Home Builder Developer - Interior Renovation and Design

If you havent been to Cassel Vineyards of Hershey in a while, a few things have changed.

A note on the blog that the Dauphin County winery updates regularly noted that its now serving wine flights on its enclosed porch, deck, cider garden and on the lawn. As the post noted, there is lots of room for visitors to relax and spread out. Wines and ciders are available for consumption.

Other changes include a new porch with retractable walls, a cider garden with sailshades and seating and an expanded concert seating area.

The Cassel family, which established the winery in 2008 and opened its tasting room at 80 Shetland Dr. in South Hanover Township in 2012, is transitioning from the alterations forced by the pandemic to its more traditional way of operating albeit with a few twists.

We are getting back to normal but some things are just reset to the new normal, Craig Cassel said in an email. Limo and bus tours are not picking up and may be part of the old normal. Wine flights outside and indoor tasting limitations are a nice change. Canned wine and ciders are an interesting new addition to our choices along with our wine slushies and different craft beers.

The family-operated winery near Hummelstown has taken the fifth-generation farm in a new direction and has been steadily growing its wine list and the experience for its customers over the past 10 years.

Dry to sweet wines are available, including ross in a variety of styles, and the winery has been recognized for several of its wines in competitions over the past couple of years.

Cassel Vineyards of Hershey offers a mix of dry and sweet wines, including several port wines, and four ciders.

The winery took home seven awards from the 2020 Farm Show competition, including a silver for its 2016 Cabernet Franc Reserve. Those are on top of two wines recognized in the Pennsylvania Wine Societys Wine Excellence 18th annual competition. Its 2017 Vidal placed among the 13 finalists and its Cab Franc Reserve wound up on the honorable mention list.

Its open 3 to 7 p.m. Thursdays, noon to 8:30 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays and noon to 6 Sundays.

If you visit, you can bring your own food, but be aware that Philadelphia Hoagie Company will be on the premises all four days that the winery is open.

More:

Pa. wine industry fondly recalls many contributions of Doug Moorhead: It was because of him that we are here

50 East Coast wineries for your summer must-visit list

Best of the bunch? Maryland producer certainly fits into that conversation with its mix of wines, pastoral site

See original here:
Cassel Vineyards of Hershey enhances its seating area for its summer concerts - pennlive.com

wansview (97% positive lifetime feedback) via Amazon is offering its 1080p Outdoor Smart Security Camera for$17.99 Prime shipped when you clip the on-page coupon. Usually selling for around $40, but currently down to $30, todays deal undercuts our last mention for the all-time low at 54% off. Wansivews outdoor camera is equipped with a 2MP lens for 1080p streaming and filming, with night vision up to 20-meters. You can check in on your home and property from your smartphone or any Alexa-enabled device with a screen, like the Echo Show or Fire TV. And with motion detection alerts, youll be the first to know if someone wanders on site. The entire apparatus is IP66 waterproof, so these cameras will keep shooting come rain, snow, or temperatures up to 104-degree Fahrenheit. Currently rated 4+ stars from over 5,000 customers. See more below.

Update 6/25 @ 4:43 PM: Wansviews new 1080p outdoor camera has fallen to $22 when you apply code Q93B7K9D at checkout, matching the all-time low price.

While youd be hard pressed to find a quality security camera for less, wansview does offer an upgraded version for $28. Youll need to clip the on-page coupon to drop the price down from $40. This new and improved smart camera includes infrared night vision up to 25-meters and a two-way talk mode. So if you need to call the kids in from the yard, or answer the door while youre away, just pick up a phone or Echo device, and youre set. And with your savings today, you can throw in some hard storage with Samsungs 64GB SD card down for $8. Wansviews new 1080p smart camera is rated 4.5/5 stars from 500 customers.

If youre looking to add some Alexa control indoors as well, weve spotted a slew of deals on TP-Links popular Kasa smart cameras. With new all-time lows and savings up to 48% off, theres bound to be something in there worth a peek. Though if youre set on home security, our smart home guide is jam-packed with other deals and ideas to help streamline your home life.

Wansview outdoor camera W4 is equiped with 2MP HD lens which provides crystal clear picture. When are you out, you could check your home anytime on your smartphone, once there are any movement in the monitored area, you could get instant alert notification and you could check what is happening immediately.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Subscribe to the 9to5Toys YouTube Channel for all of the latest videos, reviews, and more!

Go here to read the rest:
Bring Alexa support to your home security with 54% off wansviews 1080p outdoor cam from $18 - 9to5Toys

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Many Republicans are now trying to rewrite the history of January 6 to portray the assault on the Capitol that left five dead as a benign protest. But lawmakers fears of extremist violence are reflected clearly in recent campaign filings that show a dramatic surge in spending on security. Among those dishing out the most for protective measures: House and Senate Republicans who have dared to criticize Donald Trump for imperiling our democracy with phony election fraud claims and for inciting his supporters into a bloody rebellion.

