Auto news on Youtube Feb 15 2019

Hi, I'm Derek Johnson with tatango.com.

I'm gonna be talking today about text message marketing in the United States.

So tatango.com is a software provider that provides messaging solutions for brands in

the United States to send text messages to their customers.

And those customers must also be in the United States.

So I get a lot of questions from people outside the United States that maybe want to target

their customers in the United States or maybe they're just interested in text message marketing

and the difference between text messaging in the United States and text messaging in

other places.

There's actually two big differences that marketers need to know when their text message...their

customers in the United States.

Those two things are first, we have a federal law in the United States that protects consumers

from text message spam, it's called the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act," pretty long one.

Some people call it the "TCPA."

And essentially, it says that you cannot text message customers or consumers or anybody

without their permission.

And that permission has to be very, very specific you know, you can't get it in a roundabout

way.

It has to be a consumer saying, "Yes, please text message me.

Here's my phone number."

Now there's a lot more legal stuff that goes into it but for the sake of this video, I'm

just keeping it simple.

So that's why in the United States when you ask people you know, "Hey, do you receive

a lot of text message spam?"

Most consumers will say "no" or, "I've never received text message spam," because we have

federal law in place.

And with that federal law, it allows consumers in the United States to sue companies if they

do send text message spam.

And you're gonna be shocked if you're from outside the United States, what you can sue

a brand for is between $1,500 and $500 per text message.

Now, that's not one mass text message, that's every single person on a list can sue for

every single text message they receive that is unwanted or spam anywhere from $500 to

$1,500.

That's a big deterrent in the United States for text message marketing spam.

So, that's the first kind of thing that separates the United States from a lot of other countries

and sometimes is a shock, they're not ready for you know, the TCPA or they're not aware

of that.

So you definitely want to be aware of it if you are going to be spending or receiving

text messages with people in the United States.

The second portion or the second interesting thing about text message marketing in the

United States is it has to be run on shortcodes.

Now, some countries also have shortcodes but the United States is very specific and the

wireless carriers are very specific.

They say if you're doing marketing text messages, they have to be run on shortcodes.

A shortcut is a five to six-digit phone number, so hypothetically 12345 or 123456, that is

assigned to a brand and that's their shortcode and they send and receive messages via that

shortcode.

So in many other parts of the countries, you can use what is called a long code or you

can use a regular phone number.

But in the United States, if you're doing text message marketing, you have to use a

shortcode.

So that sometimes is a shock as well to people that are thinking about coming to the United

States to do text message marketing to their customers.

So two big differences between text message marketing in the United States and other places

outside the United States.

One is we have a federal law, which prohibits text message spam and has serious consequences

as you can see.

And then the second is for text message marketing, you have to use a shortcode that's mandated

by the wireless carriers.

So two different things to know if you're coming to the United States or if you're just

interested in text message marketing in the United States.

For more infomation >> SMS Marketing in the United States - What You Need to Know - Duration: 4:29.

-------------------------------------------

Why The US Military Can't Upgrade From Windows XP? - Duration: 5:24.

The US military is widely known as the most technologically advanced on earth, with a

budget that's larger than the next eight militaries combined.

It has brought revolutionary technologies to warfighting such as GPS precision guided

munitions, the fastest aircraft ever created, and the toughest tanks on earth- yet for all

its technological prowess, you'd be surprised to learn that the US military still largely

operates on a 17 year old platform: Windows XP.

The US military is hardly unique in its refusal to upgrade to newer version of windows after

the release of Windows XP, and in 2014 when Microsoft officially ended supporting the

aging platform it still accounted for 30 percent of operating systems worldwide.

Within the pentagon's several million computers, about 3 percent of them were still running

Windows XP.

While the various branches of the military have undergone efforts to replace the aging

operating system, the simple truth is that it's just not as easy as a quick software

upgrade.

Many of the pentagon's computers run what are called mission-critical functions, and

that means that these computers cannot be at risk of failing ever.

New operating systems come with new risks and vulnerabilities, while old software may

have its own flaws but is proven and reliable.

In the chaos of war, you always want to bet on reliable, so the US military spends millions

on contracts with Microsoft to maintain support for platforms from Windows XP to Windows 2003,

and other legacy Microsoft products- support no other organization in the world gets.

Yet legacy computing systems come with serious downsides that only pile up as time goes on.

Legacy systems lag behind state-of-the-art computing, until as described by Cynthia Dion-Schwarz,

a senior scientist at the RAND Corp, "you start to feel like it's being held together

with chewing gum and duct tape."

