proud to have worked with such a lovely, talented cast & crew lead by J.J. & Kathy.”

“I’ll miss everyone but I’m glad to know that we’ve been making something exceptional together, to share with the waiting world,” he continued. 

Today was 3PO’s last on Episode IX. He’s sad – so am I. But we’re so proud to have worked with such a lovely, talented cast & crew lead by J.J. & Kathy. I’ll miss everyone but I’m glad to know that we’ve been making something exceptional together, to share with the waiting world.

— Anthony Daniels (@ADaniels3PO) January 28, 2019

While Daniels doesn’t exactly spell out whether this means that C-3PO is somehow retiring from the franchise, or that – heaven forbid – something happens to the droid, but the tweet sure does read like a goodbye. 

It kind of makes sense, since it’s been made quite clear from the onset that Episode IX is the official conclusion to the Skywalker saga. And perhaps C-3PO just belongs in the Skywalkerverse, given that he was put together by Anakin himself once upon a time.

We’re a little sad too now, TBH. 

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2MCtQIU
via IFTTT

Google ups its anti-fake news game ahead of EU elections

Google has its work cut ahead of the EU elections.
Google has its work cut ahead of the EU elections.

Image: Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

2016%252f09%252f16%252f6f%252fhttpsd2mhye01h4nj2n.cloudfront.netmediazgkymdezlza1.53aea.jpg%252f90x90By Stan Schroeder

As a company with a popular online service for just about everything, from e-mail to productivity to maps, Google is in a unique position when it comes to fighting fake news. 

On Tuesday, the company shared an update about its efforts to combat disinformation, fake news and abuse ahead of upcoming European Parliament elections, due this May. 

SEE ALSO: Test your internet prowess with Google’s phishing quiz

In the post, Google shares some examples of just how far online abuse can go when it comes to snatching votes — or stopping the other party from getting them. Besides plain old fake news, these include state-sponsored phishing attacks and “attempts to alter Maps so people can’t find their polling station.” 

To prevent these, Google says it’s staffed well enough to “get ahead of abuse, clamp down on malicious activity, and react rapidly to breaking threats.” 

Google also offers a variety of tools to help independent news outlets stay online. the company’s free Project Shield service helps them protect themselves from DDoS attacks. Starting today, Google’s Jigsaw suite of services will offer DDoS protection, free of charge, to organizations that “are vital to free and fair elections”. 

The tools are only good if you know how to use them, so Google also provides in-person and online security trainings for election officials, journalists and NGO workers. 

Finally, Google has introduced new verification policy for advertisers in the upcoming European Parliament elections. If you want to run election-related ads, you’ll have to prove you’re a EU-based entity or citizen. Furthermore, each ad will have a disclosure that will clearly state who’s paying for it. 

Google is not the only web giant that’s ramping up anti-disinformation efforts. Facebook recently partnered with a fake-news checking service in the UK, and yesterday the company announced it would open another “war room” to fight fake news ahead of the EU parliamentary elections. 

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2sVRB5H
via IFTTT

Pakistan court upholds Aasia Bibi’s blasphemy acquittal

Pakistan’s Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of a Christian woman charged with blasphemy, standing by its earlier verdict that sparked days of protests, death threats and nationwide chaos. 

The country’s top court in the capital, Islamabad, on Tuesday, dismissed the review petition against Aasia Bibi, who spent eight years on death row for blasphemy before being released last October.

The three-judge panel said arguments of the lawyer acting on behalf of the petitioners did not satisfy the judges.

“On merit, this petition is dismissed,” Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said in court.

She is now free to leave the country. Unconfirmed Pakistani media reports said her two daughters have already gone to Canada, where they’ve been granted asylum.

Bibi is currently under guard at a secret location in Pakistan for her own safety.

“I am really gratefully to everybody. Now after nine years it is confirmed that I am free and I will be going to hug my daughters,” a friend quoted Bibi as saying to The Associated Press, on condition of anonymity fearing for his own safety.

Her lawyer, Saiful Malook, who returned to Islamabad after fleeing the country amid death threats, called the decision a victory for Pakistan’s constitution and rule of law. 

‘Duty to protect’

Amnesty International issued a statement calling for her to be allowed to “reunite with her family and seek safety in a country of her choice”.