Increasingly, Republican and Democratic lawmakers in both chambersespecially those vilified by Trump and his allieshave started hiring security consultants and bodyguards, upgrading their home security systems with cameras, and, in some cases, employing firms that specialize in fortifying residences with reinforced doors, bulletproof glass, and other high-end protective features. An analysis of campaign finance records by Mother Jones found that in the three months after the Capitol attack, security spending jumped 176 percent from the same period last year. Such spending is up 233 percent from the first quarter of 2019.

Prior to the January 6 attack, three-term Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) had never spent campaign funds on security. But in the first three months of this yearas she publicly denounced Trumps role in fueling the insurrection, a transgression for which she was deposed from her leadership postshe paid $58,000 for protective measures, hiring a security consulting firm that specializes in executive protection and retaining three former Secret Service agents who previously served on her fathers vice presidential detail.

While Cheney has continued to speak out against Trump, she said recently that many of her GOP colleagues are too fearful for their safety to risk riling up Trumps conspiracy-crazed supporters by going against the former president.

I have had a number of members say to me, we would have voted to impeach, but we were concerned about our security, she told David Axelrod on an episode of his podcast. I think that in some ways people have sort of glossed over that, but I think thats a very important point to pause and contemplate, that you have members of the United States House of Representatives for whom, you know, securitytheir personal security or their family security, their concerns about that affected the way that they felt they could vote. Thats a really significant thing to say about the current state of our politics.

Like Cheney, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) rebuked Trump for his election fraud lies. After the insurrection, he called on Trump to resign and was one of seven Senate Republicans to vote for Trumps impeachment in February. The cost of opposing Trumps bid to overturn the election has been steep: During the first quarter of 2021, his campaign racked up a whopping security tab of nearly $70,000. His campaigns first payment came on February 8, the day before Trumps Senate impeachment trial commenced. Among other expenditures, Toomey paid $39,000 to T&M USA, a New York Citybased private security and intelligence firm. His campaign filings also list a $7,300 payment to Fortified Estate, a Texas outfit that bills itself as the leading company for bespoke, high-security hardening of residential and commercial structures and specializes in installing panic rooms, bulletproof doors, and blast windows.

The campaign operation of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted to convict Trump during his first and second impeachment trials, paid more than $43,000 to Ambolt Security Group, a Utah-based firm run by former law enforcement officers that offers services including close protection, safe room consulting and design, residential escape plans, and threat assessments. Political uncertainty, rioting in US streets, attacks on governance are contributing to a climate of fear within our communities, the business sector, and most troubling our homes and families, the company notes on its website. (Security is not a subject that members of Congress seem eager to discuss. Mother Jones reached out to 10 lawmakers, including Cheney, Romney, and Toomey. None responded.)

The GOPs most lavish spenders on security are two of its biggest promoters of the Big Lie. Ted Cruzs campaign dropped more than $74,000 on a security firm in early 2021, the most of any GOP lawmaker. (In February, when Cruz jetted to Cancun in the wake of a deadly winter storm that left much of his state without power, a reporter dropped by Cruzs home and found one of the senators guards caring for the family rescue dog, Snowflake.) Cruz, who offered to argue a lawsuit seeking to overturn the results of the presidential election before the Supreme Court, first began spending heavily on security in 2020, making payments to a company that installs security cameras and safety glass. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), whose memorable raised-fist salute to Trump supporters outside the Capitol on the morning of the attack became an iconic image of that dark day and his role in helping to inspire it, hired security consultants, to the tune of at least $44,000, following the insurrection.

On the other side of the aisle, the two biggest spenders on security are newly elected Sens. Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Mark Kelly of Arizona. Both hail from states that were (and remain) a focus of election fraud conspiracies propagated by Trump and his backers. Warnock, Georgias first Black senator, has spent more on security than any Senate candidate in history. Since last fall, his campaign has paid more than $245,000 to Executive Protection Agency, a security service, with $136,000 of that spending coming during the first quarter of 2021. (His fellow Georgia senator Jon Ossoff spent nearly $50,000 on protection between January and April.) The campaign of Arizonas Kellywhose wife, former representative Gabby Giffords, was nearly assassinated during a constituent event in 2011has doled out $130,000 for security so far this year.

Some Democratsespecially high-profile progressives and people of colorhave long voiced security concerns. Among them is one of the rights favorite targets, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has said she feared for her life during the Capitol insurrection: "I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive. AOCs campaign spent $47,000 on security, including payments to Three Bridges NY, a New York company that provides personal protection to celebrities, between January and Aprilmore than she spent during the entirety of last year. Fellow squad member Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), who complained publicly about being harassed by the QAnon-promoting Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, paid $35,000 during this period.