Massive performance slowdowns aren't the only problem with using legacy systems though,

as military personnel may actually find it difficult to use these older systems due to

outdated or clunky interfaces and their own exposure to modern systems.

The biggest risk however is cybersecurity- while legacy systems have been thoroughly

explored and vetted over the years that they were supported by Microsoft and in wide use,

they may still contain hidden system flaws deep within their code that could be exploited

by hackers.

Newer systems meanwhile enjoy the benefit of being in active use by millions or billions

of people, with vulnerabilities and flaws being constantly discovered, identified, and

quickly fixed by Microsoft.

It's a strange conundrum for the US military- older systems have the benefit of age and

thus have likely had the bulk of security flaws and bugs already discovered and addressed,

but because fewer and fewer people use them any undiscovered flaws could be that much

more catastrophic if exploited.

Meanwhile newer systems may have a lot of undiscovered flaws and bugs, but due to the

massive amounts of people using them, they can be quickly discovered and corrected.

The solution may sound easy: just use a fraction of the massive Pentagon's budget to upgrade

all computers to the latest version of Windows, how hard could it really be?

Upgrading administrative computers would pose very little challenge even for an organization

as large as the US military, In 2018 the US army upgraded 950,000 office IT computers

to Windows 10 and became the first military branch to complete the Windows 10 upgrade

push.

The US Air Force followed next, hitting its targets in spring 2018 and the US Navy hitting

theirs by summer 2018.

Yet even these massive numbers of computer upgrades are not the whole story.

The truth is that most of the US military's computers aren't sitting in air conditioned

offices as they may be with a large corporation.

Instead most of the US military's computers are flying in aircraft and floating in vessels

all around the world.

Upgrading these computers means tinkering with computer systems that directly support

active military operations and might even directly control navigation or weapon systems

for tanks, warplanes and warships.

Known as "windows boxes" these computers host specialized software that is mission

critical, and that means that any upgrade must be thoroughly tested to ensure it is

compatible with this specialized software.

What would normally be a simple upgrade that asks you to insert a disk and click a mouse

button turns into a delicate operation that requires a new operating system to be thoroughly

vetted to interface and work with the highly specialized software that fires a tank's guns,

regulates a jet fighter's engines, or keeps a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier on

course.

Plus, that specialized weapon system, navigation, and communications software was typically

built specifically to be used with the legacy windows system that its computer uses.

This can make upgrading to new versions of windows extremely risky and tricky both.

In the words of thomas Sasala, director of the US Army Architecture Integration Center

and chief data officer, "We cannot risk deploying a mission critical solution to the

field and have it fail during a critical mission."

When lives are at risk and military success is on the line, its no surprise that the US

military is reluctant and slow to upgrade from Windows XP, but the truth is that as

time goes on, keeping its most sensitive mission-critical computer systems running a legacy operating

system may expose them to critical cybersecurity threats.

Upgrades are necessary, but any upgrade must never put the US's warfighting capabilities

at risk, and with all the vetting and testing necessary to ensure that goal, it is likely

that by the time Windows XP is phased out completely from US military computer systems,

the Windows version that they are installed with will already be at the end of its lifetime.

If you liked this video, make sure you check out Why Is The Government Terrified Of This

Hacker?

Make sure you subscribe and we'll see you next time!

For more infomation >> Why The US Military Can't Upgrade From Windows XP? - Duration: 5:24.

-------------------------------------------

In Conversation With U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor - Duration: 1:11:40.

For more infomation >> In Conversation With U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor - Duration: 1:11:40.

-------------------------------------------

U.S. needs to maintain American troops in S. Korea for its Indo-Pacific strategy: Gardner - Duration: 0:41.

u.s. senator Cory Gardner has expressed the hope that the United States will

maintain is armed forces in South Korea even if Pyongyang and Washington agree

on an impeccable denuclearization deal Gardner who also serves as a chair of

the Senate Subcommittee on East asia-pacific and international

cybersecurity policy said a continued us engagement and presence on the Korean

Peninsula as significant for the security of South Korea as well as other

partner countries he added that it would be a grave mistake for American troops

to leave the peninsula as Washington's into Pacific strategy is dependent on a

sustainable security capability on the Korean Peninsula

For more infomation >> U.S. needs to maintain American troops in S. Korea for its Indo-Pacific strategy: Gardner - Duration: 0:41.