“The authorities must also resist and investigate any attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court. They have a duty to protect against threats of violence to harm religious minorities or the lives of judges or other government officials,” said Amnesty South Asia campaigner Rimmel Mohydin.

The 54-year old was arrested in 2009 after being accused of blasphemy following a quarrel with two female Muslim farm workers who refused to drink from a water container used by a Christian in a village in eastern Punjab province.

Bibi has always denied committing blasphemy.

The case became emblematic of fair trial concerns around Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws. 

The far-right Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) threatened to hold protests if Bibi’s acquittal was not reversed.

Judge Khosa said in court that Bibi’s accusers were guilty of perjury, and if the case hadn’t been so sensitive, they should have been jailed for life.

“The image of Islam we are showing to the world gives me much grief and sorrow,” said Khosa.

Call for violence

TLP called for its members to be ready for action in a message sent to journalists prior to the ruling.

But most of its leaders remain in detention after a government crackdown, and few protesters could be seen at the court in Islamabad, where security appeared as normal.

Pakistan clears Christian woman in landmark blasphemy case

That did not prevent those who did show up for the hearing from calling for violence against Bibi. “She deserves to be murdered according to shariah,” Hafiz Ehtisham Ahmed, an activist linked to the Red Mosque in Islamabad, told AFP news agency.

“If she goes abroad, don’t Muslims live there? If she goes out of Pakistan … anybody can kill her there.”

Blasphemy remains a massively inflammatory issue in Pakistan, where even unproven accusations of insulting Islam can prompt lynchings. Many cases see Muslims accusing Muslims, and rights activists say blasphemy charges are frequently used to settle personal scores.

Minorities, particularly Christians, are often caught in the crossfire.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2ME1a2b
via IFTTT

Watergate Created Roger Stone. Trump Completed Him.

The Roger Stone I met for a drink in the bistro across the street from a Barnes & Noble bookstore was not the right-wing merry prankster, the con man, I expected.

Yes, he looked like he’d stepped from the set of Guys and Dolls—with a spread collar, natty tie, pocket square and that navy-blue chalk-striped suit he wears. And, yes, he was on his way to said book shop to tout his latest volume of risible conspiracy theories. It was autumn, 2014.

Story Continued Below

“Cocktails?” he had asked, when I had called to request an interview.

Did he still have a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back? I asked. The infamous Nixon bong? Absolutely, he told me.

It was Nixon I came to talk about. And, laughs aside, Stone defied my expectations. In analyzing Nixon he was truthful, wry and perceptive—everything his public persona is not. Like Josef Stalin, the Soviet tyrant who could recite Walt Whitman, or Frankenstein’s monster, tamed by the strains of a melancholy violin, Stone displayed a more reflective side when he talked about his old boss, of whom he spoke with genuine reverence.

Nixon, he said, was a kind and good, if flawed, man. A brilliant strategist. A great statesman. Determined and resilient. And a victim of the elitist hypocrites in the press, the Democratic Congress and the special counsel’s office that brought him to ruin in 1974.

There’s a reason Nixon burns so bright in Stone’s mind. Watergate ushered Stone into politics. He cut his teeth on Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign as a college student, pulling the sort of penny-ante tricks—ratfucking, they called it—that Democrats (and the media) found witty and endearing when sprung upon Nixon.

Stone may have a native inclination for intrigue. Or maybe not. But as we talked it struck me how much Watergate had fed his cynicism. If a politician like Nixon could be destroyed, Stone seemed to believe, then the system was corrupt, a rigged game, just another opportunity to exploit—with dirty tricks, dishonest ads, phony history books, whatever. By the time that Donald Trump came calling, Roger Stone was ready.

***

Stone was not a key player in Nixon’s administration, as the Nixon Foundation, a private group dedicated to memorializing the late president, reminded us on Friday. In the hours after Stone’s arrest by the FBI—on charges that he has acted to obstruct Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election—the Foundation took to Twitter to disavow their fellow enthusiast:

This morning’s widely-circulated characterization of Roger Stone as a Nixon campaign aide or adviser is a gross misstatement. Mr. Stone was 16 years old during the Nixon presidential campaign of 1968 and 20 years old during the reelection campaign of 1972. 1/2

Mr. Stone, during his time as a student at George Washington University, was a junior scheduler on the Nixon reelection committee. Mr. Stone was not a campaign aide or adviser. Nowhere in the Presidential Daily Diaries from 1972 to 1974 does the name “Roger Stone” appear. 2/2

But there is a reason that, emerging from jail after posting bond on Friday, Stone greeted a crowd of jeerers and cheerers by lifting his arms in the classic Nixonian double-V’s-for-victory gesture. Nixon, more than anyone else, was an idol and an inspiration for young Roger Stone.