In total, congressional campaigns and political parties spent an estimated $2.6 million on security in the first three months of 2021. During the comparable timeframe in 2019, at the start of the last Congress, Federal Election Commission filings show campaigns and political parties made $902,000 in security expenditures. In 2017, parties and campaigns together spent $2 million over the course of the entire yearless than the security costs racked up in the three months after January 6.

Members of Congress who can show they face a genuine threat can request protection from the House or Senate Sergeant-at-Arms offices, but the resources are limited, with only members of congressional leadership receiving full-time security details (Cheney was recently assigned protection by the Capitol Police). Most members of Congress have usually traveled and interacted with their constituents with only a minimal level of securityif any. Their relative accessibility has been one of the features of our congressional system. But the possible threats that lawmakers face were on display in viral videos that circulated this winter showing irate Trump supporters confronting members of Congress including Sens. Romney and Lindsay Graham (who was labeled a traitor for mildly rebuking Trump for stoking the insurrection). In footage of the Graham episode, a Trump supporter wearing a QAnon T-shirt declares ominously, One day they will not be able to walk down the street. It is today.

The attack on the Capitol has revived an old debate over to what extent political candidates can dip into their campaign coffers to fund security expenses. The FEC has rules preventing the use of campaign funds for personal expenses and has generally applied a strict interpretation of that. For years, it did not allow candidates to spend campaign funds on home security systems and upgrades under the theory that such expenditures would also increase the values of their homes.

But in 2011, following the shooting that severely injured Gabby Giffords, the FEC began to ease its rules when it granted her campaigns request to use contributions to install a security system at her home. Since then, campaign spending on residential security systems has risen from about $7,100 in 2013 to $143,000 last year. Campaigns have spent $82,000 on security systems in the first three months of 2021 alone.

In 2017, in the wake of the shooting at a congressional softball practice that hospitalized Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), thenHouse Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving, citing numerous requests for protection from members of Congress, asked the FEC for more clarification on acceptable security expenses. According to Irving, threats against members of Congress were escalatingin 2016, his office investigated 902 threats. In just the first six months of 2017, it had already looked into 950. Irving testified that his office didnt have the ability to fully investigate all threats against lawmakers, much less protect them from unknown dangers they might face. More recent numbers suggest the problem has worsened.

In response to Irving's request, the FEC concluded that members of Congress, whether or not they were the target of a threat, could use campaign funds to pay for the reasonable costs associated with installing (or upgrading) and monitoring a security system at Members residences. The agency issued no further guidance in the years that followed. Then came January 6.

Days after the Capitol siege, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee appealed to the FEC to formally authorize the use of campaign funds for security detailssomething lawmakers had already started paying for in the absence of any concrete guidance from the commission on the subject.

In late March, the FEC finally ruled that members of Congress may use campaign funds to pay for bona fide, legitimate, professional personal security personnel to protect themselves and their immediate families due to threats arising from their status as officeholders, when federal agents are not protecting the Members or the Members families.

But that decision sparked a debate of its own. Who did the FEC consider a legitimate security professional and what would their roles be? That is, would they protect members of Congress only from threatsor also from potentially uncomfortable encounters with citizens voicing their opinions?

As FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub put it during the commissions hearing in March, I want to ensure that the people who would be in a position to perhaps block members of the publics access to their elected leaders would be doing it in a way that is sensitive to the First Amendment concerns.

Lawyers for the NRSC and the NRCC argued that drawing up language to police the credentials of the guards would slow down the process of getting protection in place for members of Congress who needed it. And the FEC ultimately imposed no strict limitations on who could be paid with campaign funds to perform security. In a brief, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committeethe NRSC's and the NRCCs Democratic counterpartscontended that in doing so the FEC was "opening the door to the improper use of campaign funds to compensate fringe militia groups under the guise of legitimate security expense." The groups noted that some Republicans have known links to far-right organizations like the Three Percenters, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers, whose members participated in the Capitol attack. (In at least one instance, members of the Three Percenters militia group provided security at a campaign event for then-candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene, although they dont appear to have been paid.) What was stopping Republican lawmakers from employing guards associated with the very same groups involved in the assault on the Capitol?

Nick Steen, a retired Secret Service agent and former supervisor of the agencys presidential protection division, says its clear that members of Congress require more protection. He also notes that its not practical to have law enforcement guarding every member of Congress and candidate.

I dont know that it is right, cost effective, or efficient to add protection of every congressional or senatorial candidate to the growing list of federal law enforcement responsibilities, he says. But he adds that leaving security up to the campaigns raises its own set of questions. If a model for private security is developing for that gap, then a lot of work will need to be done to set parameters and scope for those private security folks. Cost is just one aspect of it, he says.