-------------------------------------------

Putin, Erdogan and Iran's Rouhani celebrate US withdrawal from Syria - Daily News - Duration: 5:50.

The leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran hailed the planned US withdrawal from Syria as they met for talks Thursday on how to work more closely together in the country's long-running conflict

Hosting his Turkish and Iranian counterparts in the southern city of Sochi, President Vladimir Putin said the three welcomed the expected US pull-out from northeastern Syria

It would be 'a positive step that would help stabilise the situation in this region, where ultimately the legitimate government should re-establish control,' he told a joint press conference after the talks

Scroll down for video  Russia and Iran - who both back the regime of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad - and rebel supporter Turkey have positioned themselves as key foreign players in Syria's long-running war

The United States has had troops in Syria backing Kurdish-led forces fighting the Islamic State group but President Donald Trump issued an abrupt order in December to pull out all 2,000

The Kurdish-led fighters were on Thursday battling to expel IS jihadists from the small town of Baghouz in eastern Syria, the last bastion of their 'caliphate' that once controlled large parts of the country

Putin said Thursday's talks were 'constructive and business-like' and that 'close coordination' was crucial to ensuring long-term stability in Syria

He said the three leaders agreed to 'strengthen cooperation' in the so-called Astana framework - a process initiated by Russia, Iran and Turkey that has eclipsed parallel peace talks led by the United Nations

They also agreed to work together to put together a constitutional committee that would work to resolve Syria's political future, Putin said, adding that another round of talks would take place in Astana in late March and early April

Share this article Share Rouhani said Thursday's talks were 'very helpful and frank' and insisted on Syria's territorial integrity, calling for a 'purge of terrorists' from the rebel-held northwestern province of Idlib

He also suggested he did not believe the US was planning to withdraw from Syria.'We have no optimism about what the Americans say

but if they do withdraw, it will be very good news.'At a separate meeting Thursday with Putin, Erdogan said the planned US pull-out made it more important for other foreign powers to work together in Syria

'The US withdrawal decision is one of the most important tests ahead of us. The uncertainty over how the decision will be implemented remains

It is very very important that we work together in this new situation,' he said.As a sign of cooperation, he said Russia and Turkey had agreed to start 'joint patrols' in order to contain 'radical groups' in Idlib province

The two countries agreed last year to jointly monitor a buffer zone around Idlib and a statement from the three leaders on Thursday agreed to take 'concrete steps' to further control the zone

Erdogan also called for the removal of the Kurdish forces battling IS in northeastern Syria

'Syria's territorial integrity cannot be ensured and that region cannot be returned to its real owners before PYD-YPG is cleared from Manbij and the east of Euphrates,' Erdogan said

The Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) have held the strategic city of Manbij and areas east of the Euphrates since pushing out IS fighters

Turkey considers the YPG, and its political branch the Democratic Union Party (PYD), as offshoots of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)

Both Russia and Iran have provided military backing to Assad's forces, while Turkey has supported rebel groups in the north who have fought with the Kurds

Thursday's meeting was the fourth summit between the countries' leaders since November 2017

It came as the United States holds a two-day conference in Warsaw devoted to security in the Middle East, with a strong emphasis on Iran

The conference includes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and several Arab powers but has drawn little interest from European powers

Rouhani dismissed the Warsaw talks as pointless.'We see what's happening in Warsaw, it's an empty result, nothing,' he said in Sochi

For more infomation >> Putin, Erdogan and Iran's Rouhani celebrate US withdrawal from Syria - Daily News - Duration: 5:50.

-------------------------------------------

Is there a need for a federal privacy law in the U.S.? | Abigail Slater interviewed by Usercentrics - Duration: 4:18.

So Abigail, as special assistant to the president

per Tech. The privacy discussion is really rising in the U.S. and the voices are

louder. The demand of federal U.S. privacy laws. Do you think there's a need for such a

comprehensive law? So the short answer to your question which is a very timely

question in the U.S. is yes. And how I've been talking about this with

stakeholders involved in the policy debate is to take a step back from

privacy for a minute and to talk about this in the frame of good economic

policy. And so there are three things that go with that. Three observations I

would make - sort of stairs. We're at a moment in time a in the U.S. where we have

what's being referred to as regulatory fragmentation and emerging patchwork of

stains and that are dealing with privacy in a comprehensive way for the first time.

And so significantly last year we saw a California law come into force - The CCPA

that sort of led to the emerging patchwork. It was the first step in that

process. Good economic policy which is my job as best I can do. I would suggest

that that's not optimal from an economic policy standpoint because when you think

about it you have a patchwork of state laws emerging. They will have different

standards. Some states may choose not to adopt comprehensive privacy legislation.

