CrayonMaster

Edit: other link was having issues, this should work

Three Libertarian candidates in Iowa running for the U.S. House will not be listed on ballots this November after a panel ruled they failed to comply with state law, a decision that could affect the outcome of at least one tightly contested race

The state’s objection committee, composed of one Democratic and two Republican elected officials, ruled 2-1 Wednesday in favor of Iowans who challenged the candidates’ legitimacy.

Democrat on the panel who opposed the candidates’ removal, State Auditor Rob Sand, accused his colleagues of political bias, saying in a statement that the decision was “a wrong-headed plot by Iowa’s uniparty to limit voters’ choices.”

One of Iowa's four congressional races was decided by a razor-thin margin in 2022. Republican Zach Nunn, who was challenging incumbent Democrat Cindy Axne, won by less than a percentage point. There was not a third-party candidate.

An advocate for seniors is calling on the state auditor’s office to investigate the state’s failure to collect $10.7 million in fees owed by corporate nursing home owners.

According to documents obtained through the state’s open records law, one for-profit company based in West Des Moines operates 18 care facilities that collectively owe the state $3.6 million in unpaid fees. The company’s top two executives, meanwhile, have made $293,000 in political donations to Statehouse leaders, the governor and industry lobbyists.

Hale said an investigation by the Iowa auditor of sate is warranted, in part to make sure nursing facilities that claim to be increasing staff pay are doing so.

Auditor of State Rob Sand said his office has publicly reported DHHS’ failure “to collect these fees as required by law. However, the auditor’s office isn’t an enforcement agency. We have no legal authority to force DHHS to collect the fees or impose penalties on the facilities that don’t pay them.”

Is this actually a widespread thing? I'd never heard of it (sorry if this doesn'tfit the sub)

The message said something about spam, did anyone see it?

Cross posted from: https://midwest.social/post/6593381

Criminal suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, according to a unanimous ruling issued today by Utah's state Supreme Court. The questions addressed in the ruling could eventually be taken up by the US Supreme Court, whether through review of this case or a similar one.

The state argued "that, even if providing a passcode could be considered testimonial, the only meaningful information it would have conveyed here was that Valdez knew the passcode to the phone," the court said. Because police already knew the phone belonged to Valdez and that he would know his own passcode, the state contended that "this information would not convey anything new to law enforcement" and that it thus "triggers the foregone conclusion exception."

There is a difference between communicating a passcode to police and physically providing an unlocked phone to police, the court said. Though these two acts "may be functionally equivalent in many respects, this functional equivalency is not dispositive under current Fifth Amendment jurisprudence," the court said. "We conclude that the act-of-production analytical framework makes sense only where law enforcement compels someone to perform an act to unlock an electronic device."

The FBI investigated a man who allegedly posed as a police officer in emails and phone calls to trick Verizon to hand over phone data belonging to a specific person

Despite the relatively unconvincing cover story concocted by the suspect ... Verizon handed over the victim’s data to the alleged stalker, including their address and phone logs. The stalker then went on to threaten the victim and ended up driving to where he believed the victim lived while armed with a knife

Version Security Assistance Team–Court Order Compliance Team (or VSAT CCT) received an email from [email protected].“Here is the pdf file for search warrant,” Glauner, allegedly pretending to be a police detective, wrote in the email. “We are in need if the this [sic] cell phone data as soon as possible to locate and apprehend this suspect. We also need the full name of this Verizon subscriber and the new phone number that has been assigned to her. Thank you.”

Verizon is not the only telecom that has failed to properly verify requests like this. In a somewhat similar case, I spoke to a victim who was stalked after someone posing as a U.S. Marshal tricked T-Mobile into handing over her phone’s location data.