The questions of how much security is appropriate and who pays may be coming to a head. In May, the Capitol Police disclosed that already this year its case load had risen 107 percent from 2020 and said it had just 30 officers in its threat assessment division to respond to over 9,000 cases. (By comparison, the Secret Service employs 100 threat assessment staffers who handle 8,000 cases.) Meanwhile, Trump and his allies have stoked conspiracy theories, pinned to quixotic election audits in Arizona and other states, that he could be reinstated to office this summer, concocting a new version of the Big Lie for supporters to rallyand perhaps, plotaround. Rep. Peter Meijer, a first-term Republican from Michigan who voted to impeach Trump and recently decried members of his party for salivating for civil war, told Rolling Stone he foresees more political violence ahead:I dont put it beyond the realm of assassinations.

Read this article:
Members of Congress Are Spending More Than Ever on Security Mother Jones - Mother Jones

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The ioXt Alliance, the global standard for IoT security, today announced that as part of Google Nests new security commitments, Nest products released in 2019 or later will use the ioXt Alliances global security standards to test and validate their security. Google Nest is prioritizing consumer security and privacy by testing products in its suite of connected home devices against the ioXt Alliances rigorous security standards, with more devices to be added later in the year.

Focused on security, upgradability, and transparency, the eight ioXt pledge principles that the devices will be tested against include clear guidelines for quantifying the optimal level of security needed for a specific device within a product category. The first set of evaluations against the ioXt Pledge for Google Nest will be completed by NCC Group, one of the ioXt Alliance Authorized Labs, which will provide the third-party validation of device test results to ensure all products are cybersafe. Once a device meets or exceeds the requirements after testing, they will receive the ioXt SmartCert label. Google also has plans to publish the findings on its website once the testing is complete.

We are thrilled to be able to work with Google Nest to further its commitment to security by providing the means for testing and third-party validation of their connected home products to ensure the safety of all device end-users, said Brad Ree, CTO of the ioXt Alliance. By complying with our standards and providing transparency of the results to consumers, they will be able to make informed decisions about their devices to better protect their personal information, which will lead to greater consumer confidence in the security of the Nest suite of products.

To learn more about the ioXt Alliance, visit https://www.ioxtalliance.org/ and for more information about Nests privacy and security commitment, visit https://safety.google/nest/.

About the ioXt Alliance

The ioXt Alliance is the Global Standard for IoT Security. Founded by leading technology and product manufacturing firms, including Google, Amazon, T-Mobile, Comcast and more, the ioXt Alliance is the only industry-led, global IoT product security and certification program in the world. Products with the ioXt SmartCert gives consumers and retailers greater confidence in a highly connected world.

View original post here:
Google Nest to Strengthen Its Commitment to Security by Testing Devices Against the ioXt Alliance's Global Security Standards - Business Wire

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said it vetted 730 tips in connection with the disappearance of 5-year-old Summer Wells from her home in Rogersville as of Thursday but none of them "led to a solid lead."

Authorities are asking tipsters not to report rumors or speculation, however they also said anything that people in the area of Ben Hill Road on the late afternoon or early evening of June14 and 15 may have seen or heard could possibly help the investigation.

"Every detail is important," the TBI said in a statement.

MISSING TENNESSEE GIRL SUMMER WELLS' PARENTS BOTH HAVE CRIMINAL RECORDS

Anyone with credible information is asked to contact the bureau at 1-800-TBI-FIND.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said it vetted 730 tips in connection with the disappearance of 5-year-old Summer Wells from her home in Rogersville as of Thursday but none of them "led to a solid lead." (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation)

Investigators were also seeking a potential witness who was seen in a late 1990s maroon or red Toyota Tacoma with a full-sized ladder rack and white buckets in the bed.

"We want to stress that this individual is not a suspect, but is a potential witness who may have heard or seen something that may help us in our search for Summer," the TBI said in a statement.

TENNESSEE 5-YEAR-OLD SUMMER WELLS GOES MISSING FROM OWN HOME

Area residents were also being asked to check their home security and trail cameras for any evidence that may help locate the missing girl.

Summer is about 3 feet tall and weighs around 40 pounds. She was last seen wearing gray pants, a pink shirt and may have been barefoot. She has close-cropped blonde hair and blue eyes.

Summer Wells was last seen at her home in Rogersville, Tenn., on June 15. (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation)

Investigators say the circumstances surrounding her disappearance have yet to be determined but they said they were looking into "all possibilities."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Law enforcement officers from more than 100 agencies in Tennessee and neighboring states have searched more than 3,000 acres without finding Summer following her disappearance 16 days ago. They said they were scaling back their efforts Sunday but that the search would continue.

Her parents, Don Wells and Candus Bly, told local media they believe that she was lured out of their rural home and taken.

Wells and Bly have not responded to Fox News attempts to reach them for comment.

Read the rest here:
Summer Wells investigators receive more than 700 tips about missing Tennessee girl - Fox News

A recent market research report added to repository of Mart Research is an in-depth analysis of Global DIY Home Security Solutions Market. On the basis of historic growth analysis and current scenario of DIY Home Security Solutions market place, the report intends to offer actionable insights on global market growth projections. Authenticated data presented in report is based on findings of extensive primary and secondary research. Insights drawn from data serve as excellent tools that facilitate deeper understanding of multiple aspects of global DIY Home Security Solutions market. This further helps user with their developmental strategy.

