VIDEO How to Make Fishing Lures | DIY Fishing Lures | Homesteading Simple Self Sufficient Off-The-Grid

VIDEO How to Make Fishing Lures | DIY Fishing Lures | Homesteading Simple Self Sufficient Off-The-Grid | Homesteading.com <![CDATA[ window._wpemojiSettings = {"baseUrl":"https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/72×72/","ext":".png","svgUrl":"https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/","svgExt":".svg","source":{"concatemoji":"https://homesteading.com/wp-includes/js/wp-emoji-release.min.js?ver=6.1.1"}}; /*! This file is auto-generated */ !function(e,a,t){var n,r,o,i=a.createElement("canvas"),p=i.getContext&&i.getContext("2d");function s(e,t){var a=String.fromCharCode,e=(p.clearRect(0,0,i.width,i.height),p.fillText(a.apply(this,e),0,0),i.toDataURL());return p.clearRect(0,0,i.width,i.height),p.fillText(a.apply(this,t),0,0),e===i.toDataURL()}function c(e){var t=a.createElement("script");t.src=e,t.defer=t.type="text/javascript",a.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(t)}for(o=Array("flag","emoji"),t.supports={everything:!0,everythingExceptFlag:!0},r=0;r tallest) { tallest = thisHeight; } }); group.height(tallest); } equalHeight($(“.dg-grid-shortcode .dg_grid-shortcode-col”)); $(window).resize(function() { equalHeight($(“.dg-grid-shortcode .dg_grid-shortcode-col”)); }); }); ]]>

Continue reading here

The Ultimate Pumpkin Pie Recipe (Thanks To This One Key Ingredient) | Homesteading Simple Self Sufficient Off-The-Grid

The Ultimate Pumpkin Pie Recipe (Thanks To This One Key Ingredient) | Homesteading Simple Self Sufficient Off-The-Grid | Homesteading.com <![CDATA[ window._wpemojiSettings = {"baseUrl":"https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/72×72/","ext":".png","svgUrl":"https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/","svgExt":".svg","source":{"concatemoji":"https://homesteading.com/wp-includes/js/wp-emoji-release.min.js?ver=6.1.1"}}; /*! This file is auto-generated */ !function(e,a,t){var n,r,o,i=a.createElement("canvas"),p=i.getContext&&i.getContext("2d");function s(e,t){var a=String.fromCharCode,e=(p.clearRect(0,0,i.width,i.height),p.fillText(a.apply(this,e),0,0),i.toDataURL());return p.clearRect(0,0,i.width,i.height),p.fillText(a.apply(this,t),0,0),e===i.toDataURL()}function c(e){var t=a.createElement("script");t.src=e,t.defer=t.type="text/javascript",a.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(t)}for(o=Array("flag","emoji"),t.supports={everything:!0,everythingExceptFlag:!0},r=0;r tallest) { tallest = thisHeight; } }); group.height(tallest); } equalHeight($(“.dg-grid-shortcode .dg_grid-shortcode-col”)); $(window).resize(function() { equalHeight($(“.dg-grid-shortcode .dg_grid-shortcode-col”)); }); }); ]]>

Continue reading here

Is it Illegal to Collect Rainwater in California?

If you’re on a homestead and living off the grid you’re going to need a water supply. Now, if you’ve got a lake or pond on your property that’s one source but they will likely have some nasty bacteria that will make you very sick.

flag of Californiaflag of California

Killing these bacteria can often be done by boiling the water, but another alternative is to collect rainwater. It’s cool, and fresh, and will keep you hydrated, but not all states allow it.

So, is it illegal to collect rainwater in California?

No, it isn’t illegal to collect rainwater in California. As long as the rainwater is coming off your roof and it doesn’t end up going into a state water supply like a stream, you can collect it.

It was illegal prior to the passing of the Rainwater Capture Act in 2012.

The Legal Restrictions around Collecting Rainwater in California

As far as legal restrictions go, the federal government doesn’t really have any when it comes to rainwater harvesting.

Instead, it’s left up to each state to govern the practice and while most states encourage rainwater harvesting, it isn’t entirely legal to do in every state. I realize that sounds a bit odd so let me explain.