Early in the 1972 election cycle, as Nixon maneuvered—legally and not—for a second term, Stone, a “College Republican” from a working family in Lewisboro, N.Y., wiggled his way to a $550-a-month job in the scheduling division at the Committee to Re-elect the President (known then, and forevermore, as CREEP).

Stone’s only known connection to the Watergate break-in occurred two days after Nixon’s burglars were arrested in the process of rifling and bugging Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office building, on June 17, 1972. His boss, Bart Porter, was traveling, and Stone had drawn the duty of feeding Porter’s dogs. While he was at Porter’s home, the telephone rang. On the line was a man who identified himself as James McCord, the CREEP security chief, one of those arrested at the DNC. The man told Stone he was calling from jail and urgently needed to speak with Porter. Stone conveyed the “life or death” message to campaign officials.

But that’s not to say that Stone played no role in the other Watergate-era capers of the president’s men. What we know of his activities comes from congressional investigators (he is cited in the files and final report of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, the “Watergate Committee” chaired by Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina), the records of the Nixon presidential library, and FBI documents from the bureau’s Watergate files (some of which have been posted online by the watchdog group, Property of the People).

While Nixon’s in-house band of tough guys—which he called the Special Investigations Unit but were better known as “the Plumbers”—were bugging the DNC offices in the Watergate, other members of Nixon’s staff, like cats dropping dead mice at the Oval Office door, joined in not-so-obviously-illegal activities also designed to harass the opposition. They tailed Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and assigned a mole to his Secret Service detail. They slipped spies posing as news reporters or volunteers into the campaigns of Sens. Edmund Muskie and George McGovern to copy documents and report on strategy. A group of some two dozen provocateurs under the guidance of an operative named Donald Segretti staged dirty tricks in 11 states. Stone was loosely affiliated with these tricksters.

At the time, both sides knew how to play this game. It had long been a common practice—dating back to the intrigue between Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists—to spread rumors, leak embarrassing material and place informers in rival political camps. In the years surrounding Watergate, news organizations were caught bugging; the CIA and FBI ran massive surveillance programs, and political reporters delighted in the antics of Dick Tuck, the Democratic Party dirty trickster who had haunted Nixon’s campaigns for years.

Tuck’s most memorable stunt took place in the 1962 California gubernatorial campaign when Nixon, taking fire from the press over a financial transaction involving billionaire Howard Hughes, appeared in a Chinese neighborhood to campaign. Tuck had signs distributed on the podium that asked, in Chinese characters, “What About the Hughes Loan?” Nixon happily posed before them, then erupted when tipped off to Tuck’s trickery.

Many of the stunts pulled by Segretti’s crew were Tuck-like productions. Mice were released at a Muskie press conference, and picketers carrying “Gays for Muskie” signs were hired—in an era when gay rights was likely to turn more voters off, than on. A naked young woman ran by Muskie’s Florida hotel shouting, “Senator Muskie, I love you!” Hundreds of pizzas showed up, unordered, at Democratic campaign headquarters. Limousines carried baffled African diplomats, to arrive unbidden at fundraising dinners. Most of the dirty tricks were legal. Some of them, however, like the forgeries dispatched in the U.S. mail to spread racial and sexual slurs on counterfeit stationery, violated the law.

The report of the Senate Watergate committee, and reports of his 1973 interview with the FBI, describe Stone’s participation in such schemes with CREEP. In the fall of 1971, Nixon aides Porter, Pat Buchanan and Ken Khachigian prepared a pamphlet, ostensibly from a liberal group they christened “Citizens for a Liberal Alternative,” attacking Muskie for infidelity to liberal causes. Porter then assigned Stone to fly to New Hampshire, where he posed as a Democrat to distribute the material at McGovern headquarters and the state’s leading newspaper.

