Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere?.
Kinda. Check Supreme Court decision in Elonis v. United States
A backup implies exactly that regardless of medium or location, and if the backup runs after the infection, then you're doing nothing but backing up (ransomware) encrypted data.
The end result is you're still fucked.
Only if you foolishly overwrite all previous backups so that only the last version remains. If that's how their backup works, then it's severely lacking given the importance of the data in question. What if you need a file and discover it got corrupted, and it might have been corrupted months ago?
It has nothing to do with that: all this does is allow companies to outsource sensitive data to certified US-based infrastructures. Before if you had e.g. an application handling sensitive data you could not legally outsource its data storage to an US server, but after this you can as long as it's certified.
It changes nothing for Protonmail since I doubt they are interesting this kind of outsourcing as it would defeat their whole purpose.
Instagram obviously assumes that the children's legal guardian entered the contract. In any case this is not the point: Instagram *has a contract*, the question eventually being whether it's enforceable or not. IMDB has *no contract at all* and it claims it doesn't need one.
You are comparing apples with oranges. IMDB claims it has right to publish the age without the actor's permission, Instagram claims it has right to sell your informations if you agree to use their services, thus granting them permission to do so.
The results being "wildly inconsistent" doesn't mean the tests are flawed, especially given that the same tests on the previous models and other laptops don't show the supposed "flaw" appearing on the Late 2016 MacBook Pro. These tests were used on *a lot* of devices, including the previous MacBook Pro model which had no issue whatsoever.
It could be a flaw in the test? Sure, but it could also be that the Late 2016 MacBook Pro's battery life *is actually wildy inconsistent* and given how many other times these tests were conducted without issues and how many users complained about the battery life of the new model even before CR's results... you know, Occam's razor.
On top of that, Apple actually patched away the "remaining time" indicator from the battery widget shortly after this model's release via software update since apparently it's "confusing". If you think there is nothing suspicious about *that* maybe you should sell that eCat reactor to yourself.
First of all, no, they are under no obligation. They would still likely do it since it would be in the best interest of their subscribers and of their reputation.
Furthermore, there is no official fix from Apple yet. As far as I know there are rumors of some beta version faring better, but nothing more. CR didn't say they won't re-test the devices if/when Apple releases a fix, they won't re-test the devices *as they are* since they are confident of their previous test's methodology and findings.
Note that CR shared the diagnostic files from their tests with Apple and will definitely re-test the devices as soon as Apple claims they figured out the battery problems and fixed them. Until then they trust their results and find a re-test pointless.
So no, there is nothing suspicious on the part of CR.
There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak