wild tiger casino

wild tiger casino We needed it – Pep Guardiola relieved to end Man City’s winless runThe International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and one of the last remaining Hamas leaders, Mohammed Deif, who might already be dead. The warrants for the Israeli leaders were issued for crimes against humanity and war crimes that the court found reasonable grounds to believe they bore criminal responsibility for. Here is what the court's publicly shared summary of the findings outlines, what this means, and what could happen next. Netanyahu and Gallant's alleged crimes The prosecution submitted an application to court accusing Netanyahu and Gallant of specific crimes from at least October 8, 2023, until at least May 20, 2024. The court assessed the evidence and found reasonable grounds to accept most of the allegations and charge them with two war crimes and three crimes against humanity . It added that the "alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza." While the ICC found there was sufficient evidence for both arrest warrants, the alleged crimes are yet to be tested in court. Netanyahu strongly rejected the alleged crimes, calling them "absurd" and "false" and the warrants "anti-Semitic". In an earlier statement, his office said the charges were biased and discriminatory. "Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will not give in to pressure, will not flinch and will not withdraw until all the war goals set by Israel at the start of the campaign are achieved," it read. One of the main charges found against them is that they " bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare" . "The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival , including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October, 2023, to 20 May, 2024." The court said it considered the following alleged actions and findings and when reaching its ruling: Action: Role in impeding humanitarian aid and failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal Finding: Resulted in disruption to the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods Action: The above in addition to cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply Finding: Impacted the availability of water and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care Action: Decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza often being conditional or in response to international pressure instead of to fulfil international humanitarian law obligations Finding: The increases in humanitarian assistance not being sufficient to improve the population's access to essential goods Action: The prolonged period of deprivation and Netanyahu's statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war Finding: Their being no clear military need or other justification for the restrictions under international humanitarian law identified The second finding was that when the alleged starvation led to death, it amounted to murder but not extermination. "There are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies , created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children, due to malnutrition and dehydration." The court found "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims" . But it " could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met". The third finding was that the suffering inflicted on the injured due to lack of medical supplies amounted to inhumane acts. "By intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines , the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment . "Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics , and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. "This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts ." The fourth finding was that all the above alleged actions deprived civilians of their fundamental rights. "The chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health , and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds. "It therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed ." Lastly, the court found that there are reasonable grounds to believe the pair bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for two specific attacks on civilians. It said reasonable grounds exist to believe they failed to "prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities" despite "having measures available to them" to do so. "The material provided by the prosecution only allowed [the chamber] to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians ." "The chamber assessed that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza." The question of jurisdiction Israel had made a submission to the court arguing it had no jurisdiction to investigate war crimes or issue arrest warrants to Israeli nationals. The court rejected the challenge, noting that " the acceptance by Israel of the court's jurisdiction is not required , as the court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of territorial jurisdiction of Palestine." And that challenging arrest warrants was "premature" because under the Rome Statue, "states are not entitled to challenge the court's jurisdiction ... prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest." When assessing the war crimes, the court "found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict" because