The judge was “satisfied that the Doe defendants were given fair warning of the possibility that their personal information could be disclosed by Cogeco.”
The broadband outfit “provided the Doe defendants with first and second notices from (Hellboy Productions’) counsel which asserted (its) copyright in the work and alleged infringement of the work by the Doe defendants. The first notice advised of Cogeco’s obligation to retain records that will allow for the identification of the Doe defendants and the second notice warned of the plaintiff’s ability to make a formal legal request to Cogeco to compel the Doe defendants’ identity.”
First, the law firm sends them notices, giving them seven days to take the movie down and stop giving it away. If they comply, then typically nothing happens.
If they don’t stop, the firm issues a second notice indicating it reserves the right to sue the alleged movie pirates.
The ramifications of this breach are profound. Cybercriminals who gained
access to the AnyDesk portal could glean valuable information about
customers, including license keys, active connections, session
durations, contact information, email addresses, and the number of
managed remote access hosts, all with their online/offline status and
IDs. Such details open up a plethora of malicious possibilities.
In light of this breach, AnyDesk customers must take proactive steps
to protect their accounts and data. Password changes alone are
insufficient. AnyDesk offers a whitelist feature, enabling users to specify who can connect to their devices, adding an extra layer of security.
Multi-factor
authentication (MFA) is strongly recommended to enhance account
protection. Organizations should also monitor for any unexpected
password and MFA changes, suspicious sessions, and emails referencing
AnyDesk accounts from unknown sources.
This sounds a lot like HRM already on the market for sports and fitness activities. Garmin's actually works by calculating breaths rather than measuring them.
can't do much , didn't make English language news.
Google translate seems to have problems with some news sites.
Here's what Radio-Canada (french CBC) has to say
The Ministère de la Cybersécurité et du Numérique du Québec confirmed on Thursday that an incident of computer security due to an action by an employee was quickly corrected.
This employee has been transferred to une boîte de courriel personale des documents contenant des renseignements personnels de 529 employés de la fonction publique. Elle aurait agi de bonne foi et a collaboré avec le ministère, a indicé ce dernier en réponse aux questions de Radio-Canada.
The incident occurred on May 23 last year, when the employee was transferred to another public organization. She explained that she had transferred documents to be able to answer the questions of her replacement in order to facilitate the transition.
The ministry specified that the employee had access to this information in the framework of his duties.
Even if the intention of the employee was not to use the information for an illegal purpose, this practice contravenes the rules of safety in place intended for the personnel of MCN, the ministry emphasized in its email to Radio-Canada.
Par ailleurs, the ministère indicated that a complaint had been filed with the police so that an inquiry could be opened.
The employee was also sanctioned for not respecting the rules of the ministry, which ensured the destruction of the information transferred to the personal email box.
The Information Access Commission was also informed of the incident.
Former HR employee (compensation) exfiltrated data to their personal email address. data included first and last name , SIN numbers of ministry employees. No evidence of wrongdoing yet but it raises questions of gross incompetence coming from the ministry in charge of preventing data loss.
"WARNING
YOUR PICNIC MAY HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES
It is forbidden to consume food, to feed the animals and to leave garbage in the park. Birds and animals are a risk to aviatin safety. Violators of this regulation are liable to a fine"
Here are excerpts from a Canadian Supreme Court decision explaining the reasoning in a much better way than my previous summary. Reasoning is the same.
P38 The first issue is important because it governs whether the prohibition on possession is confined to representations of actual persons, or whether it extends to drawings from the imagination, cartoons, or computer generated composites. The available evidence suggests that explicit sexual materials can be harmful whether or not they depict actual children (...)
P43 (...)The question is this: would a reasonable observer perceive the person in the representation as being under 18 and engaged in explicit sexual activity?
P51 Family photos of naked children, viewed objectively, generally do not have as their “dominant characteristic” the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region “for a sexual purpose”. Placing a photo in an album of sexual photos and adding a sexual caption could change its meaning such that its dominant characteristic or purpose becomes unmistakably sexual in the view of a reasonable objective observer(...)
The broadband outfit “provided the Doe defendants with first and second notices from (Hellboy Productions’) counsel which asserted (its) copyright in the work and alleged infringement of the work by the Doe defendants. The first notice advised of Cogeco’s obligation to retain records that will allow for the identification of the Doe defendants and the second notice warned of the plaintiff’s ability to make a formal legal request to Cogeco to compel the Doe defendants’ identity.”
First, the law firm sends them notices, giving them seven days to take the movie down and stop giving it away. If they comply, then typically nothing happens.
If they don’t stop, the firm issues a second notice indicating it reserves the right to sue the alleged movie pirates.