Sample Terms And Conditions For Pc Protection Plan Multiple Devices: Fill & Download for Free

15 Tips for Setting Up WordPress Like a Pro1. Complete basic information about your blogYour blog’s got a name, right? Probably a tagline too?Fill those in right away…Navigate to Settings > GeneralAt the top of the page, you’ll see an area for the Site Title and Tagline. These may already be populated using the information you entered during setup. If they are and you’re happy with them, move on to the next section. If they’re empty or you want to change them, go ahead and do that.WordPress General SettingsMost WordPress themes display the title and tagline on your site, usually in the top left corner (as you look at the screen). The Site Title nearly always contains a link pointing to your homepage.The third area, WordPress Address (URL) is the address of your site.Google treats Home and Home as different sites, so be sure to choose the one you like, and use that one whenever you mention your site (email signatures, outreach emails, links from other sites pointing to your pages).The choice between using www and non-www is down to personal preference. Neither gives advantage over the other when it comes to ranking high in search engines. Loren Baker explains more in his article on Search Engine Journal: Canonicalization & SEO : Should I use WWW or not?2. Install a theme that suits the purpose of your blogWordPress comes packaged with three default themes. Upon installation, the latest theme, Twenty Seventeen activates.Default WordPress ThemesFor some people, one of the default themes is good enough.For many more, the first thing they do is look around for a more suitable alternative – one that suits their style, taste, and goals.If you’re blogging for business, a premium theme could be a better option than a free one.They usually contain more features, offer 24/7 support and they’re designed by professional designers and coded by professional coders.This gives you a great looking blog for a fraction of the cost of hiring a professional web designer.There is a chance of coming across a site that looks exactly like yours, but that could happen with a free theme too.Due to the size of the web, the chances of this happening are small. And perhaps a risk worth taking for a great looking site.If you go down the premium route, expect to pay $40 – $150 to get started (you may also need to buy a framework, like the one I mostly use: Genesis).Recommended premium WordPress theme shopsStudioPressWooThemesElegant Themes3. Change the Permalink StructureThe permalink is the web address assigned to every post and page you publish (the URL).The default WordPress permalink doesn’t prevent the indexing or ranking of pages. It’s just a bit, well, ugly and uninformative.This is what it looks like: HomeThe structure of the URL gives away no information about the content of the page. You can’t tell if it’s about baking or scuba diving.It’s not a complete disaster.In the search results, Google shows the title tag and either the meta description or some content from the page. So people will have an idea what your page is about.Changing the permalink structure is simple and provides a much-improved user experience.WARNING!!If not correctly managed, changing the permalink structure on an established site can result in a massive loss of traffic. To prevent this, all URLs should be configured to redirect users to the new URLs.This is usually done using 301 or 302 redirects.It can be done manually through cPanel or a .htaccess file, or by using a plugin (like Redirection).Please research the topic before changing the permalink structure on an established site.If your site is brand new, you can go ahead and change the permalink structure without worrying about losing traffic.How to change WordPress permalinks:Log in as an AdministratorFrom the menu on the left-hand side of the screen, click on Settings then PermalinksTick the radio button next to your preferred format (as you click through the various options, the information in the Custom Structure text box changes)When you’re happy, click on Save ChangesWordPress permalinks post nameThe example above uses the postname (post title) for the permalink. The example below uses the category/postname format for the permalink.WordPress permalinks using category post name structure4. Delete the default contentHave you ever seen the ‘Hello world!’ post on a brand new WordPress site?Just in case you haven’t, this is what it looks like:Hello World!It’s the default post and should be moved to the trash straight away.Trash Default PostSo to the default comment:Default CommentTrash Default CommentAnd finally, get rid of the default sample page:Default Sample PageTrash Default Page5. Install a backup pluginImagine losing your site after you’ve spent the whole weekend adding great content, uploading images and making it look amazing.You’d be devastated, right?Imagine losing a week’s, a month’s or even a whole year’s worth of work because you failed to create a backup.Boy, that would tough. It would be hard to start again if that happened.Luckily, there are services and plugins to help you avoid this terrible situation.VaultPressI’ve used the free plugins to create backups but, in my experience, if you’re not very technical, they are a nightmare to use if something when something goes wrong with your site.Last time I used one of the free backup plugins they typically had two options for managing the database backup file: 1) emailing it to a nominated address or 2) storing it on the server.Which is fine. At least you know where it is.But how do you get it back into WordPress?You can’t FTP