On another occasion, White House aide Charles Colson decided to harass the antiwar candidate, Rep. Pete McCloskey, who was opposing Nixon in the Republican primaries. Stone was dispatched to New Hampshire to infiltrate, and act as a gay donor to McCloskey’s campaign. Stone didn’t want to pose as a homosexual and made a contribution from the “Young Socialist Alliance” instead, then helped peddle the receipt from his donation to the New Hampshire press.

Stone’s most successful role as a Watergate trickster was a part he played running a 1972 CREEP operation called “Sedan Chair II.” He recruited Michael McMinoway, a political saboteur who infiltrated several Democratic campaigns in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and California, spying, sowing discord and gumming up phone banks, literature drops and other campaign operations. McMinoway then found work on McGovern’s security staff where, at the Democratic National Convention, he had access to the campaign headquarters and the hotel suite where McGovern was staying. McMinoway watched the proceedings on the convention floor on television with McGovern and wrote in his diary: “It is amazing how easy it would be to be right in the midst of all the operations and planning and yet be an enemy.”

Congressional investigators, and reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein at the Washington Post, chipped away at the secrecy imposed by Nixon’s aides at the White House and CREEP, but Nixon successfully stonewalled until the spring of 1973 when McCord and other aides crumbled under the threat of lengthy prison sentences, and told their story to federal prosecutors.

Stone left the episode with the firm conviction that his hero had been railroaded. “Far from being a perpetrator, Nixon was a victim … of a conspiracy by the judges, lawyers, press and committee that relentlessly persecuted him,” Stone would write.

***

Stone survived the FBI and Watergate committee probes—he had broken no laws—and went on to join Paul Manafort and Charles Black as the Republican principals in the lobbying and political consulting firm that began as Black, Manafort and Stone in 1980. They were young Reaganites then and—especially after the slyly brilliant strategist Lee Atwater signed on—the firm was like a rock and roll superstar group: the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young of conservative politics.

There was a touch of Nixonian devilry about Black, Manafort, Stone & Atwater, and about Stone’s subsequent career as a political consultant. Alongside mainstream clients like the Tobacco Institute and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, the firm represented a few unsavory foreign leaders like Zaire’s Mobuto Sese Seko, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Angola’s UNITA rebel movement. Atwater grew famous in 1988 when, as a campaign manager for George H.W. Bush, he oversaw a negative campaign that Atwater himself would later characterize as “naked cruelty” when making a deathbed apology to Democrat Michael Dukakis. Stone was a consultant to the campaign, but in a 2008 profile in the New Yorker, told writer Jeffrey Toobin that he had cautioned Atwater against the use of racially inflammatory tactics.

In the years before Nixon’s death in 1994, the former president mounted a comeback campaign as an author, retired statesman and adviser on foreign affairs. Stone was happy to help. They scheduled dinners for the nation’s leading political reporters at the former president’s home. After meals of exquisite Chinese cuisine, Nixon would give the group a dazzling tour d’horizon of international affairs, and domestic politics.

“Nixon had both a dark side and a light side,” Stone would write in a 2014 biography of the man he described as his “boyhood hero.” Nixon “achieved great things and sometimes used hardball tactics. He was a man of ideas married to an innate political pragmatism coupled with the interests of a survivor. He could be magnanimous as well as venal.”

“I was drawn to Richard Nixon not because of his philosophy: he had none,” Stone wrote.

Stone felt that kind of magnetism again, when he met Donald Trump—a fellow Nixon admirer—in 1979. In fact, Stone once said, in an appearance on C-SPAN in 2017, “It was Nixon who first saw the potential for a Trump presidency.” As Stone tells it, Nixon met Trump in the owner’s box at Yankee Stadium in the late 1980s and called Stone the next day.

“Well, I met your man,” Nixon told Stone. “I gotta tell you, he’s got it.” Shortly thereafter, Trump and Nixon bonded on a trip to Texas, said Stone. And Stone first signed on as an adviser to Trump.

The relationship has, at times, been rocky. “Roger is a stone-cold loser,” Trump told Toobin in 2008. “He always tries taking credit for things he never did.” But when Trump ran for president, it was Stone Trump called for advice late at night.