there were reasonable grounds "to believe that during the relevant time, international humanitarian law related to international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine applied ." "This is because they are two High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and because Israel occupies at least parts of Palestine. The chamber also found that the law related to non-international armed conflict applied to the fighting between Israel and Hamas. The chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory." The question of genocide Luis Moreno Ocampo, who served as the first prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, told RN Breakfast that the case put before the court was a "minimalistic one". He said the judges did not analyse the genocide or the bombing campaign. "They focused on something that was very clear — which is starvation. Because Mr Gallant ordered the blockade of the food and water at the beginning, from the beginning and it's very clear," he said. "President Biden was for one year begging Netanyahu to let the water and food go through" but it was not enough, he said. "Basically, [the prosecution] said Israel is using starvation as a tool, as a weapon in the war. "That is absolutely prohibited, it is not possible. "So that why, legally it's very difficult to challenge this because it's very simple, very clear." Meanwhile, he said trying to prove a genocide was taking place was more "complicated". "To prove genocide the main issue is to prove intention. Has Netanyahu [the] intention to destroy the Palestinians as a group?" he said. "Many people say yes, and it's possible, and in fact, should be investigated, because there are reasons to believe he has intentions, but he's not saying that. "He's saying something different, he's saying we have to control terrorists, we don't to like to kill civilians. "So it's more controversial, and the judges, I think wisely, decided not to go to this discussion, [and instead] go to something very simple, very clear, [such as] starvation as a war crime." The ICC's prosector Karim Khan, who made the application to the court, in a statement emphasised "these applications were made following an independent investigation, and on the basis of objective, verifiable evidence vetted through a forensic process." Deif's alleged crimes The court also issued an arrest warrant for "Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, commonly known as 'Deif ', for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on the territory of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine from at least 7 October, 2023." It said Deif was the highest commander of the military wing of Hamas (known as the al-Qassam Brigades) at the time of the alleged conduct. Deif has reportedly been killed, but that's not confirmed nor denied, and the prosecution said it will "to gather information with respect to his reported death". It had initially sought two more for senior Hamas leaders, Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar, but both had since been killed and applications were withdrawn. The court found there was reasonable grounds to believe that Deif is "responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder ; extermination ; torture ; and rape and other form of sexual violence ; as well as the war crimes of murder , cruel treatment , torture ; taking hostages ; outrages upon personal dignity; and rape and other form of sexual violence. " The court detailed actions taken by Hamas and other groups as evidence which supported its ruling including: Actions: Hamas carried out mass killings in Israel, including at the Supernova festival Finding: These killings qualify as the crime against humanity and the war crime of murder Action: Shooting at people with semi-automatic weapons at the Supernova festival and areas around the event Finding: War crime of intentionally directing attacks against civilians was committed Action: Civilians were killed at several separate locations in coordinated attacks Finding: This makes part of a mass killing of members of the civilian population, and therefore the crime against humanity of extermination was committed Action: A large number of people were "seized" from Israel and kept in secret locations in Gaza with Hamas in control, "conducted with the aim to negotiate their release in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israel" Finding: The war crime of hostage taking was committed Action: Some of the hostages, predominantly women, were allegedly subjected to sexual and gender based violence, including forced penetration, forced nudity, and humiliating and degrading treatment Finding: The crimes of torture as a crime against humanity and war crime; rape and other forms of sexual violence as crimes against humanity and war crimes; cruel treatment as a war crime; and outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime were committed The court found that Deif bore individual criminal responsibility for the all of the alleged crimes as he was one of the senior leaders of Hamas who "agreed to jointly carry out" the October 7, 2023, attack. It found that "in his role as the commander of the al-Qassam Brigades, and through his actions prior to, during and after the 7 October Operation, is