This report examines all the key factors influencing growth of global DIY Home Security Solutions market, including demand-supply scenario, pricing structure, profit margins, production and value chain analysis. Regional assessment of global DIY Home Security Solutions market unlocks a plethora of untapped opportunities in regional and domestic market places. Detailed company profiling enables users to evaluate company shares analysis, emerging product lines, scope of NPD in new markets, pricing strategies, innovation possibilities and much more.

Request a Sample Copy of this Report @ https://martresearch.com/contact/request-sample/3/9052

Segmented by Category

Monitoring And Alarming Systems

DIY Security Cameras

Others

Segmented by End User-Segment

E-Commerce-Online

Organized Retailers

Segmented by Country

North America

United States

Canada

Mexico

Europe

Germany

France

UK

Italy

Russia

Spain

Asia Pacific

China

Japan

Korea

Southeast Asia

India

Australasia

Central & South America

Brazil

Argentina

Colombia

Middle East & Africa

Iran

Israel

Turkey

South Africa

Saudi Arabia

Key manufacturers included in this survey

SAMSUNG

SImpliSafe

Protect

Nest Labs

LifeShield

ISmart Alarm

Icontrol Networks

GetSafe

Frontpoint Security Solutions

Abode Systems

Buy this Research Report Now @ https://martresearch.com/paymentform/3/9052/Single_User

Table of Contents

1 Product Introduction and Overview2 Global DIY Home Security Solutions Supply by Company3 Global and Regional DIY Home Security Solutions Market Status by Category4 Global and Regional DIY Home Security Solutions Market Status by End User/Segment5 Global DIY Home Security Solutions Market Status by Region6 North America DIY Home Security Solutions Market Status7 Europe DIY Home Security Solutions Market Status8 Asia Pacific DIY Home Security Solutions Market Status9 Central & South America DIY Home Security Solutions Market Status10 Middle East & Africa DIY Home Security Solutions Market Status11 Supply Chain and Manufacturing Cost Analysis12 Global DIY Home Security Solutions Market Forecast by Category and by End User/Segment13 Global DIY Home Security Solutions Market Forecast by Region/Country14 Key Participants Company Information15 Conclusion16 Methodology

Points Covered in the Report

The points that are discussed within the report are the major market players that are involved in the market such as market players, raw material suppliers, equipment suppliers, end users, traders, distributors and etc.

The complete profile of the companies is mentioned. And the capacity, production, price, revenue, cost, gross, gross margin, sales volume, sales revenue, consumption, growth rate, import, export, supply, future strategies, and the technological developments that they are making are also included within the report. This report analysed 12 years data history and forecast.

The growth factors of the market are discussed in detail wherein the different end users of the market are explained in detail.

Data and information by market player, by region, by type, by application and etc., and custom research can be added according to specific requirements.

The report contains the SWOT analysis of the market. Finally, the report contains the conclusion part where the opinions of the industrial experts are included.

Do Enquiry Before Buying @ https://martresearch.com/contact/enquiry/3/9052

About us: Research is and will always be the key to success and growth for any industry. Most organizations invest a major chunk of their resources viz. time, money and manpower in research to achieve new breakthroughs in their businesses. The outcome might not always be as expected thereby arising the need for precise, factual and high-quality data backing your research. This is where MART RESEARCH steps in and caters its expertise in the domain of market research reports to industries across varied sectors.

Contact Us:Mart Research5708 Copper Creek Court Charlotte,North Carolina 28227, USAContact: +1-857-300-1122Mail Id: sales@martresearch.com

Go here to see the original:
DIY Home Security Solutions Market Analytical Overview, Growth Factors, Demand and Trends Forecast to 2027 The Courier - The Courier

The rise of the cyber insurance has largely failed to promote better cybersecurity practices among the industries they cover, according to a new report released Monday from British security think tank RUSI. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The security community for the last few years pointed to great potential for cyber insurance to drive progress in cyber best practices: force companies to up their game by making certain standards a requirement for coverage.

But recent research shows thats not happening.

The rise of the cyber insurance has largely failed to promote better cybersecurity practices among the industries they cover, according to a new report released Monday from the British security think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). This is particularly true for the scourge of ransomware, where rising payments and business incentives to pay may pose an existential threat insurance providers in Great Britain and beyond.

Although ransomware is a societal problem, the authors note that cyber insurers are facing some heat for the role they play in financially propping up the cyber-criminal industry.

These add fuel to the fire by incentivizing cybercriminals engagement in ransomware operations and enabling existing operators to invest in and expand their capabilities, write authors Jamie MacColl, Jason R.C. Nurse and James Sullivan. Growing losses from ransomware attacks haveemphasized that the current reality is not sustainable for insurers either.

