The Home Office has made a fresh request for ‘back door’ access to encrypted iCloud data belonging to British users

Apple has launched a new legal challenge against a UK government demand to access its customers’ highly encrypted data, a year after the Home Office agreed to abandon its previous request.

The US tech company launched the legal complaint last month at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), an independent court that has the power to investigate claims that the UK intelligence services have acted unlawfully.

Continue reading...

• Chalobah to join Cesc Fàbregas at Como for £27.5m

• Henderson adds experience to Xabi Alonso’s squad

Trevoh Chalobah’s long association with Chelsea is to end after Como agreed a deal worth an initial £25.7m. The England World Cup defender’s departure was agreed on the same day the club completed the signing of Jordan Henderson.

Chalobah made 105 Premier League appearances for Chelsea and established himself as a first-team option during a number of turbulent periods for the club. The move will be seen as a coup for Como’s head coach, Cesc Fàbregas, with the former Chelsea midfielder pushing to bring the centre-back to Italy.

Continue reading...

Instead of finger-pointing at Spain, mainstream EU leaders should be showing solidarity with its prime minister, Pedro Sánchez

At least 72 people are believed to have died late last week, most of them drowned or crushed as they joined tens of thousands of others in attempting to swim from Moroccan waters to the Spanish exclave of Ceuta. Yet the scale of that human tragedy has barely registered, as Donald Trump has decried an “invasion” while European politicians exploit the crisis to serve their own agendas. If further evidence were needed of the way that the radical right increasingly distorts the terms of the migration debate in the EU, the last few days have furnished it.

More needs to be understood about the drivers behind a shocking episode. Misinformation on social media – orchestrated or otherwise – appears to have played a big part, following a Spanish supreme court ruling that migrants arriving by sea could not be summarily turned back. Moroccan authorities seemingly did little to prevent the chaotic exodus, which echoed previous smaller incidents and focused international attention on a territory whose sovereignty Rabat contests. If there were online indications that such an incursion was a possibility, no alarm was sounded.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Continue reading...

Raderstoomboot De Majesteit blijft aan de Maaskade in Rotterdam liggen. Het iconische schip is in handen gekomen van Constant in Beweging, een bedrijf dat met twee andere schepen al evenementen op het water organiseert.

Deze week zijn alle drie de vakantieregio’s tegelijk vrij. Precies dan piekt het aantal woninginbraken in Nederland. Een inbreker heeft geen minuten nodig om te beoordelen of uw huis de moeite waard is – een blik op de gevel is genoeg.

Op zomerdagen waarop geen enkele regio vakantie heeft, worden er gemiddeld 54 woninginbraken per dag geregistreerd. Zijn alle drie de vakantieregio’s tegelijk weg, dan loopt dat op naar bijna 66 per dag: 22 procent meer. Het hoogtepunt valt begin augustus. In regio Midden is dat vakantie-effect het sterkst, met een kwart meer inbraken tijdens de eigen zomervakantie; in het zuiden blijft de toename beperkt tot dertien procent.

Dat gebeurt tegen een gunstige achtergrond. In 2025 registreerde de politie ongeveer 21.600 woninginbraken, het laagste aantal sinds de start van de huidige registratie in 2012 en ruim 800 minder dan het jaar ervoor. Maar de daling lijkt te stokken: in de eerste vijf maanden van 2026 werden 8.618 inbraken geregistreerd, tegen 8.290 in dezelfde periode van 2025 – bijna vier procent meer, net vóór de vakantiepiek.

Een inbreker leest uw huis zoals u een etalage leest: in één blik.

Wat een inbreker in dertig seconden opneemt

De signalen waar het om draait zijn banaal, en juist daarom zo verraderlijk. Een stapel post op de mat. Gordijnen die dagenlang dicht blijven. Een huis waar ’s avonds nooit een lamp aangaat. Een caravan of een auto met dakkoffer die een week vóór vertrek al voor de deur staat. Volle vuilniszakken. En online: een vakantiefoto die verraadt dat u zeshonderd kilometer verderop op een terras zit.