it.You have to go in through cPanel, phpMyAdmin and then upload it. You’ll find instructions here.It looks easy ‘on paper’, but when you see the phpMyAdmin screen, the process becomes more daunting.A push-button solution is better. One that guides you through the setup, backup and restore process in easy-to-understand steps.That’s what you get with VaultPress. A backup plugin I’ve used for a couple of years now.The basic plan costs an easily affordable $5 per month.It’s ideal for anyone who doesn’t want to get involved with the technical stuff and wants to sleep easily at night knowing their blog is in good hands.Before installing a backup plugin, check with your hosting company as they may provide a backup as part of the service.Alternative backup plugins and servicesblogVaultBackUpBuddyBackWPupBackUpWordPressUpdraftPlusDuplicatorWP-DB-Backup6. Install an SEO pluginWordPress has no built-in SEO settings, so you must install a dedicated plugin.At least two do an excellent job.The first is All-In-One SEO, which dominated the space for a very long time.All In One SEO Pack WordPress PlugnDownload linkThen there’s WordPress SEO, which is currently more popular than any similar plugin.WordPress SEO by YoastDownload linkWhich should you choose?WordPress SEO, in my opinion, is the best plugin of the two.It has more features and gives you more control over settings on a site-wide and page-by-page basis, but it is quite hard to setup if you don’t understand the terminology.All In One SEO is better suited to people who have little or no knowledge of SEO and want to use a plugin ‘out of the box’.What do other people think?Both plugins currently run on over one million WordPress sites.In terms of 5-star ratings, WordPress SEO is the clear winner.WordPress SEO Plugin RatingsAll In One SEO Pack RatingsA post on the Elegant Themes blog takes an in-depth look at both plugins.So, which should you choose?Answer – The one you prefer using.If you’re new to SEO, start with All In One SEO Pack (you can always move over to WordPress SEO later, and import the settings from All In One). If you know your way around custom title tags, noindexing and noodping, choose WordPress SEO as you’ll prefer the tighter control.7. Install a caching pluginWordPress is renowned for being slow. For this reason many WordPress users install a caching plugin.It’s hard to explain without using technical terms and jargon…WordPress uses a language called PHP to build pages. It stores all the data such as images, content, links etc in a database.Whenever somebody requests a page from your site, WordPress builds it. Every time.Sometimes, this takes a few seconds and depends upon a number of factors such as the configuration of the server, its location in relation to the site visitor and the number of requests WordPress makes to the database at that time.It all happens very quickly, but sometimes it’s not quick enough for the average internet user. And if your pages don’t load in super-quick time, you may lose a potential customer.A caching plugin bypasses the calls to the database and creates HTML versions of your pages, stores them on the server and displays them to the visitor when requested. This cuts down the load time and improves the user experience.Just like the SEO plugins mentioned earlier, there’s a couple of really popular caching plugins which have been around for years. If you don’t know how these things work, it’s best sticking with the tried and tested over the new and unexplored.The two most popular caching plugins are:WP Super CacheWP Super CacheDownload linkW3 Total CacheW3 Total CacheDownload linkBoth plugins do an excellent job but the settings and terminology could confuse you if you’re not totally into server settings and suchlike. If this is you (and I include myself here), the default settings should be good enough.8. Delete the admin userThe default WordPress username is admin. Most hackers know this.They also know the average user doesn’t understand the need to switch to an alternative.Using software and sometimes multiple computers, hackers find your login page and try to gain access to your site using the admin username and a variety of dictionary words for the password.To better protect your site, delete the admin user and assign all posts accredited to admin (if you have any) to a different user.Then, delete the admin user.Here’s how you do it:Step 1 – Create a new user accountIn the left-side menu navigate to Users and click on Add New.You will see a screen like this:Add New WordPress UserNow follow these 4 steps:Think of a username and enter it into the username field. The username cannot be changed.Enter the email address for the user. WordPress uses the email address to send password reminders and contact the user (one email address per user).Enter a new password.Change Subscriber to Administrator so the new account has full control.Next, delete the admin user and switch posts to the new accountNow you have created the new account, log out of WordPress and log back in using the new details.Navigate to the Users screen via the left side menu.If you only have two users the list looks something like this:New WordPress UserTo find the delete button, hover your mouse under the username. As you do this, a couple of links show up.Delete AdminClick on the Delete link to remove the admin account.The option to switch all posts appears on the next screen.As we want to re-assign the posts, click the radio button next to that option and use the pull-down menu to choose the account to which you want to assign the posts.Confirm User DeletionNow hit the Confirm Deletion button and the account is gone, with all posts assigned