And now here we are: Stone, who emerged from Watergate unscathed, has been implicated in another massive political scandal. The indictment made public on Friday charges that an unidentified senior Trump campaign official assigned Stone the task of gathering information on the hacked Democratic Party emails and, later, that Stone stonewalled attempts by U.S. officials to see if the campaign worked with the Russians to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

The actual charges were classically Nixonian: witness tampering, obstruction of justice and making false statements to Congress to cover-up details of the Trump campaign’s association with the Russians. It is hard not to think that, given a chance for some latter-day ratfucking, Stone allegedly crossed a line. Based on the current allegations, he appears to have neglected the advice that Nixon gave aides during Watergate: It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up, that brings you down.

Stone’s biography of Nixon, Tricky Dick, presents more than a few byzantine conspiracy tales. It has also left more traditionalist Nixon-lovers upset about some salacious anecdotes concerning the late president’s drinking and sex life, which perhaps explains the Nixon Foundation tweets. But as Truman Capote once said: “A boy has to peddle his book.”

It was Stone’s relationship with Nixon—Nixon in exile—that I came to talk about in that bistro back in October, 2014. And as I watched Stone this week, defiant in the face of criminal charges, blitzing cable news channels to defend himself, I couldn’t help but think about our conversation. It was off-the-record, but Stone never veered far from what he has written about his idol.

“I saw Nixon up close. He was brilliant, devious, insightful … sometimes less than truthful,” Stone wrote. “It was his sheer resilience and his will to compete and win that I admired.”

And the tattoo?

“I wear it as a reminder,” Stone wrote: “One must always get up from the mat and fight again.”

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2sVRnvn
via IFTTT

Brexit vote on May’s Plan B: Everything you need to know

London, England  A series of key votes could on Tuesday begin charting a way out of Britain’s Brexit impasse as the clock ticks towards March 29, when the country is due to quit the European Union.

MPs will test their own proposals to resolve the stalemate caused by a humiliating rejection of Prime Minister Theresa May‘s exit deal with the EU.

Their plans could set a new direction for the country, or they could underline the debilitating lack of consensus that persists on the most divisive issue the country has faced for generations.

What’s happening and why it’s important?

Tuesday will mark the first time MPs have been given the chance to propose their own solutions to the deadlock and comes after they rejected May’s draft EU agreement earlier this month. 

The Conservative prime minister was expected to put forward a Plan B, but has stuck doggedly to her guns trying to build support for a revised version of her original blueprint.

MPs will vote on amendments to her approach selected by the powerful Speaker of the Commons John Bercow; 19 had been submitted by Monday, and he may choose four.

What’s expected?

Three proposals have gained a head of steam among MPs. 

Sir Graham Brady, the influential head of the Conservative Party’s 1922 Committee, wants to overcome the main hurdle to May’s deal by replacing the “Irish backstop”.

Conservative MPs hate this mechanism, which would prevent a customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if the UK cannot agree on a future trade deal with the EU.

There needs to be considerable clarity coming from the UK in order for the EU to consider making changes. I am sceptical.

Simon Bulmer, professor of European Politics at the University of Sheffield

Brady says his amendment would give May “enormous firepower” to demand concessions from Brussels and could simply be appended to her withdrawal agreement.

David Phinnemore, professor of European Politics at Queen’s University Belfast, said: “If it does go through, then clearly, it is being seen by some MPs as a way of getting support for May’s withdrawal agreement, and it also gives the prime minister a sense of what she needs to get from the EU.

“But whether the EU will be happy to pursue discussions on something appended to the withdrawal agreement is impossible to say.”

A second amendment turning heads has been put forward by the Labour chair of the Home Affairs select committee, Yvette Cooper.

This seeks to prevent a “no-deal” Brexit, something economists warn would be disastrous, by directing the government to extend the deadline if there is no agreement by February 26.

Maddy Thimont Jack, a researcher at the Institute for Government in London, said: “The Brady amendment is obviously trying to express a view that the House will approve the deal as long as the prime minister negotiates or is able to address concerns about the backstop, whereas the Cooper amendment is really about MPs trying to take control of the process or timeframe.”

A third amendment gaining cross-party support, drafted by Conservative Caroline Spelman and Labour’s Jack Dromey, would simply block Britain from leaving the EU without a deal.

What influence do the amendments have?

Tuesday’s votes could make all the difference, or none at all.

The EU insists the backstop can only be ditched if the UK stays in a customs union with the bloc.