Twijfelt een inbreker of u echt weg bent, dan volgt een test. Een takje of een tandenstoker tussen deur en kozijn. Zit dat er twee dagen later nog, dan weet hij genoeg.

Even hardnekkig zijn de fouten aan het huis zelf. De voordeur die alleen wordt dichtgetrokken in plaats van op slot gedraaid: zit er speling op, dan gaat zo’n deur met een pasje tussen deur en kozijn binnen een paar seconden open. Het bovenraam dat op een kier blijft staan om te luchten – bereikbaar via een vuilcontainer of een ladder die in de niet-afgesloten schuur staat. En de kiepstand, die veel bewoners nog altijd als “dicht” beschouwen.

De achterkant is de blinde vlek

Wie zijn voordeur op orde heeft, is er nog niet. De achterzijde van de woning is bij Nederlandse inbraken de meest gebruikte route: daar is minder zicht vanaf de straat, staat het hang- en sluitwerk vaak het langst ongemoeid en biedt een achterpad dekking. Een poort die niet op slot kan, een donkere tuin en hoge struiken rond de achterdeur zijn samen een uitnodiging.

Ook wat binnen ligt, doet mee. Autosleutels in het zicht bij de voordeur, een laptop op de eettafel, sieraden in het nachtkastje: dat zijn precies de plekken waar als eerste wordt gekeken. Een sleutel onder de bloempot of de deurmat is voor een inbreker geen geheime bergplaats maar standaardprocedure.

Drie minuten weerstand is doorgaans genoeg om een inbreker te laten afhaken.

Waarom drie minuten alles bepalen

Een slecht beveiligde deur is in tientallen seconden open. Gecertificeerd, inbraakwerend hang- en sluitwerk rekt dat op tot minimaal drie minuten – en dat blijkt in de praktijk de grens: lukt het binnen die tijd niet, dan haakt de gelegenheidsinbreker af. Woningen die volledig zijn beveiligd volgens het Politiekeurmerk Veilig Wonen hebben tot negentig procent minder kans op een geslaagde inbraak. Een tijdschakelaar op de verlichting, ook buiten bij de voordeur, kost een paar tientjes en werkt het hele jaar door.

Een alarm of camera is een aanvulling, geen vervanging. Het vertraagt niemand; het registreert alleen dat het misging.

Checklist voor deze week

• Draai deuren met de sleutel op slot, ook bij een korte boodschap – en laat geen raam op de kiepstand staan.
• Zet de tuinpoort, schuur en garage op slot en berg ladders en klimbare containers op.
• Laat post weghalen en vraag de buren de gordijnen te bedienen; zet desnoods hun auto op uw oprit.
• Gebruik tijdschakelaars binnen én buiten en houd struiken rond de woning kort.
• Leg autosleutels, laptops en sieraden uit het zicht en hang geen adreslabel aan uw sleutelbos.
• Deel vakantiefoto’s pas na thuiskomst en vertel uw plannen aan een beperkte kring.
• Controleer of uw sloten het SKG-sterkeurmerk dragen; twijfelt u, vraag dan een woningscan aan.

Feiten op een rij Nederland telde in 2025 ongeveer 21.600 geregistreerde woninginbraken, het laagste aantal sinds 2012. In de eerste vijf maanden van 2026 lag het aantal bijna vier procent hoger dan een jaar eerder. Tijdens overlappende zomervakanties stijgt het dagcijfer van 54 naar bijna 66 inbraken. Woningen met het Politiekeurmerk Veilig Wonen hebben tot negentig procent minder kans op een geslaagde inbraak.

Meer weten?