When a company is hit with ransomware, theyre often faced with three choices: pay up, lean on backups or rebuild the entire IT network. Since insurers usually opt to cover the cheapest option, paying an upfront ransom almost always ends up costing less than starting from scratch or incurring weeks of downtime while systems are restored from backups.

While this model and approach seemingly make business sense to insurers, it ends up putting an absurd amount of money into the pockets of criminal groups. These groups then have more resources to further develop their malware and infrastructure, offer better compensation to entice talented hackers to join their network and buy zero-day exploits or initial access to victim companies.

In February, a report from Chainalysis, which tracks cryptocurrency payments in law enforcement investigations, estimated that these groups took home at least $350 million in ransom payments in 2020, and experts say that many incidents are not publicly reported, because the victim has decided to quietly pay before their information is advertised online and not engage with law enforcement.

Several high-profile incidents in recent months underscored the challenges faced in this area. The U.S. government was initially unable to get information around ransom payment from executives at Colonial Pipeline, and some were outraged when CEO Joseph Blount in a media interview appeared to cast paying the $4.3 million ransom (which Blount later said the company submitted an insurance claim for) as the right thing to do and a patriotic duty to keep vital American infrastructure running. A ransomware attack on insurance giant CNA in March also resulted in a $40 million payment that is believed to be the largest ransom payment to date on record, according to Bloomberg.

The RUSI report, part of a year-long project with the University of Kent studying ways to incentivize better cybersecurity through insurance, finds little hard evidence that indicate this model is forcing companies to reevaluate their own cybersecurity practices and investments. It also warns the current model of making regular large ransom payments will not financially benefit insurers over the long term.

While some of the carriers interviewed for the report touted their pre and post-incident services like forensic analysis, incident response, legal services and public relations as valuable services that help lift a victim organization to a higher, more secure plane of cybersecurity that prevents future attacks, theres only scant, scattered evidence that this is actually happening in some places.

In fact, many companies that buy cyber insurance tend to view it as a tool for resilience against cyber attacks rather than a risk mitigation tool. Research by threat intelligence firm Cybereason in June claimed that an eye-popping 80% of companies that paid the ransom wound up getting infected by ransomware again in the following months, often by the same group.

One example of a favorable impact cited by the authors: claims by U.S. insurance provider Corvus that their scanning for ports and vulnerabilities commonly exploited by ransomware groups resulted in a 65% drop in ransomware-related claims from April to September 2020.

These insurers can do more to sharpen the kind of data they collect, push industry to adopt security standards set by government organizations like the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology and rate different cyber security products for their value and impact on premium costs.

There is a solid body of theoretical arguments that cyber insurance could play a meaningful role in improving cyber security among businesses, as referenced in a previous RUSI Emerging Insights paper, the report argues. However, in practice, it is still yet to be seen if cyber insurance can fulfil this promise.

While the paper is geared towards the UK insurance market, the challenges and potential solutions outlined share many parallels with that of the U.S. market, where a ransomware epidemic has forced policymakers to elevate the issue and consider a number of previously extreme solutions, like banning ransom payments, heavily regulating the cryptocurrencies used to pay and directing law enforcement and intelligence agencies to increasingly target the IT infrastructure that these groups rely on to carry out their schemes.

The findings echo similar claims made in a U.S. Government Accountability Office report on cyber insurance in May, which found that the industry on the whole lacked the kind of historical data around data breaches and their effective mitigations to properly price their coverage, though some providers of cyber insurance interviewed by SC Media disputed the conclusions at the time.

If you ever go to a restaurant and felt like having a nice lobster dinner, you probably saw the menu say market priced, because who knows how many lobsters they caught that day, or that time a month or that year? The pricing is really variable in what lobsters cost on a day-to-day basis, it can fluctuate wildly, said John Pescatore, director of emerging security trends at the SANS Institute, in May. Thats sort of what the case is [today] for cyber insurance, its essentially market price.

Read more:
Scant evidence that cyber insurance boom is leading to better security SC Magazine - SC Magazine

My very intelligent and talented husband retired from a government job about 10 years ago. He has a modest pension and Social Security income. I am 10 years younger and still employed. We own our house and cars, and we have no debt. We are not wealthy at all, but I stand to inherit from a family estate within a few years.

Here is my dilemma. He has skills that are in high demand; he was once a master electrician, although he has let his license lapse. He thoroughly understands construction, plumbing, roofing, etc., and loves to do odd jobs and bring in extra income.

I guess he feels stimulated by the variety of jobs that come along, and people are so grateful to have him do handyman-type chores that he is constantly in demand so much that in the summer, we cant get away for a vacation.

He has built bathrooms, tiled kitchens and rewired lights. Today, he installed an electric porch awning. His reputation is great and his name has spread by word of mouth, mostly among friends and neighbors.

If there is a fire in a house where he worked, he will be blamed. I am terrified because when that happens, we could be liable financially.