responsible for the commission of these crimes." The court also considered that he "ordered or induced the crimes or is responsible as a military commander for the criminal conduct of his subordinates." The impact of the arrest warrants The warrants in their most basic form make it difficult for the leaders to travel to the 125 member countries of the ICC where they technically face the threat of arrest upon arrival. Australia is one of those countries, but Israel's ally, the United States is not. Mr Khan appealed to the countries to "live up to their commitment to the Rome Statute by respecting and complying with these judicial orders." "We count on their cooperation in this situation ... we also welcome collaboration with non-States Parties in working towards accountability and upholding international law," he added. This threat of arrest could pose some challenges to a head of state, Mr Ocampo said, because his authority was now affected. "Because it's a court, an independent court, reviewing the evidence, saying 'I'm sorry, you're committing war crimes'," Mr Ocampo said. "He's still innocent, but he's a suspect. "If he's not surrendering ... he will be a fugitive in many countries, including Australia, including New Zealand, including Europe, including all south America." Gallant suffers the same fate despite being fired from his job as defence minister, as he is still liable for his actions during his time in office. Mr Ocampo said this also posed an issue for the United States as it must choose what it does. "Legally, it's not controversial. Legally, it's clear. Politically, it's controversial," he said. "But political actors are not a court. We are blessed that we have an international criminal court up and running, prosecuting Netanyahu, prosecuting whoever, friend or enemy, allegedly committing war crimes. "So the problem is states have to adjust — because President Biden was always saying consistently, Israel should respect the international law. "Well, right now, the judges say it's clear, it's clear violation of international law, so now the US is tested. "Is the US respecting international law when a friend is committing the crimes? That is a test." He added that Australia "could be critically important here" because with Biden's presidency almost over and Donald Trump on the way in, politically things could change. "Biden could not stop Netanyahu, now Trump is coming, and Trump could have interesting policy here, because he's pragmatic," he said. "He can use the ICC to transform the political situation, and Australia should help the US on that — because Australia is a member of the Rome Statue, Australia will respect the ICC decision. "I think it's a very interesting moment, to see how political actors like Australia and the US adjust and respect international law, when a friend, that is Israel, is now confronted with it." What happens next? Israel will likely challenge these charges now that the arrest warrants have been issued, which will prompt the court to rule on the question of jurisdiction again. In its release, the court said "conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing", which opens the possibility for the prosecution to conduct further investigations and make other applications. Mr Ocampo said, however, so far Netanyahu is looking to rid himself of this situation using political means and leveraging support from the US, instead of constructing a legal argument. "That is a pity because the warrant cannot be destroyed for that reason," he said. He said the only way to stop the ICC is for Israel to conduct a similar, legitimate national investigation. "Because the rules for the ICC are that it intervenes when the national judiciary is not intervening." It's also possible for others to have warrants issued against them, but no other cases so far have been submitted to the court. The first four crimes against Netanyahu and Gallant were for their roles as "co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others", implying others within the Israeli government or elsewhere could also bear some responsibility. The second war crime was for their roles as civilian superiors, and there is no specific mention of the military beyond noting the pairs conduct concerning "the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine". With all of the ways Netanyahu could escape prosecution or arrest, Mr Ocampo said the problem now was how all of this would end. "Because for the last year, we watched, with frustration, killing, massive killing, from Hamas against Israel, Israel against Palestinians, and this is escalated into Lebanon and the next step is Iran, and the next step is world war. So where do we stop that?" Mr Ocampo said. "This is the chance, we have a chance now to transform a war into a criminal proceeding." ABCNoneAndres Reyes, Carlos Coronel lead Red Bulls to MLS Cup final with 1-0 victory over Orlando City