• Politie: tips om woninginbraak te voorkomen
• Politiekeurmerk Veilig Wonen: preventietips
• Interpolis: 16 procent meer inbraken in de zomer

Now AI is making fake vulnerabilities and polluting the ecosystem. A batch of critical- and high-rated SQLite CVEs that appeared in the NVD with CISA-supplied enrichment last week turned out to be technically bogus, according to security researchers, and their path into widely used databases exposes weaknesses in the CVE pipeline. Software supply chain security outfit JFrog reported last week that six supposed SQLite vulnerabilities published in a larger batch by a new, obscure GitHub repository were all complete garbage. Running the advisories through an AI checker suggested they were likely AI generated, JFrog said, and, upon testing, it found that none of the six SQLite reports, which carried CVSS scores ranging from 9.8 to 7.5, described a reproducible vulnerability. One, an alleged use-after-free vulnerability in the open source database that Red Hat initially assigned a maximum 10.0 CVSS score to before lowering it, relied on a function that didn't exist in the affected SQLite version. Another UAF vulnerability with a 9.1 CVSS score cited source lines that weren't even related to the supposed flaw. When JFrog tested the accompanying proof-of-concept, it executed a valid query with no memory leaks or errors. The other four SQLite CVEs from the repo that JFrog tested were similarly fake. The other 49 CVEs in the questionable GitHub repo claimed to be security vulnerabilities in the open-source RAW image processing library libraw and Arduino audio decoding library ESP32-audioI2S. While JFrog didn't test those as extensively, it said all are just as fake as the rest, aside from one which “contained a real bug wrapped in unverified CVE metadata.” A message posted to Openwall’s OSS-Security mailing list on Friday indicated that MITRE had rejected the whole repo’s worth of vaporous vulnerabilities, but the whole thing should serve as an important lesson, poster and Oracle Solaris engineer Alan Coopersmith pointed out. “MITRE and most other CNAs which assign CVEs for code they don't produce themselves operate on the honor system, and trust CVE requesters to have verified the information they provide,” Coopersmith noted in the OSS-Security post. “The CNA is often not in a position of being able to verify the report themselves.” As JFrog points out, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which manages the US National Vulnerability Database (NVD), used to provide a reliable backstop by manually reviewing and enriching CVE records after they entered the database. That process slowed dramatically in 2024 after a surge in vulnerability submissions, coupled with operational challenges, left the agency with a growing backlog of records it was unable to process. By late 2024, the backlog had grown to more than 17,000 unprocessed CVEs, despite NIST's plan to clear it by the end of fiscal year 2024 with contractor help. It continued to grow, reaching more than 27,000 by the end of 2025, according to a Department of Commerce Inspector General report published in May 2026. To make matters worse, the DoC IG concluded that NIST had been wasting money allocated to fixing the backlog due to a “lack of strategic planning and decisive action” that has led to the stack of unresolved issues continuing to grow. In other words, the pipeline has no mandatory checkpoint at which every claimed vulnerability must be independently reproduced. “Because no step in today's system actually requires a proof-of-concept or bug reproduction, a plausible-sounding fake advisory can slide right through the pipeline and end up in GitHub Security Advisories, downstream databases, and enterprise scanners,” JFrog said. “This incident demonstrates a systemic issue with automated vulnerability ingestion.” What that means for security professionals, aside from having to deal with polluted vulnerability databases, is that bad advisories could waste time better spent chasing real issues. Because reputable databases can ingest unverified records, JFrog recommended several checks before defenders act on a newly published CVE. First off, if the vendor hasn’t corroborated the issue (SQLite maintainers don’t list the fake CVEs, for instance) it’s probably not legitimate. A lack of commit hash or pull request in the reference fields of a repo is also indicative of AI slop, as is suspicious metadata (i.e., missing CPE product definitions). Lastly, if the code references don’t appear to match real functions or point to parts of the code that don’t involve the supposed issue, that’s a good sign it’s just an AI hallucination. JFrog reported its findings to the GitHub Security Advisory team, Red Hat, and NVD, all of whom the company told us have flagged or removed the CVEs. GitHub hasn't yet, JFrog told us. We reached out to GitHub to inquire why the repo is still up, but didn’t hear back. As for why someone might do this, JFrog speculates that it could be an attempt for someone to boost their research experience with fake reports, or to influence what automated CVE identification tools flag as actual vulnerabilities. In both cases, JFrog told us, that's just speculation. Either way, these 54 apparently bogus CVEs, JFrog security researcher Afek Berger said, are just one example of a problem they expect to see more often. "Generative AI has lowered the effort required to produce a plausible-looking advisory to close to zero, while the effort required to verify one, review the source code, build the affected version, reproduce the PoC, is unchanged," Berger told us in an email. "That asymmetry means that even well-resourced defenders and maintainers cannot manually validate every incoming report … this is a challenge the whole industry is facing in the AI era." ®