to the new user.About passwordsA Lifehacker post from 2011 makes the argument for using common phrases as passwords instead of “complete gibberish”, as they take longer to crack.The point of the article is that a phrase like “this is fun” (including spaces) is more difficult to guess than ‘dictionary word’ or a password made up of a group of letters and numbers, and it’s easier to remember.It sounds crazy, but according to How Secure Is My Password?, which tests the strength of a password, it’s true.To find out how secure your password is, type it into the site and watch the data change.In the WordPress scenario, the hacker typically knows the username (admin), the URL of the login page (if WordPress is installed in the root directory), so all that’s left is the password.Here are the results of a few passwords I tested.t1m3tabl3 – 7 hourswimfsiltc*** – 178 yearsiutla164*!” – 1,000 yearsi!love!winter – 7,000 yearsi love winter (spaces included) – 24,000 yearsAs you can see, simple phrases take a heck of time to guess using a desktop PC and software.We’re never going to need a password for 24,000 years. At the other end of the scale, using a password that takes just seven hours to crack is very risky.If you’re struggling to think of a password, try using a password generator tool like this one.9. Activate the Akismet plugin(NB You only need Akismet if you use posts on your site, which you will if you’re blogging. If you only use pages, you needn’t worry about this plugin, as the comment system is inactive.)Akismet is a free plugin bundled with WordPress. It protects your site from comment spam through a quite successful filtering process.It doesn’t stop every spam comment, but it stops most of them.In default mode, WordPress comments stay open forever. You can choose to switch them off or close them after a set amount of days after publication.Navigate to Settings > Discussion to make changes.To disable comments, untick the box next to ‘Allow people to post comments on new articles’.Disable WordPress CommentsTo close comments after a set number of days, tick the box ‘Automatically close comments on articles older than’ and change the number of days accordingly.Close WordPress CommentsTo put this into perspective, I recently closed comments on a client’s site which received 1500 spam comments a day (when I got to it, there were 28,000!). He never changed the default settings so his site was open to spam comments on every single post, some of which were a few years old.Activate Akismet from inside WordPress and follow the on-screen instructions.Activate AkismetActivate Akistmet AccountTo get it working you need an API key.Akismet API KeyClicking the blue button takes you to the Akismet site, where you must register for the API key.Get Akismet APIRegister AkismetIf you already have a WordPress.com: Create a Free Website or Blog account, click the link and log in with those credentials. If you don’t already have a WordPress.com: Create a Free Website or Blog account, create one and log in.Eventually you reach the Select a Plan page. Make your choice.Akismet Choose a PlanThe next screen asks for your payment details. Akismet is free for personal use (move the payment slider) on unlimited non-commercial sites.Akismet Payment DetailsAkismet API KeyNow you have the API key, head back to your site and copy and paste it into the API key field.Use Akismet API KeyIn case you’re wondering where all the comments come from, I’ll tell you…spammers and software.They’re typically looking for backlinks. So they send out endless comments knowing a percentage of them will be approved and published on the target sites.10. Install Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is the industry standard for tracking website visitors. Of course it shows you how many people visit your site, but it gives you a whole load of other information too.Here are a few examples:How long people stay on your siteHow many pages they visitWhich pages they land onWhich pages they leave byThe keywords people use to find your site (this data is usually very limited because Google doesn’t share it if the person searching is logged into their Google account at time of the search)The devices people use including desktops/laptops/mobile devicesTheir geographic locationIf you use AdSense on your site, you can link Analytics to AdSense to see which pages generate revenueIf you use PPC you can link Analytics to AdWords to track how visitors clicking your ads engage with your siteTrack conversionsThe number of people active on your site in real-timeThere are two stages to adding Google Analytics to your site. First, if you don’t already have one, you must create a Google account.Go to Analytics Tools & Solutions for Your Business - Google AnalyticsIf you already have a Google account, click on Sign in.If you don’t have a Google account, click on Create an account.Create Google Analytics AccountWhichever of the two links you click on, you see this page:Create Google AccountEnter your Google login information or click on Create an account. If you are creating an account, complete the online form, which currently looks like this:Create Google Account FormOnce you have created your account, or if you already have one, log into Google.You will see a page like the one below, to create your Google Analytics account, click on Sign up.Sign Up Google AnalyticsOn the next screen you enter information about your site and your location. Complete each section of the form, and untick any of the sharing boxes you disagree with, then click on Get Tracking ID to get your code.New Analytics accountYou will see a screen asking to you agree to the terms