Russia is a nothing country with Nukes. That is the ONLY thing that gives them any strength. Pakistan might have just as much influence as Russia at this point for the same reason.

If you think Russia propaganda has any influence on 162 Million voters enough to change anything (2024), please keep spewing that opinion.

Some will hear that message and decide that, rather than paying a lawyer to review every job ad, maybe it's time to relocate to Singapore.

Flooding the job market with fake ads makes it harder for their competitors to recruit.

The proposed law is unlikely to be effective because it's difficult to prove an ad was fake rather than just unproductive.

Like many other regulations, it kicks in only for companies with 50 or more employees. For years, I worked for a company with exactly 49 employees. Anytime we hired someone, we fired someone else to keep the headcount below that deadly threshold.

Release very specific directions instead of a tool.

The DMCA addresses circumvention tools. It does not address speech.

Well, they put these new requirements and restrictions AFTER people bought the equipment.

There ought to be a lawsuit against the manufacturer over this. Similar to as there was against Sony when they tried to remove OtherOS support from the Playstation 3.

Stablecoins should be regulated in the same way that the likes of Paypal is regulated.

I don't know that that makes any sense whatsoever.

Paypal is an entirely different kind of thing. You go to Paypal because you want to send a friend $25. Paypal provides processing which gets the payment transferred from point A to point B.

With Stablecoins: the stablecoin has nothing to do directly with that process. Stablecoins don't deploy payment processing infrastructure. Stablecoin operators create the define the subject that you are using the crypto network to transfer. And write the script that defines the technical code regarding how that value is transferred and redeemed. From that point on its hand off -- their only active role is to issue and/or redeem Stablecoins: If it is a type of Stablecoin that has those sorts of operations.

That means there are things which need to be fundamentally regulated for Stablecoins which Paypal does not even have to worry about.

Mainly regulation should make sure Stablecoins are protecting the integrity of the backing of their coins AND the Integrity of any smart contracts themselves. Some of the greatest dangers will Stablecoins -- is whoever is managing the assets backing that stablecoin may simply steal them. Or they may create ways that more stablecoins can be issued at some point or released than there are assets for. They may create strange policies on the Stablecoins which are unacceptable for the application -- for example Smart contracts where a burn or automatic expiration date is introduced into someone's coins.

They are subject to risks that whoever is running the stablecoin would issue Spurious tokens to themself, steal, or render tokens worthless. A nefarious Stablecoin introducer might write backdoors or other undesirable behaviors into the Smart contracts that define the tokens, or write a Smart contract that has vulnerabilities, or abuse their position.

A badly-written smart contract, vulnerabilities, or other instabilities in the underlying Ethereum or other network can cause unexpected loss or interruptions to the Stablecoin holders' capability to transact, etc.

For all the benefits there are enormous risks in Stablecoin at a technological level that has no real equivalent for services like Paypal. For a company like Paypal they don't define what the US dollar is. A company like Paypal don't define rules that execute on a decentralized network on others' computers. Their servers are in their control and can directly manage everything involved in managing accounts and transfers. They just have to worry about hackers and attacks that can be detected and monitored on their own infrastructure. So there's a narrower field of technical risks

We already have banks, we already have currency,

Because banks suck and do NOT provide a good solution for all use cases where you want to hold and exchange value online. Consider stablecoins and crypto as a type of competitor to some banking services for some uses.

Banks take 24 hours to settle your transfer and charge you a 5% fee for the privilege. Instead of the minutes or at most an hour you would possibly want your transfers to complete in.

Banks will create waiting periods and holding periods to abuse the float at their profit and your expense.

Banks will randomly hold or freeze funds or transactions for review.

Banks cancel your transfer, because they saw something in the Memo field that tripped an alert. The next day police are at your door grilling you about your typo'd Memo line that auto-corrected to hookers when you meant to type hooks.

Banks take back the money from the digital thing you sold online AND charge you an exorbitant fee per transaction for the privilege, because the buyer was a scammer who decided report to Paypal or the Credit card as never delivered long after they received AND used up the item.

Banks won't open a new account for you, because the teller racially profiled you at the gate.

Banks when presented with your paycheck to simply deposit will stare and the back of the check for minutes and reply with "Now how did you get that? This signature must be fake.". "I'm going to shred this, and call the police to take this guy away."

Banks refuse your transaction and will not tell you why, because they saw you walking in wearing orange socks, and orange socks are deemed high risk on Wednesdays. Tomorrow the high risk colors are pink and blue.