May’s “red lines”, the negotiating points on which she refuses to budge, include a desire to control immigration from the EU, which means the UK cannot remain in its customs union and single market.

The Brady amendment rests on Conservative hopes a clear statement of intent by MPs will prompt the EU to compromise, but there is no sign it will.

At the weekend, Ireland‘s foreign minister, Simon Coveney, stated baldly the backstop simply “isn’t going to change”.

Phinnemore said the Brady plan is in keeping with two years of British discussions that have failed to recognise the European position.

He said: “The EU line seems to be very strong on this: there are very few ways of getting around controls on the movement of goods on the island of Ireland without a customs union and without the regulatory alignment.”

What will Europe do?

Whether MPs vote for May to renegotiate the backstop or even delay Brexit, this does not solve the UK’s fundamental problem: the lack of a clear consensus.

Phinnemore said there are indications from the EU that if the UK signals its intention to relax its red lines, Brussels will talk. 

“They would probably have to shift towards a permanent customs union arrangement for the UK as a whole. It is very difficult to see the EU moving away from the requirements for a backstop.”

Simon Bulmer, professor of European Politics at the University of Sheffield, says above all Brussels is seeking clarity from what it sees as disarray on the British side.

“Europe is only going to make concessions if it is presented with a clear option and we have got to see whether that emerges in the voting. 

“The difficulty is the noise of other proposals that may or may not be successful. There needs to be considerable clarity coming from the UK in order for the EU to consider making changes. I am sceptical.”

Where does this leave Brexit?

There is no guarantee any of the frontrunner amendments will pass.

Pro-Brexit Conservatives are cooling on Brady’s plan, and Labour MPs in constituencies that voted to leave the EU do not trust Cooper’s.

Moreover, Cooper’s amendment would not identify a consensus among MPs to halt a no-deal Brexit.

Bulmer believes an amendment tabled by the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee, Hilary Benn, calling for “indicative” votes to gauge support among MPs on a suite of Brexit options may be a way forward.

“If there was a systematic review of the options to try and smoke out what is feasible as the way forward then the EU would take a more constructive way of looking at things. 

“They have been around the houses on this so many times.”

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2FVrLHC
via IFTTT

Facebook’s plan to merge Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram raises data privacy concerns

Facebook's plan to unify WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger's backend has come under fire.
Facebook’s plan to unify WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger’s backend has come under fire.

Image: Chesnot/Getty Images

2016%252f09%252f16%252fe7%252fhttpsd2mhye01h4nj2n.cloudfront.netmediazgkymde1lzex.0f9e7.jpg%252f90x90By Johnny Lieu

It may be early days for Facebook’s plan to integrate Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, but one regulator already wants answers.

The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) has asked Facebook for an “urgent briefing” on the tech giant’s proposal, which will see the three apps continue separately — but have their backend infrastructure unified.

SEE ALSO: Disastrous FaceTime bug lets you spy on person you’re calling

“The Irish DPC will be very closely scrutinising Facebook’s plans as they develop, particularly insofar as they involve the sharing and merging of personal data between different Facebook companies,” the statement reads.

“Previous proposals to share data between Facebook companies have given rise to significant data protection concerns and the Irish DPC will be seeking early assurances that all such concerns will be fully taken into account by Facebook in further developing this proposal.” 

“It must be emphasised that ultimately the proposed integration can only occur in the EU if it is capable of meeting all of the requirements of the GDPR.”

Unifying the backend of these three apps means it could be easier for people to send messages across the platforms, for instance, simultaneously benefiting Facebook in ensuring users stick to the company’s products. 

It raises regulation and privacy issues, however, and marks a significant shift from the independence which was granted to the platforms from Facebook — Instagram’s Kevin Systrom and WhatsApp’s Jan Koum emphasized this when their apps were acquired by Facebook at the time. 

In an interview with Forbes, WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton said he was “coached to explain” to the EU’s antitrust regulators that it would be “really difficult” to merge or blend data between WhatsApp and Facebook, shortly before the tech giant’s acquisition in 2014.

Acton said neither he or Koum wanted to merge the systems, but Acton claimed he later found out that Facebook had already begun work on trying to blend data.

WhatsApp’s plans to share personal data with Facebook were quashed last year, following an investigation from the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office, after declaring such data transfer would be illegal.

Facebook’s plan has also come under fire from Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna.