of service. If you are not in the United States, change the country option to match your own, then click on I Accept.Agree TermsNow, copy the tracking code (highlighted red on this screenshot) by clicking in the box on your browser. Use Ctrl + C or whichever shortcut you prefer, to copy and paste (Ctrl + V) it into your website.Tracking CodeOnce you have the tracking code you must place it in your site. Google recommends placing the code in the header section, which sounds scarier than it is.Some themes have special areas for Analytics and other scripts.Check yours, if you don’t see one, try using a dedicated plugin like Insert Headers and Footers, which you can download here – or through your site.When you have the plugin installed and activated, navigate to the options page: Settings > Insert Headers and Footers and place the tracking code in the area under Scripts in Header.If it’s correctly set up, it will look like this:Insert Headers and FootersHit save and you’re done.It can take up to 24 hours for Google to start showing data, so don’t worry if you don’t see anything straight away.If you want to use a plugin to handle this, check out Google Analytics for WordPress.11. Add a contact formYou need a contact form so people can get in touch with you.There are a few options to choose from.My favourite is Contact Form 7 because it’s simple and easy to use.Contact Form 7The default form is good enough to get started. And it’s fairly easy to create your own forms by adding extra fields.To create a contact page:Create a new pageCopy the shortcode created by Contact Form 7Paste it into your new pageWrite a few words encouraging people to contact you and when they should expect to hear from youHit publishYou now have a contact page.The default form looks like this.Contact Form 7 Default FormThe styling comes from the Twenty Fourteen theme (one of the default themes). So, it will look different on your site if you use a different theme.Download link12. Install essential pluginsNow you’ve done all the hard work and got everything setup, it’s time to have some ‘fun’ with plugins.Plugins add extra additional functionality to a WordPress site. Without them your site will function, but the user experience will fall a long way short of what’s expected from modern blogs and websites.For example, there’s no contact form in a default WordPress installation. You need a plugin for that (see above). There’s no social sharing buttons either.Everybody has their own list of essential plugins. If you Google that phrase you’ll find all sorts of lists featuring all sorts of plugins.Essential WordPress PluginsVery often you’ll see the staples: SEO, contact forms, share buttons, sitemaps.Once you get past those, try taking a smarter approach and consider the purpose of your site. When you know that, you can track down the plugins to add the functionality you need.For example, photographers will want to display their work in a professional manner, so the NextGen Gallery plugin is an option. They may also want to use a plugin for sharing photos on Pinterest.Anyone selling digital products such as eBooks might want to install an e-commerce or payment plugin.And if you want to add a membership area for paying subscribers, you will need a plugin for that too.As you can see, plugins are essential, but don’t go overboard. Avoid anything gimmicky and stick to the ones you need. Some plugins use a lot of server resources, which impacts the performance of your site.The ones you must install help your pages rank on Google (WordPress SEO), improve loading time (WP Cache), catch spam comments (Akismet) and help people get in touch with you (Contact Form 7)13. Tighten up securityOnce hackers find your site, they’ll make it a target and try to gain access through the login page, out of date plugins/themes and other vulnerable areas.Why is the login page such an easy target? Because most people don’t change the default username from admin to something more difficult to guess.This is a big mistake.But you’d only know it’s a problem if you spent time looking into WordPress security issues or came across a story somewhere.Aside from the admin user issue, there are other things to think about.Take a look at this video.Introduction to Falcon Engine by Wordfence from Mark Maunder on Vimeo.Once you’ve done that, install a security plugin such as iThemes Security, Wordfence or Sucuri.14. Create legal pagesIt’s good to have some legal information on your site – privacy policy, terms of use, terms and conditions.You are best using pages (not posts) to create these for reasons explained here.What goes into these documents depends upon the nature of your site and your geographic location. There are plenty of sites offering legal documentation so a quick search should give you something.In some cases you may have to see a lawyer to have documents drawn up specifically for your site. Before doing that, visit SEQ Legal, which offers a ton of documents you may be able to use.15. Block or allow search enginesFinally, now you’ve set up your blog, do you want the search engines to read it straight away or do you want to add some content first?It’s your choice.The default installation of WordPress allows search engines to reach and index your posts and pages. You can block search engines reading your content until the site is ready, here’s how to do it:Navigate to Settings > Privacy > and click Ask search engines not to index this site.A word of caution – don’t forget to change this when you’re ready for search engines to index your content!