He charges a flat $20 an hour and supplies his own tools. Any materials for the job are charged to our personal account at a hardware store, and he turns in the receipts and bills the customer when the job is over, so there is no markup on materials. So far, he has never had a problem collecting payment from his grateful customers.

He isnt claiming any of this money as income on our taxes. He has no contractors license and doesnt get any permits. He isnt bonded or insured in any way. He says that he always tells people up front that he is not a contractor, but he will work for them by the hour if they tell him what they want done. In other words, they are the contractor and he is just working for them.

Someday, something will go wrong. He may fall off a ladder and get hurt, or a pipe may break and flood a house. Even if it isnt his fault, if there is a fire in a house where he worked, he will be blamed. I am terrified because when that happens, we could be liable financially. I am also worried that someone will report him for contracting without a license, or the Internal Revenue Service will be notified. So many things could go wrong.

When I try to point out that he is threatening my financial security as well as his own, he says I am paranoid and that he is just helping people.

Please advise me on how to protect myself and our joint assets in case he gets sued. I just want to retire someday soon, and to not have to work until I die. I really dont want a divorce, but I dont see any way to get him to quit moonlighting this way until something really bad happens.

Thank you so much.

Worried Wife

Dear Worried,

Your husband enjoys helping people and feeling useful in his retirement. Hes good at his job, and it gives him a lot of pleasure figuring out the source of problems.

I have a lot of respect for contractors and people who have the patience and smarts to figure out how stuff works. Sometimes its a simple solution that can save the customer hundreds or thousands of dollars. And those other times? It can be complex, complicated and, yes, fraught with bigger problems and risks, especially when electricity is involved.

As for the risks: Your husband is vastly underselling his services. Even a cursory look at the rates of similar services on platforms like TaskRabbit show handymen and contractors charging multiple times what your husband charges. Even hanging a picture can cost you $50 or $60 an hour, or more.

Given the risk and reward involved, his customers should be willing to sign a liability waiver. This agreement is to protect him and you. You cant put a price on peace of mind and a good nights sleep. Tell him that.

Enlist a third party, preferably a lawyer, who can explain what is at stake: a fine, reimbursement of back taxes or even criminal charges.

Liability waivers are, however, not airtight. There are two types of cases: ordinary negligence and gross negligence. The former mainly deals with unintentional issues, while the latter typically applies to willful disregard for customer or participant safety, according to the Frickey Law Firm in Lakewood, Colo. The waiver cannot supersede state law or public policy.

It is still possible to sue even after signing such a waiver, usually due to the aforementioned gross negligence, misrepresentation and/or defective products, the firm adds.

The IRS issue will prove trickier. I assume he does these jobs under the table partly due to his low rate, which makes him popular among his customer base, but raising his price would help reduce the amount of work and the risk associated with being discovered. For this and the previous issue, enlist a third party, preferably a lawyer, who can explain what is at stake: a fine, reimbursement of back taxes and even criminal charges. This may give your husband the wakeup call he needs.

He may feel defensive when you approach him about his liability and tax evasion. Perhaps he is fearful, and avoiding having a difficult conversation seems like the easiest route to take. But approaching him in a spirit of support and providing solutions could help bring him around.

You might start out with something non-confrontational like this: I want you to continue doing what you love and helping people, but I also want to make sure that were checking all the boxes.

The idea is to help him see what he can do to help himself, rather than what you believe he is doing to you. Both points are valid, but the former may be more effective.

Also read: Jamie Dimon insists his workers return to the office heres why thats a bit rich

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at qfottrell@marketwatch.com, and follow Quentin Fottrell onTwitter.

By emailing your questions, you agree to having them published anonymously on MarketWatch.By submitting your story to Dow Jones & Company, the publisher of MarketWatch, you understand and agree that we may use your story, or versions of it, in all media and platforms, including via third parties.

Check outthe Moneyist private Facebook FB, +1.92% group, where we look for answers to lifes thorniest money issues. Readers write in to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

More from Quentin Fottrell:

Continued here:
My intelligent, talented retiree husband moonlights as a handyman. He charges $20 an hour, but is not insured and doesnt pay tax - MarketWatch

The remaining fence surrounding the U.S. Capitol will start to come down on July 8, Fox News is told.

Officials installed a two layers of fencing blocking off the Capitol shortly after the Jan. 6 riot. they removed the larger perimeter of fencing in March, but the inner fencing remained.

The National Guard was also deployed to D.C. in the wake of the riot, and at its peak some 5,200 Guardsmen stood watch at the Capitol. The last remaining Guard members left on May 23.

Still, Fox News is told there are questions as to whether the U.S. Capitol Police have the resources to protect the Capitol. Many officers have left or remain injured. Morale remains very low after the riot.

"We dont know that we are in a better position than we were on January 5," cautioned one knowledgeable source on the issue.