EA Sports talked the talk in the build-up to EA FC 25's release, but the game has gained a bad reputation, and it is quickly dying. So, five years on from FIFA 19, has it's game actually improved? If you regularly play Ultimate Team, you'll know that EA FC 25 just isn't the same as past FIFA releases. The menu grind isn't there, and when you go to play the game, you're greeted with arguably the worst gameplay in years . When you combine the poor menu grind and underwhelming gameplay, you can understand why players have no reason to be playing EA FC 25. Just two months after the game's release, EA FC 25's audience reviews on Google currently give the game a 1.4 out of 5 – the lowest ever for any FIFA or EA Sports FC title. When you compare that to the 3.5 out of 5 rating given to FIFA 19 which still isn't that amazing, it shows what the majority of players currently think of the game. So, this got me thinking. Five years on, so many gameplay updates and changes have been made by EA Sports , has the gameplay in EA FC 25 actually improved from FIFA 19, or are players just jumping on the EA FC 25 bashing bandwagon? EA FC 25 vs FIFA 19 – which game is better? To put this to the test, I'm going to be reviewing different gameplay aspects of EA FC 25 compared to FIFA 19 to really see what game is better. Passing is one of the main gameplay features that's come under fire in EA FC 25, and with passing one of the most important elements of football, it makes the gameplay feel horrible when its not quite right. Well, as soon as I jumped back into FIFA 19, passing was the biggest difference I felt from FC 25. Instantly, I was able to play quick, smooth football, with the majority of my first time passes coming off. Compare that to FC 25, and although it may be more realistic, it was nowhere near as fun to use. Unless I was using someone like Rodri with the Tiki Taka PlayStyle Plus, nearly every ground pass was bouncy, slightly off target, and the biggest problem of all, every pass had a noticable input delay. Kevin De Bruyne has 92 passing in FIFA 19 and 94 in EA FC 25, so I used him a lot in this comparison, and long passing wise, the Belgian felt almost identical in both. But, I have to say, regular through balls were much better in FIFA 19 than EA FC 25, despite De Bruyne having the Incisive Pass PlayStyle Plus in the latter. There was also a lot more variation to passing in FIFA 19. De Bruyne made some visually impressive passes, while in FC 25, it was copy and paste visual-wise. It's clear that FC 25 has gone for more of a realism approach when it comes to passing, but compared to FIFA 19, it's just too slow and quite boring, so FIFA 19 passing is better to me. Dribbling has changed a lot over the years, and in FC 25, R1 dribbling, also known as agile dribbling, has made carrying the ball much easier and eye pleasing. In FIFA 19, unless you had pace, dribbling didn't feel very smooth. L1 dribbling, also known as strafe dribbling, was a thing in FIFA 19, and when comparing this feature in FIFA 19 and EA FC 25, neither were very eye pleasing, with De Bruyne's foot going through the ball on multiple occasions. Turing on the ball, FC 25 looks better, and it also felt better. When it comes to dribbling regularly, though, with just the left stick, FIFA 19 was nowhere near as clunky and slow. Overall, dribbling felt unsatisfactory in both games. They both have pros and cons, so for dribbling, I will have to call it a draw and say both are as bad as each other. Shooting has evolved a lot since FIFA 19, and I don't think for the better. Right now in EA FC 25, shooting PlayStyles are extremely overpowered. In fact, it almost feels like you can't score from outside the box anymore unless you have Power Shot Plus, Trivela Plus, or Finesse Shot Plus. This is the main issue I have with EA FC 25, and when I jumped back into FIFA 19, I had more fun scoring goals. EA has mentioned multiple times how HyperMotion technology has made it possible to recreate real-life goals with new and unique shooting techniques, but compared to FIFA 19, shooting animations are bland and boring. In FIFA 19, my players tried to score in many different ways. There were multiple variations of finesse shots, with players sometimes opting for power over placement or vice-versa. The old driven shot feature was quite overpowered, and when shooting regularly, I was still able to score, though there were some opportunities where the shooting was nothing short of awful. I think shooting is better without PlayStyles. I understand the appeal of PlayStyles, don't get me wrong, but I do think they're becoming too important and are starting to ruin the overall gameplay experience. We may get a nice little camera shake and net noises in FC 25, which is a cool touch, but overall, shooting felt better in FIFA 19. I know a lot of people have bashed defending in FC 25, but when jumping back into FIFA 19, I could tell that defending has gotten much better and also a lot easier over the last five years. The addition of second man press and commanding the AI to track runners has made defending much simpler overall, as when I was playing on FIFA 19, it felt very tough to defend and quite clunky at times. The defensive AI was poor at tracking runners, so when you're only able to control one defender when there are four attackers running at your back line, it made it a much tougher task. I do think that defending may be getting close to becoming too easy in EA FC 25, but I'd pick the current state of defending over FIFA 19 every day of the week. Point to EA FC 25. The Attacking AI has been an issue for some players in EA FC 25, with a new player roles system being introduced in place of the player instructions