Competition is always great for consumers, so we should be grateful that AMD and Intel have been duking it out on the CPU front for decades. If only one chip maker existed without the other, we wouldn't have the quality of processors that we have today. For example, Intel's Core i5 desktop lineup was stuck on four cores for nearly a decade while AMD struggled to release a competitive product. But Ryzen changed things quickly, forcing Intel to respond with more cores and lower per-core pricing. Now enthusiasts and casual users alike can find great values at nearly every price point, but particularly in the mid-range market, as you can see in our CPU Benchmark Hierarchy.Intel's Core i5 and AMD's Ryzen 5 families are the biggest volume-movers in the mainstream desktop segment, and honestly, that's the most chip most gamers need. But then the eternal question arises: Who reigns supreme in the mid-range, AMD or Intel?On one side, we have the Ryzen 5 3600X that from AMD's Matisse family. The Ryzen 5 3600X comes equipped with six cores and 12 threads. On the other side, we have the Core i5-9600K, which represents Intel's Coffee Lake lineup. The Core i5-9600K has six cores, but unlike its AMD rival, it's limited to six threads.To help you pick one, we put the hexa-core processors from both chipmakers through a seven-round face-off, based on their features, overclockability, coolers, motherboards, performance, and value.Looking for something in a different price/performance range? Head over to our best CPU page. And check out our CPU hierarchy page to see where these processors land in comparison to higher- and lower-end parts.Features:-The Ryzen 5 3600X is part of the Ryzen 3000-series lineup, so it inherits all of Ryzen's important attributes, like the Zen 2 microarchitecture and the 7nm FinFET process node from TSMC. The Ryzen 5 3600X combines its six-core, 12-thread configuration with a whopping 32MB L3 cache.AMD assigns the Ryzen 5 3600X a 3.8 GHz base clock and 4.4 GHz single-core boost clock. The Ryzen 5 3600X boasts a dual-channel memory controller that supports DDR4-3200 memory modules natively, and it also exposes 16 PCIe 4.0 lanes to the user. Like other Zen 2 chips, the Ryzen 5 3600X doesn't come with integrated graphics, so you'll need to use a dedicated graphics card of some form.Intel Core i5-9600KAMD Ryzen 5 3600XArchitectureCoffee LakeZen 2SocketLGA1151AM4Cores / Threads6 / 66 / 12Base Frequency (GHz)3.73.8Boost Frequency (GHz)4.64.4L3 Cache9MB32MBProcess14nm7nmTDP95W95WMemory SpeedDDR4-2666DDR4-3200Memory ControllerDual-ChannelDual-ChannelIntegrated GraphicsIntel UHD Graphics 630N/ARecommended Customer Pricing$262 - $263$249The Core i5-9600K, which is based on the Coffee Lake microarchitecture, hails from Intel's 14nm manufacturing process. While it does have six cores, the Core i5-9600K doesn't come with Hyper-Threading, which limits the chip to six threads. The processor also has 9MB of L3 cache.Error in Delhi Makes Thousands RichLearn morePromoted by Finance TimesThe Core i5-9600K checks in with a 3.7 GHz base clock and a 4.6 GHz single-core boost clock. Intel has implemented the UHD Graphics 630 iGPU inside the Core i5-9600K as well as a dual-channel memory controller with DDR4-2933 support.Winner: AMD. The Ryzen 5 3600X comes a much more generous featureset. The hexa-core processor offers more threads, L3 cache and support for the PCIe 4.0 interface and DDR4-3200 memory sticks. It's only weak point is the absence of an iGPU, so the conversation stops there if you aren't planning on using a discrete graphics card.AdvertisementMotherboard OptionsThe Ryzen 5 3600X has great backward compatibility with prior AM4 motherboards. With the adequate firmware, the Ryzen 5 3600X will work on AMD 300-and 400-series motherboards. However, building a system around a pre-X570 motherboard means you lose out on PCIe 4.0 functionality. X570 motherboards, which start at $145, are the only PCIe 4.0 option at the moment until motherboard manufacturers start rolling out the budget 500-series motherboards.The Core i5-9600K drops into the LGA1151 socket. Unlike the Ryzen 5 3600, the Core i5-9600K won't work on motherboards that aren't built around the Intel 300-series chipset. Intel offers multiple chipsets for different needs, but assuming you want to pair the Core i5-9600K with a capable enthusiast board, the starting price for Z370 and Z390 motherboards begins around $115.AdvertisementIf you're interested in future-proofing, investing in a LGA1151 motherboard isn't a wise decision right now. Reports point to Intel introducing the a new LGA1200 socket for upcoming Comet Lake desktop chips, so the LGA1151 socket already has one foot inside the retirement home. AMD, on the other hand, says it will support the AM4 socket until 2020, meaning we could see one more wave of processors on the socket before the chipmaker transitions to a new one.Winner: AMD. X570 motherboards cost a little bit more than Z370 and Z390 motherboards due to support for new features, like PCIe 4.0. This won't change until more budget-friendly AMD 500-series chipsets come to market. With Intel on the brink of abandoning the LGA1151 socket, it surely isn't worth it to buy an Intel 300-series motherboard if you're interested in future-proofing.AdvertisementOverclocking PotentialThe Ryzen 5 3600X has a 4.4 GHz single-core boost clock and the all-core frequency is around 200 MHz to 300 MHz lower the single-core value. Based on our experiences with the Ryzen 5 3600X, you're better off letting AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) feature do its job. Overclocking all cores to a static frequency increases performance in multi-threaded workloads, but you sacrifice lightly-threaded performance.Intel advertises the Core i5-9600K