De onderkant van de ijsberg wil ook even boven kijken. Timelapse van een ijsberg die gaat koppeltje duikelen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UufMqwyO7pY&t=293s

Weer voor Rotterdam ☀️ - 03-08-2026 19:16 CEST

In één oogopslag:
• 28.7°C · Zonnig ☀️ | Min 19.9°C / Max 32.9°C

Verwachting voor vandaag:
• Min 19.9°C, Max 32.9°C (Bewolkt) ☁️, 🧭 1010.2 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/24h, Windsnelheid: 19.1 km/u (5.3 m/s), richting: ↙ 38°

Uurlijkse voorspelling voor de komende 12 uur:

• 20:00: 27.7°C (Zonnig) ☀️, 🧭 1009.9 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 10.4 km/u (2.9 m/s), richting: ↘ 331°
• 21:00: 26.5°C (Zonnig) ☀️, 🧭 1010.4 hPa ↗️ +0.5 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 9.0 km/u (2.5 m/s), richting: ↘ 334°
• 22:00: 25.2°C (Gedeeltelijk bewolkt) ☁️, 🧭 1010.4 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 10.8 km/u (3.0 m/s), richting: ↓ 351°
• 23:00: 24.0°C (Bewolkt) ☁️, 🧭 1010.3 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 8.3 km/u (2.3 m/s), richting: ↓ 359°
• 00:00: 23.6°C (Bewolkt) ☁️, 🧭 1010.6 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 7.9 km/u (2.2 m/s), richting: ↓ 18°
• 01:00: 25.3°C (Bewolkt) ☁️, 🧭 1010.9 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 6.5 km/u (1.8 m/s), richting: ↑ 187°
• 02:00: 25.5°C (Bewolkt) ☁️, 🧭 1010.6 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 6.5 km/u (1.8 m/s), richting: ↗ 208°
• 03:00: 25.5°C (Bewolkt) ☁️, Kans op neerslag 1%, 🧭 1010.0 hPa ↘️ -0.6 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 6.5 km/u (1.8 m/s), richting: ↑ 159°
• 04:00: 25.5°C (Licht bewolkt) 🌕, Kans op neerslag 1%, 🧭 1010.0 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 5.4 km/u (1.5 m/s), richting: ↘ 318°
• 05:00: 24.9°C (Licht bewolkt) 🌕, Kans op neerslag 2%, 🧭 1010.1 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 6.8 km/u (1.9 m/s), richting: ↓ 15°
• 06:00: 23.8°C (Bewolkt) ☁️, Kans op neerslag 2%, 🧭 1010.0 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 14.8 km/u (4.1 m/s), richting: ↑ 187°
• 07:00: 24.1°C (Zonnig) ☀️, Kans op neerslag 2%, 🧭 1009.9 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/1h, Windsnelheid: 12.2 km/u (3.4 m/s), richting: ↑ 184°

Voorspelling voor de komende dagen:

• dinsdag 04 augustus: Min 23.3°C, Max 33.7°C (Lichte motregen) 🌦️, Neerslag 0.2 mm, Kans op neerslag 15%, 🧭 1010.1 hPa ➡️ 0.0 hPa/24h, Windsnelheid: 24.1 km/u (6.7 m/s), richting: ↗ 224°
• woensdag 05 augustus: Min 20.1°C, Max 25.5°C (Bewolkt) ☁️, Kans op neerslag 7%, 🧭 1013.3 hPa ↗️ +3.2 hPa/24h, Windsnelheid: 25.2 km/u (7.0 m/s), richting: ↗ 239°
• donderdag 06 augustus: Min 17.6°C, Max 21.8°C (Lichte motregen) 🌦️, Neerslag 0.1 mm, Kans op neerslag 7%, 🧭 1018.7 hPa ↗️ +5.4 hPa/24h, Windsnelheid: 19.5 km/u (5.4 m/s), richting: → 264°
• vrijdag 07 augustus: Min 16.1°C, Max 23.2°C (Lichte motregen) 🌦️, Neerslag 0.3 mm, Kans op neerslag 14%, 🧭 1021.8 hPa ↗️ +3.1 hPa/24h, Windsnelheid: 8.4 km/u (2.3 m/s), richting: ↙ 29°
• zaterdag 08 augustus: Min 17.0°C, Max 26.8°C (Bewolkt) ☁️, Kans op neerslag 1%, 🧭 1015.8 hPa ↘️ -6.0 hPa/24h, Windsnelheid: 9.7 km/u (2.7 m/s), richting: ↖ 123°
• zondag 09 augustus: Min 19.3°C, Max 28.0°C (Lichte motregen) 🌦️, Neerslag 0.6 mm, Kans op neerslag 14%, 🧭 1011.8 hPa ↘️ -4.0 hPa/24h, Windsnelheid: 16.5 km/u (4.6 m/s), richting: ↗ 235°