It’s legal and, as I said, even encouraged in most states. The caveat is that there are often many restrictions placed on collecting rainwater.

The Rainwater Capture Act

Collecting rainwater was illegal in California for a long time due to concerns about the disruption of natural ecosystems.

As previously mentioned, the state of California is a hotspot for wildfires and water shortages, and water is obviously needed to combat these issues.

The reason collecting rainwater was illegal was to avoid people building massive reservoirs and storing water that would usually go into a watershed.

In 2012, the governor of California passed assembly bill 1750. This bill is also called the Rainwater Collection Act.

This act allows private citizens to install, use and maintain systems for catching rainwater for specific purposes. This is, of course, assuming they meet specific requirements.

Proposition 1

Passed in 2015, Proposition 1 is a law that allocates state funds to support rainwater harvesting systems.

The idea was and is to hold businesses accountable for their water usage requiring them (through new construction codes) to use recycled/captured rainwater in their toilets and for agriculture.

What are the Actual Restrictions?

Now that we’ve discussed some of the laws around rainwater harvesting, let’s look at the restrictions/limitations.

The main limitation of collecting rainwater is that you can collect it as long as it’s not part of the state’s supply (i.e. it hasn’t entered a stream system or storm drain). According to the Rainwater Capture Act, you may collect rainwater without a permit if:

  • The water is on YOUR property
  • The water doesn’t flow off into a storm drain or stream/riverbed
  • The water’s running off your roof
  • You have a system in place to prevent…

Continue reading

EPIC Urges GSA to Prevent Privacy Harms from New Fraud Prevention Tools on Login.gov

In comments to the General Services Administration, EPIC urged the agency to limit contracts for fraud prevention to a single third-party provider and to investigate and consider abandoning behavioral analytics techniques. Login.gov is a sign-on service for members of the public to access information and services from various federal agencies. The GSA currently contracts with data broker LexisNexis for fraud prevention and identity proofing services. EPIC also urged the agency to carefully audit any risk-scoring practices by LexisNexis and provide individuals with a clear avenue for appeal when an account is flagged as potentially fraudulent. 

EPIC regularly engages on federal identity verification policy. An EPIC-led coalition of privacy and civil liberties groups urged federal and state agencies to end their use of identity-verification through facial recognition provider ID.me and other face verification services. IRS rolled back its plan to use ID.me after criticism from members of CongressEPIC, and many others. The company came under fire for forcing individuals to submit to intrusive facial recognition identity verification, subjecting people to long wait times for verification, and misleading the public. Individuals can join organizations pushing back against the use of face verification by signing this petition to Dump ID.me.

Continue reading

EPIC Statement Expressing Concerns on the Inclusion of the Judicial Security and Privacy Act in the NDAA

Congress is currently considering passing a narrow and ineffective privacy law; they should take a more comprehensive approach as EPIC has previously recommended. The Judicial Security and Privacy Act, currently integrated into the NDAA, would in practice do very little to protect the privacy of personal information about federal judges and their families. The bill as currently written would make almost all data brokers exempt from the rules that are ostensibly meant to limit data broker sales of protected personal information. Congress should not pass a privacy and data broker bill that fails to regulate data brokers or protect consumers. 

The Judicial Security and Privacy Act purports to prohibit data brokers from knowingly selling, licensing, trading, transferring, or purchasing the personal information of those covered by the bill (judges and their close relatives). The ostensible goal is to limit access to addresses and other personal information that could pose a risk to these individuals. But the bill as written exempts any “consumer reporting agency subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act” and any “financial institution subject to the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act.” But these are precisely the types of data brokers that buy and sell people’s personal information in ways that could put the subjects of this bill at risk. 

The entities subject to the FCRA include commercial websites like Spokeo that sell access to personally identifiable information, including contact data, marital status, age, occupation, economic health, and wealth information. And the GLBA applies to a wide range of entities that “offer financial products and services to individual” like loans and insurance. So the Judicial Security and Privacy Act would, by exempting these entities, not actually accomplish the goal of protecting judges and their families from data brokers and threats to their privacy or security. 

All Americans deserve privacy protections that actually work. That is why we urge the Senate to remove the Judicial Security and Privacy Act from the NDAA and instead work towards passing meaningful, comprehensive privacy protections for all Americans.