with a 4.6 GHz single-core clock. However, the hexa-core processor comes equipped with a 4.3 GHz all-core boost clock. We managed to overclock our sample to 5 GHz on all six cores with a 1.36V Vcore and auto Load-Line Calibration (LLC) settings. The overclock bumps the chip's power consumption up to 179W under heavy load.AdvertisementWinner: Intel. Intel's overclocking superiority is hard to beat. If you plan to do a fair bit of overclocking, you'll have a lot of fun with the Core i5-9600K.Cooling SolutionsThe Ryzen 5 3600X and Core i5-9600K feature a 95W TDP (thermal design power). Intel measures the TDP at the base clock, so the Core i5-9600K's power draw is slightly higher. Our tests show that a stock Core i5-9600K can pull up to 119W with extreme workloads.It shouldn't be hard to find an air or liquid CPU cooler to keep the Ryzen 5 3600X or Core i5-9600K's operating temperatures under control. If you're not overclocking, even budget CPU coolers are more than adequate. In the Ryzen 5 3600X's case, AMD includes the Wraith Spire so you don't have to spend a dime on an aftermarket CPU cooler.Winner: AMD. The Ryzen 5 3600X has slightly lower power consumption. As a result, it's easier and cheaper to find a CPU cooler that can cool the processor. Nevertheless, the added value lies in the inclusion of the Wraith Spire CPU cooler, meaning you save a few bucks to put towards other components in your system.AdvertisementGaming Performance(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)We include information about our test systems at the bottom of the page.It was a very close fight between the Ryzen 5 3600X and the Core i5-9600K in our gaming test suite. The Ryzen 5 3600X delivered more performance than the Core i5-9600K in six of the 10 games that we tested, but some of the margins were slim. That's important because we test at the FHD resolution with a leading graphics card, while most systems in this price band will come with lesser cards. Also, bumping up the resolution would push the bottleneck back to the GPU, making CPU performance less of a factor. All of this is to say that these results would be nearly identical if a graphics bottleneck comes into play.AdvertisementWinner: AMD. Normally, Intel chips are better at gaming. On this occasion, the Ryzen 5 3600X turned the table on the Core i5-9600K. AMD's hexa-core chip is a surprisingly nimble gaming processor.Productivity PerformanceImage 1 of 45(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)It wasn't a complete blowout for the Ryzen 5 3600X in the productivity tests. The Core i5-9600K managed to edge out the Ryzen chip in a few benchmarks, particularly in lightly-threaded applications. However, for the most part, the Ryzen 5 3600X beats the Core i5-9600K as a result of having twice the threads and a considerable amount of L3 cache.The Core i5-9600K often catches the Ryzen 5 3600X when it is overclocked to 5 GHz on all its cores. On other occasions, even a 5 GHz overclock can't push the Core i5-9600K into striking range of the Ryzen 5 3600X.AdvertisementWinner: AMD. If it wasn't obvious before, the Ryzen 5 3600X clearly packs more firepower than the Core i5-9600K when it comes to multi-threaded workloads. Intel does cling to its single-threaded advantage, but that isn't enough to offset the 3600X's better balance of performance in all workloads.Value PropositionPrice Per CoreCurrent Pricing (USD)Cores / ThreadsTDP (Watts)Base / Boost Frequency (GHz)L3 Cache (MB)PCIe LanesCore i5-9600K$27.50$219.996 / 6953.7 / 4.6916 x PCIe 3.0Ryzen 5 3600X$26.39$211.156 / 12953.8 / 4.43216 x PCIe 4.0Ryzen 5 3600$21.87$174.996 / 12653.6 / 4.23216 x PCIe 4.0You can find AMD's Ryzen 3000-series processors at ridiculously good pricing. The Ryzen 5 3600X is available for as low as $200, working out to ~$33 per core. Intel has recently slashed the prices on its processors to compete with AMD, but even after those cuts, the Core i5-9600K is still more expensive. The processor starts at $219.99, which comes out to ~$37 per core.AdvertisementAn X570 motherboard will set you back $145 at a minimum, while a Z370 or Z390 motherboard begins at $115. Of course, you'll have to factor in the cost of a CPU cooler with the Core i5-9600K, while the Ryzen 5 3600X comes with a capable Wraith Spire cooler that even grants some overclocking headroom.Winner: AMD. The starting investment for both platforms is roughly the same. However, the Ryzen 5 3600X has more upside because you get access to the PCIe 4.0 feature to exploit the latest SSDs and graphics cards.The Bottom LineThe Ryzen 5 3600X claims a one-two punch victory over the Core i5-9600K today. Obviously, it's not typical to see an AMD processor excel in both the gaming and productivity departments, but the Ryzen 5 3600X is the leader on both sides of the ball.The Ryzen 5 3600X's six-core, 12-thread configuration is a success for AMD. The chip not only ushers in the PCIe 4.0 standard for consumers, it's also a better gaming and productivity chip than the Core i5-9600K. The only way for the Core i5-9600K to get into the conversation is if you need integrated graphics or you're interested in the highest overclocking potential. But getting a really good sample that can overclock beyond 5 GHz requires winning the silicon lottery.The Ryzen 5 3600X is the only chip that's worth your consideration at the $200 price point, and the bundled cooler is a nice addition. Now all we need is for motherboard vendors to bring the more wallet-friendly 500-series motherboards to market. Once that happens, the price-to-performance ratio for the Ryzen 5 3600X will get even better.Currently the only real competition for the 