And, but this patchwork would be overlaid on a technology that's global in scale, the internet

and not domestic in scale. And so that tends to point in the direction of a federalization,

a federal standard that will apply to all states, to all consumers throughout

the United States. So that's the thing number one on the economic policy point. And

then thing number two is that we have a right to our own domestic privacy

standard but as we think about domestic privacy it's also important

think about it in terms of our interoperability with privacy regimes

elsewhere in the world. And what that means is that in order for us and for

our businesses, for consumers to be exchanging data on a cross-border basis

there needs to be interoperability between our privacy regime and the

regime of the European Union for example. And so the ability, the free

flow of data as its referred to, the ability of companies to exchange data

freely has been somewhere impeded by different privacy regimes and this is

something that predates California and it's been an ongoing debate in policy

circles for ten years now. We saw it come to a head with the collapse of the

safe harbor regime in the EU back in 2015 and it's been something that's been

hotly debated ever since. And so a domestic policy regime in the U.S. is in

part in response to that situation - not wholly but in part. And it also tends to

suggest that a good economic policy for the U.S. is to have a fellow privacy system,

a fellow privacy law of comprehensive nature. And then step number three on the economic policy question

and why it's suggesting that we need comprehensive privacy legislation at this moment in

time is in the past year we've seen the technology and the challenges. And by

that I mean we had a couple of incidences, more than a couple involving whether it's data

breach or the collection of elusive data by platforms that have caught me to question

consumers willingness to trust the technologies. And again that sort of

leads to debate about what good consumer protection policy is in this area

because and that's a part of economic policy. And so that's

another important thing to consider as one of those three in this privacy

discussion that we're having in the US right now.

For more infomation >> Is there a need for a federal privacy law in the U.S.? | Abigail Slater interviewed by Usercentrics - Duration: 4:18.

-------------------------------------------

Tiger Woods vs Phil Mickelson will cost US fans over £15 to watch - Duration: 1:13.

Golf fans in the United States will be charged a 'suggested' price of $19.99 (£15

60) to watch the pay-per-view exhibition between Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson in November, Turner Sports announced on Thursday

Billed as The Match: Tiger v Phil, the 18-hole, $9 million (£7m) 'winner-take-all' showdown will be played at exclusive Shadow Creek in Las Vegas on November 23, the day after US Thanksgiving

The course will be closed to the general public for the made-for-TV event, which will feature side bets on top of the purse

'For instance, Woods or Mickelson could raise the stakes by challenging the other to a long-drive, closest-to-the-pin or similar competition during a hole as they play their match, with money being donated to the winning golfer's charity of choice,' Turner Sports said in a press release

The pay-per-view price for viewers outside the US has not been announced.Woods has won 14 major championships, trailing only Jack Nicklaus on the all-time list, while Mickelson has collected five majors

Woods last month ended a five-year victory drought by winning the season-ending Tour Championship on the PGA Tour

For more infomation >> Tiger Woods vs Phil Mickelson will cost US fans over £15 to watch - Duration: 1:13.

-------------------------------------------

Rapist on FBI's 10 Most Wanted list shot and killed by US police - News Live - Duration: 1:47.

 A suspected serial rapist who crept into women's homes in the dead of night and attacked them has been killed in a cop shootout

 Greg Alyn Carlson, 47, was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List and the crime agency described him as the "hot prowl rapist"

 Following a tip off, police cornered Carlson at a hotel in Apex, North Carolina

 Armed, he resisted arrest so cops were forced to shoot, officials said.  He died yesterday morning and positive identification of the body is still pending the coroner's examination, according to police

   Back in 2017 Carlson was arrested on multiple charges of burglary, attempted rape and assault with a deadly weapon

 After posting a $1m bond he managed to escape to South Carolina, stole a gun, then disappeared in a rental car

 A dangerous  car chase with cop ensued but as the pursuit reached high speeds, police were forced to terminate it for safety fears, and Carlson slipped away

   After that he was sighted in Jacksonville, Florida, and Daytona Beach, Florida

 A federal arrest warrant was issued in the United States District Court, Central District of California, on December 12, 2017, and Carlson was charged with unlawful flight to avoid prosecution

   The FBI suspected that Carlson was behind a number of rapes in the Los Angeles area

 They also warned he was "armed and dangerous" and an "escape risk".