system as part of the FC IQ overhaul. The biggest complaint from players has been a lack of understanding and common sense from the attacking AI, from players not making runs to not even sticking to the role that's assigned to them. I actually found the player instructions system in FIFA 19 performed better than the player roles in EA FC 25. When setting up my team, I could give my players more detailed instructions – for example, I used Barcelona, and with both my wingers set on stay wide and run in behind, they did just that. Lionel Messi was glued to the touchline while making some smart runs in behind, and the same was seen with Phillipe Coutinho on the other wing. I played around with the attacking AI in FIFA 19 by changing the instructions at half-time to see if there was any difference. When I changed my wingers to come short and cut inside, that's what they did, and they did it effectively. I also changed Luis Suarez's instructions to make him play as a false nine instead, and the striker was dropping deep while Messi was making central runs instead of wide runs. On FC 25, the players understood the player roles that I had set up for them. Positionally, the players were in the right place, my wingers were out wide where I wanted them, but the problem I encountered was movement. Despite my wingers having attacking player roles assigned, the movement was poor as they failed to make runs forward or in behind when they should have. There is a workaround for this, though. I've found that learning how to trigger runs is the best way to make your players move when you want in EA FC 25, but when comparing player roles and the attacking AI to FIFA 19, FIFA 19 takes the point. There was one way to decide which game had a bigger pace split: by having a race. In both games, we put Adama Traore in a race with two different defenders, both much slower than the winger. To make it realistic, we had Traore carry the ball with the defender running alongside, and in both scenarios, the defender stayed pretty much in line with Traore. In fact, there was a point in the EA FC 25 race where the defender got ahead of Traore, but the winger eventually went ahead again, with the AcceleRATE feature likely the reason for this. The races were too close to call, with the pace split feeling identical in both. You'd expect that in the five years between FIFA 19 and EA FC 25, the graphics would've improved, and they have, with EA FC 25 blowing FIFA 19 out of the water. Players, pitches, and stadiums all look much better in EA FC 25, with the in-game crowd and cutscenes also a big improvement. I do think I prefer the menus in FIFA 19, though. The vibrant colour scheme appealed to me more than the new simplistic-style layout EA has gone for in EA FC 25, but nostalgia may be winning me over there. Overall, graphics are much better in EA FC 25 PlayStyles were introduced in EA FC 24 in place of traits, and although they do make big differences in-game, like I mentioned earlier, I think the game was better without them. EA FC 25 has become too reliant on PlayStyles – you now need the best players with these PlayStyle Plus boosts just to win games. The traits system wasn't anything special, but it wasn't PlayStyles, and as much as I enjoy scoring power shots with Federico Valverde from long distance every game, I preferred it when borderline superpowers weren't a feature. The point here goes to FIFA 19. Overall, it was a close one, but FIFA 19 just edged it, performing better in more rounds than EA FC 25. Now, this is solely based on offline gameplay as the servers aren't available on FIFA 19 anymore, but with the comparison being between EA FC 25 and a game released five years ago, it's a worrying sign that the similarities were this close.

Donald Trump has yet to move back into the White House and already fissures are opening in his coalition, amid squabbling between Elon Musk and his Silicon Valley "tech bros" and his hardcore Republican backers. At the heart of the internecine sniping is Trump's central election issue -- immigration -- and the H1-B visas that allow companies to bring foreigners with specific qualifications to the United States. The permits are widely used in Silicon Valley, and Musk -- who himself came to the United States from South Africa on an H1-B -- is a fervent advocate. The world's richest man, who bankrolled Trump's election campaign and has become a close advisor, posted on X Thursday that welcoming elite engineering talent from abroad was "essential for America to keep winning." Vivek Ramaswamy, appointed by Trump as Musk's co-chair on a new advisory board on government efficiency, suggested that companies prefer foreign workers because they lack an "American culture," which he said venerates mediocrity. "A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers," he posted, warning that, without a change in attitude, "we'll have our asses handed to us by China." Skepticism over the benefits of immigration is a hallmark of Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement and the billionaires' remarks angered immigration hawks who accused them of ignoring US achievements in technological innovation. Incoming White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller posted a 2020 speech in which Trump marveled at the American "culture" that had "harnessed electricity, split the atom, and gave the world the telephone and the Internet." The post appeared calculated to remind critics that Trump won November's election on a platform of getting tough on immigration and boosting American manufacturing. But it was Michael Faraday, an English scientist, who discovered that an electric current could be produced by passing a magnet through a copper wire and Ernest Rutherford, a New Zealander, who first split the atom. And Alexander Graham Bell may have died a US citizen but he was a British subject in Canada when he invented the telephone. Trump voiced opposition to H1-B visas during his successful first run for the White House in 2016, calling them "unfair for our workers" while acknowledging that he used foreign labor in his own businesses. The Republican placed restrictions on the system when he took office, but the curbs were lifted by President Joe Biden. Trump is known for enjoying the gladiatorial spectacle when conflict breaks out in his inner circle. He has been conspicuously silent during the hostilities that Politico characterized as "Musk vs MAGA." Many MAGA figures have been agitating for a complete closure of America's borders while the problem of illegal entries is tackled, and hoping for a steer from Trump that would reassure them that he remains firm in his "America First" stance. For some long-time loyalists, Silicon Valley has already inserted itself too deeply into MAGA politics. "We welcomed the tech bros when they came running our way to avoid the 3rd grade teacher picking their kid's gender -- and the obvious Biden/Harris economic decline," said Matt Gaetz, the scandal-hit congressman forced to withdraw after being nominated by Trump to run the Justice Department. "We did not ask them to engineer an immigration policy." When Musk almost single-handedly blew up a deal painstakingly hammered out between Democrats and Republicans to set the 2025 federal budget, Democrats used "President Musk" to mock Trump, who is famously sensitive about being upstaged. It remains to be seen whether these cracks can be smoothed out or if they are a portent of further strife, but critics point to the chaos in Trump's first term as a potential indicator. "Looking forward to the inevitable divorce between President Trump and Big Tech," said far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a MAGA figure with so much influence that she had a seat on Trump's plane during the campaign. "We have to protect President Trump from the technocrats." Loomer has subsequently complained of censorship after she was stripped of her paying subscribers on X, which is owned by Musk. "Full censorship of my account simply because I called out H1B visas," she posted. "This is anti-American behavior by tech oligarchs. What happened to free speech?" rle/ft/sms

Sacramento Kings fire head coach Mike Brown months after giving him extension

Stock market today: Tech stocks and AI pull Wall Street to more records

How to Watch Top 25 Women’s College Basketball Games – Sunday, December 1

Fruster scores 15, Eastern Illinois beats Blackburn 99-55

EPL: Chelsea crush Southampton in five-goal thriller

ROSEN, A RANKED AND LEADING LAW FIRM, Encourages Enphase Energy, Inc. Investors to Secure ...None

The latest buzzword in the automotive industry, "software-defined vehicle," is nebulous to the degree of being meaningless, as every vehicle on the road depends on some kind of computer programming for systems ranging from the touchscreen to the engine management, steering and brakes. The degree to which those systems are interconnected and connected to the internet varies from automaker to automaker and vehicle to vehicle. The advantages of a software-defined vehicles are many, including the ability to receive updates wirelessly to fix old problems or add new features, including extending battery range. With these advantages come issues of digital security. Computers can be hacked , systems can be compromised, and because our cars are now connected to our homes and phones, which are connected to our personal data, credit cards and banks, the entire network is at risk, experts say. "Modern vehicles are equipped with various connected technologies, including telematic and infotainment systems, connected gateways, vehicle access system or onboard charger control unit," Christine Caviglioli, vice president of automotive at cybersecurity and data protection firm Thales told Newsweek . "This connectivity makes vehicles susceptible to cyberattacks on a large diversity of interfaces such as cellular, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), Wi-Fi, GPS, Bluetooth, ultra-wideband, NFC, USB, OBDII diagnostic port or Power-Line Communication (PLC) for vehicle charging." In 2015, two hackers and researchers were able to break into a Jeep Cherokee through an old versions of its Uconnect infotainment system. In addition to seeing the actual mapped locations of those vehicles, Wired reporters Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek were able to take control of the engine, transmission, steering wheel and brakes of the vehicle as part of an experiment. Before the story and before the two held a conference on the vulnerabilities, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), then the parent