Details:
• 🌡️ Huidige temperatuur (om 19:15): 28.7°C (Zonnig)
• 🤚 Gevoelstemperatuur: 26.5°C (-2.2°C)
• 💨 Windsnelheid: 11.9 km/u (3.3 m/s), richting: ↘ 321°
• 🌬️ Windstoten: 24.8 km/h (6.9 m/s)
• 💧 Luchtvochtigheid: 36%
• 🧭 Luchtdruk: 1009.9 hPa ↗️ +0.5 hPa/3h
• 👁️ Zichtbaarheid: 40.0 km
• ☀️ UV-index: 1.1
• 🌅 Zonsopgang: 06:07 · 🌇 Zonsondergang: 21:28

Luchtkwaliteit:
• AQI: 64 🟡 (Matig)
• PM2.5: 10.1 μg/m³
• PM10: 15.9 μg/m³

Gegevens geleverd door Open-Meteo

#Rotterdam #Meteo #MeteoBot #MeteoNetherlands #OpenMeteo #FediMeteo

Maarten van Veen doorbrak als topman het taboe van gedwongen ontslagen bij het staalbedrijf, dat decennialang een sociaal gezicht had bij de arbeiders. In de Europese staalcrisis in de jaren negentig van de vorige eeuw wist hij zo Hoogovens voor de ondergang te behoeden.

404 Media has obtained a coaching guide that Flock surveillance gives to police about “how to speak to city councils about public safety technology.” The handbook highlights how Flock and police team up to convince cities to buy and keep its automated license plate reader technology, even when there is widespread public opposition to it, and encourages police to “own the narrative before someone else does” by championing the technology before citizens can oppose it during public comment periods.

The PDF guide notes that the general public and cities now “increasingly expect transparency, oversight, and accountability alongside public safety outcomes,” and tells police to not argue with people who believe that Flock’s license plate readers are “mass surveillance.”

“One of the most common questions agencies hear today is whether license plate recognition (LPR) technology constitutes mass surveillance. Many leaders instinctively respond by attempting to refute the claim. Flock's Jamie Hudson recommends a different approach,” the guide reads.

“Don’t avoid the concept of mass surveillance because you’re not going to convince opponents that it’s not,” the company recommends. Flock tells law enforcement agencies they need to try to convince city council and city managers that the technology is worthwhile before meetings with the public occur; that they need to have a “carefully scripted presentation” ready to go; and that police need to say they want Flock because they want to keep the community safe: “You care about your community. That’s why you’re bringing this in.” 

Flock began offering this guide as part of a broader attempt to coach police on how to push back against criticism of its policies and security practices, many of which 404 Media has investigated and shed light on. These include the fact that Flock data was regularly making its way to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), often in violation of sanctuary city and state laws; that Flock was used to search 83,000 cameras nationwide for a woman who had an abortion in Texas; and that Flock has been used by police to stalk people and surveil protesters. These investigations and broader concern over the surveillance state have led many cities to hold city council meetings to reconsider their Flock contracts, and this Flock-produced guide is an attempt to help police shape the narrative in a way that will either convince cities to buy Flock or to keep their contracts. 

