An anti-gun violence charity calls for a school-shooting video game to be dropped from Steam.
Future cyber-attacks could come from robots trained on video games, the Ministry of Defence warns.
The announcement is being seen as a sign that a new, more powerful console is on the way.
Crunchy charcoal fingers with raw meaty innards to be a thing of the past
With a bank holiday looming (in the UK and US at least) thoughts are turning to barbecues and the traditional burning-of-the-meat.…
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has repeatedly claimed that it was unable to access data on nearly 7,800 encrypted devices in fiscal 2017, but the FBI now admits the number is far lower. In reality, there were just 1,000 to 2,000 devices that the FBI couldn't unlock last year, The Washington Post reported yesterday.
The FBI apparently counted individual phones multiple times, an error related to the agency's use of three separate databases. The FBI used the inflated number as evidence that companies like Apple should weaken smartphone security in order to help the the agency access encrypted devices. For example, FBI Director Christopher Wray said the following in a January 2018 speech:
In fiscal year 2017, we were unable to access the content of 7,775 devices—using appropriate and available technical tools—even though we had the legal authority to do so. Each one of those nearly 7,800 devices is tied to a specific subject, a specific defendant, a specific victim, a specific threat... Being unable to access nearly 7,800 devices is a major public safety issue. That's more than half of all the devices we attempted to access in that timeframe—and that's just at the FBI.
Wray said the 7,800 locked devices illustrate the scope of the "Going Dark" problem, in which criminals benefit from the standard smartphone security features that protect consumers at large. But the FBI's transcript of Wray's speech now carries a correction saying that "Due to an error in methodology, this number is incorrect. A review is ongoing to determine an updated number."
The US government issued an alert Wednesday following reports that a government employee stationed in southern China experienced “subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure” and sustained a brain injury.
The case draws clear and eerie parallels to mysterious health problems that affected US diplomats in Cuba, who also experienced unexplained episodes of unusual sounds and pressure followed by diagnoses of traumatic brain injury.
Responding to an email from the New York Times, a spokesperson for the United States Embassy in Beijing said that the unnamed employee was working in the US consulate in the city of Guangzhou, just northwest of Hong Kong, and experienced a variety of symptoms from late 2017 until April of this year. In statements to the BBC, she noted that the employee had been sent back to the US. Last Friday, the 18th of May, “the embassy was told that the clinical findings of [an] evaluation matched mild traumatic brain injury,” she wrote.
Bye-bye Mouse House. Hello Kabletown?
Who even needs a dock, anyway?
The reviews site alleges that Google is prioritizing its own services in search.
Apple's got another lawsuit on its hands regarding keyboards some say are defective.
Hyundai is taking the idea of NFC payment solutions like Apple Pay and Android Pay and integrating it into its cars.
The budget MVNO has Sprint and T-Mobile's customers in its sights.
//X and pals on show in San Fran
Nine-year-old flash firm Pure Storage flung out a slew of products to ward off legacy and newbie rivals at its Accelerate event in San Francisco, including – as you'd expect – faster, denser and cheaper arrays.…
And you can see its insides, too.
Think Discover Weekly with themes.
Are you a cable TV cord cutter who thinks an antenna is too much of a pain? Here's a new option.
Ferrari said it took inspiration from the F40 when putting this car together.
The Malaysian police may have a sweet tooth.
Taxi app Uber is giving European drivers access to medical cover, sick pay and parental leave.
No, it doesn't have to be your brother-in-law.