company of the Jeep brand, developed and installed an update for the problem. Previously the two were able to disable brakes, honk the horn, jerk the seat belt, and control the steering wheel using a laptop in the back of both a Toyota Prius and Ford Escape . Those vulnerabilities were also corrected. More recently, a group of independent security researchers found a vulnerability in a Kia web portal that allowed them to reassign control of the internet-connected features. They built a custom app and were able to scan almost any internet-connected Kia vehicle's license plate and track that car's location, unlock the car, honk its horn, or start its ignition. The models vulnerable numbered in the millions. The researchers alerted Kia, and a patch (fix) was made, part of almost of decade of vulnerabilities found in automakers from all reaches of the globe, from Nissan to Ferrari . Hackers have also shown that they can get into customer and employee files, sales records of physical vehicles and locations of owners in addition to attacking vehicles. "Hackers could potentially affect a wide range of systems, exploiting vulnerabilities to compromise functionality, safety, or privacy. Telematic systems allow remote commands and remote diagnostics, positioning tracking or emergency services. If compromised, hackers could use the remote capabilities of the vehicle and expose sensitive location or personal information," said Caviglioli. She also said that a cyberattack could manipulate advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) features, potentially causing accidents. Compromised systems in charge of the dynamic control of the vehicle such as engine, braking or steering can potentially lead to loss of control while driving. Additionally, hackers could attack battery management systems, affecting range or battery safety. Cars Need Software Updates to Maintain Security Like smartphones, today's cars, trucks, vans, wagons and SUVs require security updates to maintain their integrity. Software updates and patches are commonplace in connected cars with many including bug fixes and, occasionally, added features like a new app or the ability to extend the range of your vehicle's battery. Most of these updates can happen in a matter of minutes when a vehicle is parked and unused. Updating your vehicle's software is a routine part of modern car life, much like changing spark plugs was for previous generations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has created "non-binding and voluntary" guidance to the automotive industry for improving motor vehicle cybersecurity. It focuses on both wireless and wired connections, as well as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. In 2015, the NHTSA formed the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Auto-ISAC, an industry environment emphasizing cybersecurity awareness and collaboration across the automotive industry. V2V and vehicle-to-infrastructure connections are especially perilous as they are a two-way street, which exposes both to potential cyberattacks. Vulnerabilities in either the vehicle or the infrastructure can be exploited, leading to unauthorized access, data breaches, or the manipulation of vehicle commands. "Vehicles connected to infrastructure continually exchange data, which may include sensitive information about drivers, such as location, driving habits, and personal identifying information. Ensuring the privacy of this data is critical, especially if it is stored or shared without adequate protections," said Caviglioli. That extremely sensitive personal information and vehicle usage data is important to automakers (who want to show they are protecting it) as it is how they connect with their customers, among other things. Ford said that it uses that data to improve quality, minimize environmental impact, and make its vehicles safer and more enjoyable to drive and own. It also offers customers a choice as to whether they wish to share connected vehicle data with them. "Customers may turn vehicle connectivity off entirely (resulting in a disconnection from the cellular network) and may exercise granular settings that control sharing vehicle data (e.g., odometer, oil level), driving data (e.g., braking), and/or location data," a Ford spokesperson told Newsweek. It said that owners can continue to use services that do not rely on the data they choose not to share. Automobiles are susceptible to cyber threats just like your home computer or smartphone. They need to be protected the same way to ensure safety, privacy, and more now than ever, the proper functioning of vehicle and safety systems. "Customers should regularly check for and install software updates for their vehicle, as automakers often release patches to fix vulnerabilities. When using in-car Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, they should ensure they are connecting to secure networks and avoid using public Wi-Fi. They also should create strong, unique passwords for any connected services, such as navigation or entertainment apps linked to their vehicle," Caviglioli said. "Despite this, if they suspect their vehicle has been compromised, they should contact their dealer or manufacturer to report the issue and seek guidance."US sanctions founder of Georgia’s ruling political party