Continue reading

Are You Self-Reliant, Self-Sufficent, or Self-Sustaining?, by Mrs. Alaska

One of our goals each year is to decrease our dependency on others by increasing our skills and resources. In the city, it was convenient to pay for services and products. Living remotely, we learn to do many things ourselves or do without. I evaluate aspects of our life on a continuum from dependent to independent:

  • Dependent on others
  • Self-reliant
  • Self-sufficient
  • Self-sustaining

Given recent news reports of coronavirus and the economy, tornadoes, wildfires, and power outages, perhaps readers are applying this sort of rubric to their situations, too.

a) DEPENDENT – I judge us as dependent on items and skills/services we have to BUY ONCE A YEAR or more often. These include ANY rapidly depleted products made of petroleum (fuel, plastic) metal, glass, and paper (toilet paper!!!). We are also dependent for foods we enjoy but cannot grow, like tropical spices, coffee, citrus. Finally, we rely on skilled service providers occasionally, too, for skilled construction, machine repair, taxidermy.

b) SELF-RELIANT – This simply means things we do ourselves, whether it is baking bread or cutting down trees or canning food. For example, I buy green coffee beans and roast them. This category overlaps with the next.

c) SELF-SUFFICIENT – I define this as having the skills and products or resources on hand that will LAST 1 to 8 or 9 YEARS, before requiring replacement/renewal. These include our wind turbine, stored food (both homemade and purchased), annual foods that I grow from seed, most electric and gas tools, chickens, honeybees. (Hens lay for 3 years before aging out, and some years our honeybees overwinter but others they all die). A low cost of living is helpful to self-sufficiency, too.

d) SELF-SUSTAINING – This is the “gold standard” of independence. It encompasses products and resources on hand that can conceivably last FOREVER, or at least a DECADE without outside servicing or replenishment. Examples for us include our well and lake, accessible timber for fuel and construction, perennial fruit, herbs, and vegetables (both wild and planted/domesticated for food and home remedies), solar panels, many hand tools, and some long-lasting gas and electric tools. I also include black bear meat and the rabbits that we raise for their meat, fertilizer, and fur, since a buck and two does produce as many rabbits as we want, at a frequency and time of year that we can choose (by when we mate them). Sadly, the lake is not a self–sustaining food source. Voracious pike eliminated the prior tasty fish and are now eating each other to such an extent that the fish are vastly depleted in both number and size. To access other fish in nearby creeks, we need to maintain trails through the woods, which we have neglected.

DECREASING DEPENDENCE

Over the years, it has been something of a game for me to shave off a number of products we used to buy. In many cases, this saves money. In others, it increases our sense of competency. For example, I finally taught myself…

Continue reading here

European Commission Publishes Draft Adequacy Decision on EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework

Today, the European Commission published a draft adequacy decision on the new EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (EU-U.S. DPF), setting the stage for a likely challenge at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Commission found that the EU-U.S. DPF, along with the Biden administration’s implementing Executive Order and DOJ regulations, guarantees “essentially equivalent” protections to those in the EU, paving the way for its adoption by EU member states. In particular, the Commission found: (1) that the Executive Order’s new limitations on U.S. surveillance programs meet the EU’s “necessary and proportionate” standards; and (2) that the new redress mechanism for EU residents provides an independent and impartial means of adjudicating data rights and binding U.S. intelligence agencies.

EPIC has supported calls for enhanced privacy protections prior to establishing a new data transfer framework. EPIC recently commented on the Biden executive order, highlighting several areas of concern ahead of a likely challenge at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). “The Administration’s new Executive Order is a meaningful improvement over the prior privacy framework which has operated to the exclusion of non-U.S. persons, but these new safeguards and redress mechanism are unlikely to persuade the CJEU that U.S. law adequately protects privacy.” EPIC Executive Director Alan Butler said in October. “The new Data Protection Review Court is a step in the right direction, but the Administration must ensure that existing barriers to redress—such as notice, excessive secrecy, and undue deference to national security authorities—do not continue to stymie independent, meaningful efforts to vindicate privacy rights.”

