loading...
 |
| download Now |
Mexican YouTube star shot to death after insulting notorious drug lord
Juan Luis Laguna Rosales was shot to death Monday after he insulted a notorious drug lord. (Facebook)
A Mexican teenaged YouTube star, famous for drinking himself into oblivion in his viral videos, was shot to death Monday after he insulted a notorious drug kingpin.
Juan Luis Lagunas Rosales, 17, of Sinaloa, a Mexican state, grew up too fast. The teenager dropped out of high school and moved out at age 15 to Culiacan, The Washington Post reported. The teenager made his living by washing cars before he became known on the internet as “El Pirata de Culiacan” which translates to “The Pirate of Culiacan.”
Lagunas became engrossed in a hard-partying lifestyle that became his brand. The teenager’s videos of him chugging beer and liquor eventually went viral and he started to gain a following. By the time he turned 17, the Mexican teen had hundreds of thousands of followers on his Instagram and more than a million on Facebook. His newfound fame got him featured roles in music videos.TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERING TO SEPARATE FAMILIES WHO ILLEGALLY CROSS U.S.-MEXICO BORDER
The teenager, in a rush to be identified as an adult, tattooed himself, drew a beard on his face, drank excessively despite the drinking age in Mexico being 18, and posted photos of him with guns, scantily clad women and expensive rides.
However, the rising star was not ready for what was about to occur. Lagunas posted a video recently of insulting Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, also known as “El Mencho,” one of the country’s most notorious drug kingpins, the U.S. Government declared.
Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes "El Mencho" is a known drug lord in Mexico. (U.S. Department of Treasury/ Office of Foreign Assets Control)
In the video, Lagunas said “El Mencho a mi me pela la verga” which loosely translates to “suck my c---.”
It was not immediately clear why Lagunas singled out “El Mencho” in his video.
On Monday night, Lagunas was enjoying a night out at a bar in Jalisco with a group of friends when a squad of young men busted into the establishment and shot the social media star between 15 to 18 times, killing him, Raul Sanchez Jimenez, Jalisco’s attorney general, said.
Mexican authorities were investigating if Lagunas’ criticism of “El Mencho” had something to do with his death. So far nobody has been arrested and a motive was not named, the Daily News reported.
MEXICO BUS CRASH VICTIMS KILLED INCLUDED 8 AMERICANS
El Mencho’s cartel, the New Generation, which was founded less than 10 years ago, made its fortune by “stealing gas, kidnapping, extortion and selling guns,” The Washington Post reported. The group has also been tied to thousands of murders, the Rolling Stone reported. Many of those murders were traced back to “El Mencho” who was allegedly a police officer at some point in his life.
"El Mencho" was indicted in a U.S. federal court on "charges of drug trafficking, corruption and murder, and currently has a $5 million bounty on his head," the Rolling Stone reported.
The YouTube star’s death comes on the heels of one of Mexico’s deadliest years on record. The country averaged some 69 murders a day, according to Reuters. Laguna’s death also gained attention from Rolling Stone, Univision and from musicians who previously featured him in their videos.
“There are a lot of people who criticize him, but the truth is . . . that’s why ‘El Pirata’ got started,” Luis Adame, of Último Escuadrón, said. “Everyone in their own way tries to find a way to get ahead.”
Beto Sierra, an Instagram star, remembered his friend Laguna as “cheerful” and encouraged him to drink less.
“He told me that he wanted to change, but on the weekend, there was no lack of bad influences,” Sierra wrote on his Instagram.
“You were living a fast life you never listened, and I don’t judge you,” he wrote. “Those who knew you know you were a good person.”
02
VERIZON
After net neutrality, brace for Internet 'fast lanes'
Tali Arbel, The Associated Press Published 3:41 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2017 | Updated 3:51 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2017
Would you pay extra for Facebook, Snapchat and YouTube? That's how they do it in England, reports Jefferson Graham. Could that happen here too, in the wake of the relaxed FCC Net Neutrality rules?
In New York on Dec. 7, 2017.(Photo: Mary Altaffer, AP)
NEW YORK (AP) — Now that federal telecom regulators have repealed net neutrality, it may be time to brace for the arrival of internet "fast lanes" and "slow lanes."
The net neutrality rules just voted down by the Federal Communications Commission prohibited such “paid prioritization,” as it’s technically known. That’s when an internet provider such as Verizon or Comcast decides to charge services like YouTube or Amazon for faster access to users. Firms that decline to pay up could wind up in bumper-to-bumper slow lanes.
More: Net neutrality: The FCC voted to end it. What that means for you
The Associated Press queried seven major internet providers about their post-net-neutrality plans, and all of them equivocated when asked if they might establish fast and slow lanes. None of the seven companies — Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Sprint and T-Mobile — would rule out the possibility. Most merely said they had “no plans” for paid prioritization, and a few declined to answer the question at all.
By contrast, several of these firms promised not to block or slow down specific internet sites and services, two other practices prohibited by the expiring net-neutrality rules. (Those rules won’t formally end until sometime in early 2018.) Any such move could set off a public uproar and might even trigger an antitrust investigation.
Here are the net-neutrality promises from the country’s biggest wireless and cable companies.
FAST LANES: No specific response
BLOCK OR SLOW DOWN SITES: Says it doesn’t do so, but declined to address the future
THE WORDS: In a Nov. 21 statement, Verizon senior vice president Kathy Grillo said: “We continue to believe that users should be able to access the internet when, where, and how they choose, and our customers will continue to do so.” Asked whether Verizon will continue not to block or throttle content or whether it will charge internet companies to get better access to customers, Young said Verizon “does not block or throttle content and that’s the bottom line.”