3600X comes from AMD's own stable. As you can see throughout our tests, after overclocking, the Ryzen 5 3600 offers slightly more performance than the stock 3600X, but trails when overclocking. Pricing for Ryzen chips fluctuates wildly, but currently both chips retail for the same price. However, opting for a 3600 often equates to a savings if you aren't interested in that last bit of overclocking performance with the Ryzen 5 3600X, so keep that in mind at checkout.Overall Winner: AMDRoundsIntel Core i5-9600KAMD Ryzen 5 3600XFeatures✗Motherboard Options✗Overclocking Potential✗Cooling Solutions✗Gaming✗Productivity Performance✗Value Proposition✗Total16Test System and ConfigurationComponentsAMD Socket AM4 (X570)AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, Ryzen 7 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 5 3600X, Ryzen 5 3600, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI MEG X570 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill Flare DDR4-3200Ryzen 3000 - DDR4-3200, DDR4-3600Second-gen Ryzen - DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i7-9700K, Core i5-9600K. Core i5-9400FMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (X470)AMD Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933All SystemsNvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti2TB Intel DC4510 SSDEVGA Supernova 1600 T2, 1600WWindows 10 Pro (1903 - All Updates)CoolingCorsair H115i - Stock and OC cooler except where noted in chartsCustom Loop, EKWB Supremacy EVO waterblock, Dual-720mm radiators (HEDT only - n/a here)AMD Wraith Spire, as notedMORE: Best CPUsMORE: Intel & AMD Processor HierarchyMORE: All CPUs ContentLoading adPLAY SOUNDMORE ABOUT...CPU Benchmark and Hierarchy 2021: Intel and AMD Processors RankedLATESTGet $200 Off This RTX 2070-Powered MSI Gaming LaptopSEE MORE LATESTTOPICSCPUSCOMPONENTSAMDINTELSEE ALL COMMENTS (42)AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Drops to Record-Low $260, Includes Free Assassin's Creed ValhallaThe AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is on sale for an all-time low price making CPU shoppers the real winners.TomshardwareThis Germany hearing aid company is looking for 1000 people to try this deviceHear.com|SponsoredYour Income is above 10 Lac. Get 1 Cr Term Insurance @ Rs 490/month*Term Plans -Compare & Buy Now!|SponsoredRahul Gandhi will be Rahul Gandhi. Will Priyanka be Congress president?India Today|SponsoredRealme Buds Wireless Bluetooth Headset (Wireless in the ear)Buy Realme Buds Wireless Bluetooth Headset @ Rs.799https://www.techiara.com|SponsoredBest X570 Motherboards: ATX, Micro ATX and Mini ITX TestedWe’ve tested several AMD boards to find the best X570 motherboard for your Ryzen PC build needs.TomshardwareRemember Him? Wait 'Till You See Him NowOceandraw|SponsoredAMD's Xeon W-Killing 64-Core Threadripper Pro Lands in Lenovo ThinkStation P620AMD's Threadripper Pro series stretches up to 64 cores, eight channels of DDR4-3200, and 128 lanes of PCIe 4.0 connectivity.TomshardwareMoving to the United Kingdom to Study Might be Easier Than You ThinkStudy in UK | Search Ads|SponsoredIt Turns Out, Intel's Fastest Rocket Lake-S Chips Will Boost To 5 GHz After AllLooks like Rocket Lake-S Chips will live up to their name boosting to 5 GHzTomshardwareHere's What AMD Ryzen 4000 APUs Might Cost if You Could Actually Buy ThemAn alleged AMD slide and U.S. retailer expose pricing for AMD's latest Ryzen 4000-series (codename Renoir) CPUs.TomshardwareIdentical Twins Marry Identical Twins - But Then The Doctor Says, "STOP"Wanderoam|SponsoredHuawei's 24-Core 7nm Kunpeng CPU Allegedly Beats Core i9-9900K In Multi-Core PerformanceHuawei will soon launch new a desktop with a 7nm Kunpeng 920 3211K processor, 8GB of RAM and a AMD Radeon 520 graphics.TomshardwareHere are the Funniest Car Wraps We Could Find...Wait Until You See #7Wanderoam|SponsoredIntel Launches Tiger Lake: Up to 4.8 GHz, LPDDR4 Memory, Iris Xe Graphics up to 1.35 GHzIntel revealed nine new Tiger Lake processors with powerful specs that rival AMD's Ryzen 4000 series processors.TomshardwareThese Are The Most Daring Dresses Ever Worn At The ACM AwardsCrafthought|SponsoredAMD Patents Chiplet Design To Build Colossal GPUsA new patent from AMD points to a GPU design based on chiplets to overcome silicon manufacturing limitations.Tomshardware25 Of The Funniest Bumper Stickers Ever Spotted On CameraWanderoam|SponsoredRocket Lake Engineering Samples Benchmarked Against Zen 3Rocket Lake engineering samples have been benchmarked against the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X and previous-gen Intel Core i7-10700 and i9-9900K.Tomshardware1 Crore Life Cover @ Rs 490/month*. Get Free Quote!Term Plans -Compare & Buy Now!|SponsoredLinus Torvalds Blasts Intel For Strangling the ECC Memory MarketLinus Torvalds blasts Intel for strangling the ECC memory market, praises AMD for making it an option on Ryzen platforms.TomshardwareProtect Yourself and your Family and Friends From mosquitoes, rats, lizards, rats, flies, cockroaches.Pest Safe Device|SponsoredIntel's 7nm is Broken, Company Announces Delay Until 2022, 2023Intel announced that its 7nm process is one year behind its expectations, so its 7nm processors will be delayed.Tomshardware23 Kissing Scenes That Were Never ScriptedDailyforest|SponsoredIntel Promo Drops 9th Gen Coffee Lake CPU Pricing Up To 25 PercentIntel has kicked off a promotion that finds Coffee Lake processors selling way below their MSRP at various retailers.TomshardwareMoving to Germany to Study Might be Easier Than You ThinkStudy in Germany | Search Ads|SponsoredEight-Core i7-11700K Beats 10-Core i9-10900K in Latest