Banks decline your request to withdraw $1k of your own money at the teller window in cash, because they Insist on knowing exactly from whom and what you are buying with $1k, and are not adequately satisfied with your explanation.

Banks close your merchant account because Mastercard received a complaint and found digital art on your website they decided is not brand-friendly.

Why? Stablecoins I believe plan on using treasuries to back them. You can buy Treasuries easily. You can sell treasuries easily. So why would you want to put a middleman in there who is going to take a cut

Because your treasuries require you have a centralized account and can only be sold for USD.
If that entity who holds your centralized account does not contemplate a transaction, then it is not possible.

The value in your Stablecoins is tokenized and can be traded directly in exchange for goods and services or in exchange for other coins. Your stablecoins can be stored in a wallet and taken offline. Individual transfer of some stablecoins can be made in a sign transaction and submitted to a centralized network. They are not bound directly to you in an account. There is not some centralized bank who can approve or reject your transfer of X stablecoins because they don't like the color of your socks; or the type of shirt you are wearing is deemed as high risk today.

You can treat the stablecoin units as cash, so long as the token is not hacked or have a badly written contract and the underlying fund does not become insolvent, etc. It is those things regulation should address.

ChatGPT making up things and incorrectly following policy would merely be in line with the current editorial pool, who ignores policy when it suits them and fabricates material if an article has any kind of political content.

go bellyup I can't wait to hear the screaming about bail them out. Part of the deal with putting money in a bank is it is FDIC insured.

The government could create FDIC insurance for a stablecoin. The whole point of a stablecoin is it's supposed to be backed by a specific hard asset or by a mix of hard assets. JMO - The government should be working on setting regulatory standards Stablecoins have to meet Including.

1. Registration similar to stock and bond issuers
2. Declared reserves.
3. Proof of stable reserves.
4. Proof of regulator audits of quarterly and annual audits those reserves by independent unrelated parties who have appropriate licensing and certification. Which include at the minimum a physical inventory of any hard reserves, a forensic book examination, confirmation of all balance sheets and statements for the preceding 6 months, and a complete review of all assets and liabilities.
5. Requirements that a subsequent independent audit cannot be performed by the same accounting firm, person, group, team, or contractor during the same year as a previous independent audit.

Why would the police bother seizing vacation videos when looking for tax records?

Because they would bother. The real problem here is the Plain view doctrine may lead to an unjust result if applied to digital data. Because once you are in somebody's system with a ticket that says to look for accounting files All files may have to be analyzed to a certain degree - and as a result, even the respondent's most sensitive files completely unrelated to the subject matter of the search can be in plain view.

It is possible from the point of view of the officers searching: The person that they believe to be an evil accountant in their mind, they will suspect could have preplanned all of this and concealed incriminating records in a file named "My Vacation 2014.mp4" as a deliberately incorrect filename or Description on the VHS tape in order to misdirect authorities.

Of course it does.

Hint: The deal was announced in Washington, DC, not Seattle or Chicago.

This was political.

I assume the Koreans are shrewd enough to write the contract so they can back out if Trump fails to keep his side of the deal.

My gas-guzzling SUV gets 12 miles to the gallon, but I am more ethically virtuous than you because my watch is carbon-neutral.

Once they have access to a device or an account, they have access to all of it.

That is true, but the same is true when they have access to search a home for X, for example a search for a certain gun. In theory nothing physically stops them searching through everything and looking at items that aren't on the warrant - they got physical access to the whole building.

I'd say it is still a good finding that warrants need to be more specific than to say seize and search all the potential data on a phone, And that they need to specify the type and subject or nature of records they are searching for.

I also would think they should go a step farther and say the warrants for electronic records on an electronic device should only allow extracting the actual records as a copy on site, and not anyone's personal communications device itself . Just like if you got a warrant to search a house -- you don't get to seize the whole house and return what you don't need later.

Due to the unreasonable hardship that seizing someone's telephone causes --- presuming the subjects owning the devices will provide access to take the records, unless obviously the physical state of the device's exterior or components are expected to contain important relevant evidence. The pulling of a copy of records off the device should be something required to be done on site and within a reasonable length of time. Just like the execution of a search warrant does not generally allow cordoning off a home and locking the owner out for an extended period of time.

It all depends on where the ecryption happens.

Client side, the data is encrypted by you before it even goes to iCloud or whereever.

Server side, the data is encrypted by the provider (iClound or whatever) on your behalf with a unique key that the server has.

IF you aren't doing the encryption, it isn't encrypted, only the illusion of encryption is happening.