In the Court of the Crimson King (box set)
en.wikipedia.org(box_set)

... In the Court of the Crimson King is the first of the major box set releases from English progressive rock group King Crimson, released in 2010 by Discipline Global Mobile & Panegyric Records.

The set features recordings from the band's initial lineup and the sessions for their 1969 debut album In the Court of the Crimson King, including several mixes of the album.

Containing 5 CDs, 1 DVD, copious sleeve notes and replica memorabilia, In the Court of the Crimson King covers the genesis of King Crimson. ...

Of note is that the DVD in the set is actually a DVDA, i.e., DVD-audio.

The DVD-Audio disc contains releases (including stereo and 5.1 surround sound releases) of the album in 96/24 digital format. See Disc 6 in the Wiki article linked above.

All that aside...

imo, one of the all-time great albums.

techcrunch.com

... With the change in TikTok ownership, TikTok users in the U.S. are collectively freaking out over the company's updated privacy policy after being alerted to the changes through an in-app message. The revised document details the U.S. joint venture's conditions for using its service, including the specific location information it may collect. Many users are also posting to social media about language found in the policy, which says that TikTok could collect sensitive information about its users, including their "sexual life or sexual orientation, status as transgender or nonbinary, citizenship or immigration status."

But despite the panic, this disclosure isn't new " and it doesn't mean what many users fear. The same language appeared in TikTok's privacy policy before the ownership deal closed, and it's primarily there to comply with state privacy laws like California's Consumer Privacy Act, which requires companies to agree to disclose to consumers what "sensitive information" is collected. Similar disclosures appear in other social media apps' policies.

To understand why users are concerned -- and why the policy reads this way -- it helps to look at both the current political climate and the legal requirements TikTok is navigating.

Specifically, the policy states that TikTok could process information from users' content or what they may share through surveys, including information about their "racial or ethnic origin, national origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health diagnosis, sexual life or sexual orientation, status as transgender or nonbinary, citizenship or immigration status, or financial information." ...

DHS keeps trying and failing to unmask anonymous ICE critics online
arstechnica.com

... Community watch groups have a playbook to keep ICE away from subscriber information. ...

he Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has backed down from a fight to unmask the owners of Instagram and Facebook accounts monitoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in Pennsylvania.

One of the anonymous account holders, John Doe, sued to block ICE from identifying him and other critics online through summonses to Meta that he claimed infringed on core First Amendment-protected activity.

DHS initially fought Doe's motion to quash the summonses, arguing that the community watch groups endangered ICE agents by posting "pictures and videos of agents' faces, license plates, and weapons, among other things."

This was akin to "threatening ICE agents to impede the performance of their duties," DHS alleged. DHS's arguments echoed DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who has claimed that identifying ICE agents is a crime, even though Wired noted that ICE employees often post easily discoverable LinkedIn profiles.

To Doe, the agency seemed intent on testing the waters to see if it could seize authority to unmask all critics online by invoking a customs statute that allows agents to subpoena information on goods entering or leaving the US.

But then, on January 16, DHS abruptly reversed course, withdrawing its summonses from Meta.

A court filing confirmed that DHS dropped its requests for subscriber information last week, after initially demanding Doe's "postal code, country, all email address(es) on file, date of account creation, registered telephone numbers, IP address at account signup, and logs showing IP address and date stamps for account accesses."

The filing does not explain why DHS decided to withdraw its requests. ...