“This is why there should have been far more scrutiny during Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp which now clearly seem like horizontal mergers that should have triggered antitrust scrutiny,” he tweeted on Sunday.

“Imagine how different the world would be if Facebook had to compete with Instagram and WhatsApp. That would have encouraged real competition that would have promoted privacy and benefited consumers.”

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2MFAder
via IFTTT

WWE dramedy ‘Fighting With My Family’ is a rowdy charmer: Review

Lena Headey, Florence Pugh, and Nick Frost in Fighting With My Family.
Lena Headey, Florence Pugh, and Nick Frost in Fighting With My Family.

Image: Sundance Institute

2017%252f05%252f02%252fd1%252fangiehanheadshothighres3.50ab4.jpg%252f90x90By Angie Han

Maybe it is true that all happy families are alike, deep down. But the Knights — the wrestling clan at the center of Fighting With My Family – are at least idiosyncratic and endearing enough to make themselves worth watching, even if their tale feels like one we’ve seen many times before.

Based on a 2012 documentary, Fighting With My Family traces the rise of wrestling superstar Paige, from her beginnings on the British indie circuit with her brother and parents (all of whom are also pro wrestlers) to her WWE debut. 

SEE ALSO: Emma Thompson in ‘Late Night’ is the talk show host we deserve

At its core, Fighting With My Family is a quirky-family dramedy combined with an underdog-sports-star biopic. The plot moves along a predictable path; you can probably guess from the first minutes exactly where this film is headed even if you’ve never heard of Paige. But it’s the cinematic equivalent of comfort food, something familiar and unfussy that’ll nevertheless leave you satisfied.

Paige, or Raya to her family, is a woman of many layers – bold on the outside, vulnerable on the inside, and tough underneath that – and Florence Pugh ties them together seamlessly. Lena Headey and Nick Frost, meanwhile, seem to be having a blast as Raya’s parents, Julia and Ricky Knight, dialing up the color and cheer without tipping over into caricature. 

Fighting With My Family

Image: Sundance Institute

Along with Jack Lowden, who plays Paige’s brother Zak, the foursome share a cozy chemistry that not only sells the idea that they’re a family, but invites you to pull up and join the family, too. 

If that easy intimacy is a source of strength for Fighting With My Family, its greatest weakness is the nakedly commercial instincts that engineered it. The extended cameo appearance by executive producer Dwayne Johnson move some tickets, but it’s too distracting to work in context. 

More irritating still is its exaltation of the WWE as a benevolent dream machine that can do no wrong. Sure, it makes sense that Paige and her family would consider the WWE the pinnacle of their industry. But do they have to sound so much like an infomercial when they’re talking about it? 

Thankfully, the movie snaps back into focus once Paige heads to Florida to join the organization’s NXT program. The character’s intense loneliness and fear of failure will ring true to anyone who’s ever gone out on a limb to reach for bigger and better things. Running in parallel with Paige’s ascension is Zak’s downslide, after he’s confronted with the harsh truth that the dream he’s worked so hard to achieve may never come true.

It’s these emotional arcs, not the plot specifics, that drive the story. By the time it gets to the uplifting conclusion, you’ll probably notice the narrative doesn’t make a ton of sense (I’m not a WWE fan, but even I’m pretty sure that’s not how wrestling works), but you’ll also probably be too engrossed to care. Like the Knights themselves, Fighting With My Family is shaggy, flawed, and relentlessly charming.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2sS3rOj
via IFTTT

Seth Meyers unpacks Roger Stone’s arrest by notably unpaid FBI agents

Donald Trump’s longtime associate Roger Stone has been indicted, so Late Show host Seth Meyers took “A Closer Look” at the events surrounding his arrest.

A known threatener of dogs, Stone was arrested as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe on Friday for witness tampering, obstruction, and making false statements.

He was brought in by notably unpaid FBI agents, some of the 800,000 federal employees who have gone without paychecks during Trump’s government shutdown. 

“Wow, imagine being such an asshole that FBI agents will come into work and arrest you for free,” said Meyers. 

If nothing else, the whole thing’s just an excuse for Meyers to let fly with a lot of jokes about Stone’s inauguration outfit.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2ME7OFv
via IFTTT

The first full-size LEGO Chevy truck

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter http://bit.ly/2B8psga
via IFTTT