From the BBC article "It is understood the individual worked at the US embassy in Vauxhall, south west London, and though not a diplomat, he enjoyed the umbrella of diplomatic protection."
> And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe.
This person was allegedly looking at CSAM.
Police and courts interrogating someone as to why they were looking at CSAM is a specific line of enquiry and doesn't touch upon their job.
Also from the US State Department website:
Under international law and practice, persons enjoying immunity from the jurisdiction of a receiving State’s laws nonetheless have a duty to respect those laws. Immunity is not a license for misconduct. It is a doctrine intended to benefit the sending State or IO, not individuals.
If the allegation is correct and the guy was looking at CSAM at home, then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply. Allegedly looking at CSAM at home does not "benefit the sending state".
> then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply.
that's not what it means, though. it means that Immunity is meant to ensure the persons enjoying immunity can fulfill their duties, it doesn't mean that it is only selectively applied or that it can be discarded at will by the host country
a person with diplomatic immunity could murder another person and still be immune from prosecution, and it'd be then up to the sending & host state to figure out what to do. from what I know, the sending state can waive such immunity to allow for prosecution
Not necessarily, administrative, service, and consular staff are not diplomats but still receive varying levels of diplomatic immunity, typically just as it relates to their job. A CIA officer would be under the cover of a diplomat, no one would ever say that they actually aren't a diplomat.
What? Is there a logical explanation for this other than exactly that...a conservative attack because they got their snowflake feelings hurt by calling out their Daddy Donald's glaring and incontrovertible incompetence with a fairly clever call out?
Lie. The hypothesis is that the account was removed because it ruffled the feelings of conservatives, whether working at instagram or exploiting the reporting mechanism.
> Radar is a system that uses radio waves to determine the distance (ranging), direction (azimuth and elevation angles), and radial velocity of objects relative to the site. It is a radiodetermination method used to detect and track aircraft [...]
> A radar system consists of a transmitter producing electromagnetic waves in the radio or microwave domain, a transmitting antenna, a receiving antenna (often the same antenna is used for transmitting and receiving) and a receiver and processor to determine properties of the objects. Radio waves (pulsed or continuous) from the transmitter reflect off the objects and return to the receiver, giving information about the objects' locations and speeds.
The OP's project only passively receives the digital location information of each airplane transmitted by the airplane itself. The project does not transmit radio waves nor do any physical determination of the plane's location.
There used to be a brilliant weather app here in Oz back in the early days of iOS. I always loved the update notes the author provided. One was "Fixed one grammatical error and introduced another one, can you find it?"
It depends on how good their testing practices and code review / auditing are. I want to believe they are some of the best in the industry, but that's making assumptions.
But jumping to assumptions that fixes introduce bugs is a bit rash and assumes incompetence / unprofessionality / unmonitored AI usage / kneejerk bugfix processes.
I remember some research from IBM that showed that every two bug fixes introduced another bug. Effectively your queue for bugs is twice as long as you think.
This is the New Zealand model. Multiple ISPs but only a few fibre providers - the largest one is Chorus, with a few that are very localised, but follow the same rules.
The ONT is accessible to all ISPs, and you can provision both available ports with different ISPs if wanted. Usually, a change from one ISP to another happens within the day, like number portability.
reply