The guide is associated with a Flock webinar for police called “How to Speak to City Councils: Meeting the Moment with Confidence,” which included modules on “how to address misinformation with clarity.” After public opposition late last year, the company began to offer Q&A sessions with its CEO, Garrett Langley, for city council members, police, and mayors to address what Flock described as an “era of unprecedented misinformation.” 

“The recent headlines about our company are largely a result of this environment,” the company told cities. 

“Opponents have a very carefully scripted narrative. They come prepared. You should also have a carefully scripted presentation that addresses those concerns ahead of time,” the guide says. “The agencies that navigate these conversations successfully rarely wait until a council meeting to educate stakeholders. They brief city managers early. They meet with council members before votes occur. They share policies proactively and answer questions before public comment periods become the first introduction to the program.” 

The guide also tells police that they can convince city councils that Flock is worth the monetary cost by conveniently not focusing on how much the cameras cost, but by “reframing the financial discussion itself” to focus on “the cost of unresolved crime.” Flock also writes that much of the opposition to its technology is happening because people “do not understand how it works or how it is governed.” This idea is one that has been regularly repeated by Langley over the last several months. 

Surveillance companies regularly try to get police to act as quasi salespeople and spokespeople for their companies, pitting a private company and taxpayer-funded law enforcement on one side and citizens on the other. “For years, surveillance vendors like Flock Safety have shaped policy debates cities are supposed to run independently — staging council ‘prep calls’ and exploiting a basic asymmetry: the vendor controls the facts, and city staff are rarely positioned to challenge them,” Sarah T. Hamid, director of strategic campaigns at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told 404 Media after reviewing the guide. “The financial interest is obvious. Flock isn’t just selling surveillance, it’s scripting the public case for buying it. Because Flock treats public trust as a messaging problem rather than a governance outcome, that script keeps officials focused on ‘accountability’ in the abstract instead of the concrete harms and documented abuses its network has already enabled.”

404 Media has watched numerous city council meetings around the country where police talk about how Flock is a critical law enforcement system for them; in many cases, a police chief will speak about Flock and then introduce a Flock employee to give a presentation about the surveillance system. On Monday, 404 Media published an interview with a former Flock government affairs manager who regularly pitched the technology to cities at public meetings. An activist who has been pushing back against Flock in their community and who shared the guide document with 404 Media said that they have regularly seen the strategies suggested by Flock deployed in city council meetings they have attended and watched. 404 Media agreed to keep the activist anonymous to protect them from retaliation.

“I think this document shows a coordinated effort from Flock Safety to compel law enforcement agencies to convince our elected leaders to represent their interests as a company rather than the interests of concerned citizens,” they said. “I have watched many meetings locally in my city and my state and across the country, and you can see the techniques used in this ebook in the presentations given by law enforcement. Pivoting conversations away from concerns about mass surveillance and directing them towards procedure and governance is a vehicle that's used to downplay the concerns of privacy-minded citizens. We have every right to expect our elected leaders to listen to us, and it's very common to see city councils vote with a supermajority in favor of approving Flock contracts despite standing-room only attendance at city council meetings with little to no public support for this product.”

The guide specifically highlights several supposed success stories in which communities had very real concerns about Flock but ultimately decided not to get rid of the technology. For example, it highlights how Flock was able to get a vote in favor of its technology in Oakland, California, despite it being “one of the most scrutinized public safety technology debates in the state,” with “more than 140 public comments” and opposition from the city’s Privacy Advisory Commission: “The conversation shifted when officials stopped asking the public to trust the technology and started showing how the technology could be audited, reviewed, and held accountable.” 

It also tells the story of Richmond, California, which allowed its Flock contract to temporarily lapse after the city’s cameras were included in the company’s national lookup tool. City officials there worried that their cameras’ data would be accessed by ICE, in violation of California and local law. “After concerns emerged around data sharing and sanctuary city policies, the city's program was paused and subjected to intense public scrutiny,” the Flock guide says. “Rather than relying on generalized claims about effectiveness, department leadership presented two and a half years of local results, including 274 arrests and 259 vehicle recoveries connected to the program. The council ultimately voted 4-3 to reinstate the system.”

Flock did not immediately respond to a request for comment.