AT&T
FAST LANES: No specific response
BLOCK OR SLOW SITES: Says it “will not” do so
THE WORDS: Spokesman Mike Balmoris didn’t specifically answer when asked if AT&T will create fast lanes. In a Nov. 30 blog post , AT&T senior executive vice president Bob Quinn said: “We will not block websites, we will not throttle or degrade internet traffic based on content, and we will not unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic.”
COMCAST
FAST LANES: Has “no plans” to create them
BLOCK OR SLOW SITES: Says it “will not” do so
THE WORDS: In a Dec. 14 blog post , senior executive vice president David Cohen said: “We will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content on the Internet; we will be fully transparent with respect to our practices; and we have not entered into any paid prioritization arrangements, and we have no plans to do so.”
CHARTER
FAST LANES: Says there are no plans to create them
BLOCK OR SLOW DOWN SITES: Says it doesn’t do so and has “no plans” to change that
THE WORDS: In a Dec. 14 blog post : “We don’t slow down, block, or discriminate against lawful content. Simply put, we don’t interfere with the lawful online practices of our customers and we have no plans to change our practices.”
COX
FAST LANES: Does not plan to create them
BLOCK OR SLOW DOWN SITES: Says it doesn’t do so and has no plans to
THE WORDS: In an emailed statement on Dec. 14: “We do not block, throttle or otherwise interfere with consumers’ desire to go where they want on the Internet.” A spokesman said the company has no plans to block or throttle content or enter into paid prioritization agreements.
SPRINT
FAST LANES: No specific response
BLOCK OR SLOW DOWN SITES: Says it doesn’t block sites, but declined to address the future
THE WORDS: In a press release on Dec. 14, Sprint wrote: “Our position has been and continues to be that competition is the best way to promote an open internet.”
From its “open internet” website : “Sprint does not block sites based on content or subject.”
T-MOBILE
FAST LANES: No response about future plans
BLOCK OR SLOW DOWN SITES: No response about future plans
THE WORDS: A company spokeswoman pointed to a February 2015 statement from T-Mobile CEO John Legere: “We have always believed in competition and in a free, open Internet with rules that protect net neutrality — no blocking, no discrimination and transparency.”
Are you a "cyberloafer"? Why internet procrastination is making life easier for hackers
The biggest threat to an organisation’s cyber-security comes from within, according to a growing body of evidence. Employees are frequently putting their companies at risk of hacking by sharing their passwords, using public WiFi networks to send sensitive information, or not protecting the privacy of social media accounts.
But there’s another threat that at first seems innocuous and that we’re all probably guilty of, something that researchers have dubbed “cyberloafing”. My research group’s new study shows this practice of using work computers for personal internet browsing can become a serious security threat to a company when it goes too far.
Most companies accept that their employees will occasionally check social media or send personal emails from work computers. But in some cases things can get more serious, with people people spending significant amounts of time updating their own websites, watching videos or even pornography. Early estimates suggested that 45% of employees questioned cited surfing the internet at work for personal purposes as the number one distraction at work.
This can have a big impact on a company’s productivity, with research suggesting that employees each waste an average of 2.09 hours a day while cyberloafing. But our new study also shows that the more employees engage in serious cyberloafing, the less likely they are to follow the rules and protocols designed to protect the company’s IT systems, and the bigger threat they become to cyber-security.
We asked 338 part-time and full-time workers aged 26-65 about their cyberloafing habits, their knowledge of information security, and behaviour that could indicate internet addiction. Those who cyberloafed more often knew less about information security. And those who engaged in more serious cyberloafing (such as updating personal websites, visiting dating websites or downloading illegal files) had significantly poorer cyber-security awareness.
Typically, people undertaking more serious cyberloafing were less aware of how to stay safe online and how to protect sensitive information. One reason for this could be that they are so determined to get online they don’t want to pay attention to information about online safety and ignore the risks. On they other hand, they may believe their companies can protect themselves from anything that might happen as a result of risky behaviour.
Those in our survey who scored higher for internet addiction behaviour were also much more likely to have poorer awareness of and follow safety protocols. And those who were serious cyberloafers and potential internet addicts were the greatest risk of all.
As I explain in my recent book Cybercognition, internet addiction is a compulsion to get online, sometimes with the aim of fuelling other addictions to digital activities such as online gambling or shopping. Critically, the drive to get online can be the same as any physical addiction, so the internet acts like a drug for some people.
This means people who show aspects of internet addiction may be more determined to get online at any costs and more likely to try to get around security protocols or ignore advice about online safety. They may think they know better because they spend so much time online. Or they may not fully understand the risks because they are so absorbed in the online world.
All of this doesn’t mean we should cut off all internet access for employees. Being able to surf the internet is an important part of some people’s work. But excessive use of internet services and work IT systems can put companies at risk, particularly when people are accessing risky websites or downloading programmes from unknown sources.
There are a number of things companies can do to help mitigate the risks from excessive cyberloafing. As we suggest in our study’s conclusion, some organisations may apply very strict penalties for serious rule breaking. But providing effective training that empowers employees to identify aspects of internet abuse and seek help could be a more effective management tool. Helping workers understand the risks of their actions might be more beneficial, particularly where these are communicated through focus groups and talks.
But one thing companies should avoid (and all too often don’t) is simply sending out an email reminder. Research shows that messages about the potential risks to information security sent via email are the least effective. And if you’re deep into a cyberloafing session, an email will be just another corporate message lost in an overloaded inbox.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Lee Hadlington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
download link