A number of lawmakers told Fox they agree that it is time to take down the fence.

NATIONAL GUARD TO LEAVE DC, PENTAGON SAYS

"This is the people's House and this belongs to the American people. We want it to be free and open," Democratic Rep. Don Beyer, Va., told Fox News. "The House did pass a bill that would put a lot more money in the Capitol Police and the kind of training and the resources necessary if there were an attack. And I think that'll be fine.

"It's also is a terrible signal," Beyer continued. "As we call it, Baghdad on the Potomac, we don't want this to be like the Green Zone."

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala. told Fox News the fence is "pure politics."

SENATORS RELEASE REPORT ON CAPITOL ATTACK

The fence is one of the ways they justify continuing to talk about January 6. Is there still some threat? They've got us walking through magnetometers. Members of Congress are no threat to each other, but they want to keep the focus on what happened on January 6. And then somehow Trump is still a problem out there that Americans are concerned about. And we're just not. This is just, it's pure politics."

"This fence is in no way going to be needed now or in the future."

Federal prosecutors so far have charged more than 500 for involvement in the breach of the Capitol building that led to five deaths.

In April, a motorist rammed his car into Capitol Police, killing one officer and forcing the Capitol complex to go into lockdown.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Last month, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate Rules Committee released their report on the riot.

This week, the House passed legislation to create a select committee focused solely on investigating the riot, a move that was panned by Republicans as too partisan but hailed by Democrats as necessary to give the American people a full accounting of what happened during the deadly attack.

Read more:
Fence surrounding US Capitol is expected to come down starting on July 8 - Fox News

The Peruvian Pavilion in the 2021 Venice Biennale Seeks to Transform Fences into Tools for Integration

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Whatsapp

Mail

Or

Playground: Artifacts for Interaction, by curator Felipe Ferrer, aims to transform the fences surrounding Peru's public spaces into tools for social integration. The project proposes removing the gates enclosing public spaces throughout Lima andPeru's other urban centers, inviting residents to freely enter and interact with the spaces.By removing these "security" mechanisms, which really serve as tools of segregation,and installing benches, playgrounds, and soccer fields, the project aims to divert all the energy, time, and resources put into installing fences and channel it into bringing new life to these public spaces.

"Peru is still nursing scars from the bloody conflict that marked the country from 1980 to 2000. Residents of the capital began to put up fences around their homes and streets as a means of defense. Twenty years later, fences are still being put up. With urban centers across the globe becoming increasingly crowded, along with the incessant droneof digital media, hostilepolitical climates, and post-pandemic socio-economic disarray, people are more fearful than ever of one another. These fences are a physical representation of this fear and it's our job to transform this fear into opportunity."

The normalization of fences, both in Peru and abroad, has made them a fixture in both the urban landscape and the public subconscious. Everyday, more fences are erected and their presence is ever more naturalized. "We need more spaces for integration, not exclusion. We need to realize the true cost of separating the city and its inhabitants. Public spaces should be where we feel most included and equal."

The Peruvian Pavilion greets visitors with a large fence, typical of many Peruvian cities. It hangs from a beam that spans the length of the exhibition space and is marked by several signs reading STOP, ENTRY PROHIBITED as well as the hours of the exhibit.

On the other side of the fence, which will be closed due to sanitationprotocols, is the exhibit's centerpiece:a "playground" meant to invite viewers to interact with one another and formulate new social contracts. Some are see-saws that require two people to sit together in order touse themcomfortably. Others are staircases that need to be held by another person while another uses them. Other fixtures of the exhibit include a football post, corner benches, and other elements.

Above the fence hang two lenticular posters, containing two versions of the same image of iconic spaces from around the globe. In one version, the space is fenced. As the viewer moves to a different vantage point, the image transforms and the fence disappears. In highlighting the fences found throughout Peru, the exhibit also prompts us to examine the fences found across the globe.

A video shows how fences transform public spaces by using hundreds of photos from throughout Peru and the world. The majority of the photos were obtained with the help of the public, who uploaded them to a designated Instagram account with the hashtag #RIPublicspace.

The pavilion invites viewers to reflect, not only on what they've seen in the exhibit, but what they see in their everyday lives. At the end of the exhibition, the fences will be returned to their original parks, to further shape and transform the spaces they occupy.

The exhibit is supported by the Wiese Company and Foundation as well as the Peruvian Commission for the Promotion of Exportation and Tourism- PROMPER, the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Ministry of Culture, and the National University of Engineering - UNI, the Peruvian Chamber of Construction - CAPECO, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, the University of Lima, the Private University of the North, Ascensores Powertech, Servimetales, Hunter Douglas, ArtCo, Trazzo, Iguzzini, Marx, Tribeca, Decor Center, and Lima Cmo Vamos.

See the original post:
The Peruvian Pavilion in the 2021 Venice Biennale Seeks to Transform Fences into Tools for Integration - ArchDaily