Continue reading

EPIC Commends FTC for Including Data Minimization & Data Rights in Chegg Settlement

In comments to the Federal Trade Commission, EPIC commended the FTC for incorporating access and deletion rights and data minimization requirements into its settlement with edtech company Chegg. Chegg, which markets subscription-based study aids and a scholarship search service, collects and stores personal information from millions of users. Although Chegg represented to consumers that it was keeping their personal information safe, Chegg’s data security practices were inadequate, resulting in multiple infiltrations by hackers. EPIC commended the FTC for taking enforcement action against companies like Chegg and using its unfairness authority as a check on harmful privacy and data security practices. EPIC also praised the terms of the FTC’s consent order, noting that “Access and deletion rights work in tandem with data minimization safeguards to enhance consumer privacy and data security.”

EPIC regularly files comments in response to proposed FTC consent orders and complaints regarding business practices that violate privacy rights. Most recently, EPIC filed comments in response to the FTC’s rulemaking on commercial surveillance calling for across-the-board data minimization requirements and data rights.

Continue reading

OECD Countries Adopt Agreement on Government Access to Personal Data

Today, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) announced the adoption of an agreement on government access to personal data held by private sector entities for national security and law enforcement purposes. The Declaration sets forth common principles on safeguarding privacy and rejects any approach to government access that is “inconsistent with democratic values and the rule of law.” It further notes stakeholders’ calls for identifying existing common safeguards in the context of government data purchases, government access to publicly available data, and voluntary disclosures to law enforcement and national security authorities.

EPIC’s international privacy work promotes privacy, data protection, and open government laws and policies globally. EPIC pursues international privacy and freedom of information cases and submits amicus briefs before the European Court of Human Rights and other international institutions. Through The Public Voice, EPIC also participates with civil society partners in engaging the OECD, submits review and comment on proposed regulations and frameworks, and works with international and regional privacy advocacy groups to track global privacy trends and promote international privacy rights.

Continue reading

FTC Announces $520 Million in Penalties for Fortnite Game Maker Over Privacy Violations, Dark Patterns

The Federal Trade Commission today announced two historic settlements with Fortnite video game maker Epic Games for privacy and consumer protection violations. Fortnite has more than 400 million users worldwide, many of them minors. In addition to changing default privacy settings, Epic Games will be required “to pay a total of $520 million in relief over allegations the company violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and deployed design tricks, known as dark patterns, to dupe millions of players into making unintentional purchases.”

One settlement is a result of a federal court order filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC. The two-part complaint alleged that Epic Games violated COPPA by failing to “comply with the COPPA Rule’s parental notice, consent, review, and deletion requirements.” Independent of COPPA, the FTC also alleged that Fortnite’s default settings related to in-game voice and text communications were harmful, violating the FTC Act’s prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices. The proposed federal court order requires Epic Games to pay a $275 million monetary penalty, the largest ever obtained for an FTC rule violation. Additionally, Epic Games is required to adopt strong “default privacy settings for children and teens,” and delete personal information collected from Fortnite users in violation of COPPA.

The FTC also filed an administrative complaint alleging Epic Games violated the FTC Act by employing dark patterns to trick consumers into purchasing in-game items “without first obtaining their express informed consent,” and blocking access to purchased content. In addition to employees of Epic Games raising concerns, millions of consumers complained “about these unfair practices and disputed Epic’s unauthorized charges with their credit card providers.” As a result, the proposed administrative order will require Epic Games to pay $245 million to refund consumers. The order would also prohibit Epic Games from using dark patterns to charge consumers, and instead would require Epic Games to obtain affirmative consent.

EPIC regularly engages with the FTC on consumer protection and data protection issues, including privacy for children. The FTC previously considered EPIC’s recommendations in an early review of the COPPA Rule and incorporated several of EPIC’s recommendations in the 2013 regulations. Recently, EPIC filed comments in response to the FTC’s rulemaking on commercial surveillance, arguing for regulations that would prevent harmful dark patterns and safeguard the privacy of minors. EPIC argued that is an unfair practice to use dark patterns to nudge consumers to accept certain conditions or terms, noting that “Dark patterns are prevalent, harmful practices that undermine a consumer’s autonomy and manipulate them to their detriment.” EPIC also highlighted the unique vulnerabilities of minors to the damaging effects of commercial surveillance systems.

Continue reading