BenchmarkTomshardwareAMD Navi 10 on Budget: MSI Outs Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming MX Graphics CardsTomshardwareActresses Who Look Really Different From Their On-Screen CharactersDailyforest|SponsoredIntel Shortages Could Last Until 2023 as TSMC Reportedly Won't Make Extra CapacityA report claims TSMC will not be building extra capacity at its fabs to help Intel make CPUs.TomshardwareAMD Ryzen 9 4950X Rumor: Could it Spell Trouble for Intel Gaming Supremacy?Is AMD making progress in the GHz race too?TomshardwareBest B550 Motherboards: AMD’s More Affordable PCIe 4.0 OptionWe’ve tested several AMD boards to find the best B550 motherboard for your PC build needs.Tomshardware42 COMMENTSCOMMENT FROM THE FORUMSKing_V 12 March 2020 19:04However, opting for a 3600X often equates to a savings if you aren't interested in that last bit of overclocking performance with the Ryzen 5 3600X, so keep that in mind at checkout.Is that one supposed to be 3600 (non-X)? The wording here is a bit strange.That said, I'll admit that being better...Read MoreREPLYPaulAlcorn 12 March 2020 19:09King_V said:Is that one supposed to be 3600 (non-X)? The wording here is a bit strange.That said, I'll admit that being better overall in gaming and productivity, well, I did NOT see that coming. I suspect there will be protests from the Intel side about overclocking about this.Thanks for the heads up, will fix :)...Read MoreREPLYsizzling 12 March 2020 19:15Gaming benchmarks without 0.1% % 1.0% are only half the picture especially when comparing these 2 cpu'sREPLYphilged 12 March 2020 19:36AMD has made a fantastic set of processors for a great value , but from a purely gaming perspective this article seems a little off.Most of the reviews from Toms itself and other sites have put the i5-9600k clearly above AMD's set of offerings when you just look at gaming.The article seems to try and...Read MoreREPLYSHOW MORE COMMENTSBE IN THE KNOWGet instant access to breaking news, in-depth reviews and helpful tips.Contact me with news and offers from other Future brandsReceive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsorsNo spam, we promise. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details without your permission.MOST POPULARMOST SHARED1Eight-Core i7-11700K Beats 10-Core i9-10900K in Latest Benchmark2Linus Torvalds Blasts Intel For Strangling the ECC Memory Market3Cyberpunk 2077 PC Mod Enables Third-Person View4What Is a G-Sync Monitor? Nvidia G-Sync Explained5How to Get Windows 10 for Free (or Under $30)Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies policyAccessibility StatementAdvertiseAbout usContact us© Future US, Inc. 11 West 42nd Street, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

It seems this is still going and Dr Fearon is getting litigious:Sender: Dr William F FearonLocation, Beaufort Street, Chelsea, London, EnglandDear Colleague,Just to let you know I have sent you an update on the ongoing legal dispute betwen myself and Microsoft Plc and Google LLC which has been going on for over sixteen weeks. It centers on the blocking of my Microsoft Plc (MSN/Hotmail) and Googe LLC (Gmail)email accounts in May 2018 by their executuve boards and their efusal to restore my email account access. By all means if you are a juristician, a notary, juriste d’entreprise or indeed a non-legal practitioner but a potential complainant in a matter concerning the right to access your own data or related issues feel free to use whatever arguments I have raised, in my submission to the Sacremento Superior Court in California, USA for your own legal challenges. Unfortunately, when I tried to translate the text into French it produced a very inelegant version, so I have left it in the original English format.I can assure you that it is not the most perfect example of a petition to an American court and I acknowledge that there will be errors that are immediately apparent to more experienced litigants and attorneys. I am also not totally familiar with the institutions of the European Union either. There are some English terms, mainly compound nouns, and phraseology that I have used which may be new to you but are used every day in medicine or computer science and in the trades in the United Kingdom, North America and latterly Australia. If certain words or phrases are unfamliar to you, you may have to be a little creative/imaginative to try to determine what it is, that is being explained, but overall it should be straightforward. Then you could, if you wish send it to the Chinese news agencies Xinhua, and China News, their staff usually read my emails for information, theories and then filter it through into the Chinese press in London and Shanghai. As for Microsoft and Google they are going to have to gitch: Get In That Court House.RegardsDr William F FearonBeaufort StreetLondon SW3 5BJ24/05/2018Sacremento Superior Court720 9th Street, Sacremento,CA95814, USADear Sir/MadamRe: UK Breach of Contract Law/US Telecommunications Law/European Union GDPRNotice is hereby given, of the initiation on the grounds civil, of a lawsuit, against a corporation registered in the United States of America. In relation to such proceedings, it is to be recorded by Clerk to the Justices’ of the Sacremento Superior Court in the State of California, that I the prospective plaintiff Dr William F Fearon of the above postal address will seek legal redress in the aforesaid court against the following companies (1):Microsoft Plc and (2):Google LLC.As regards the particulars of my complaint I can initially state that I am a home based internet and broad band connected personal computer user. My PC runs in conjunction with a Microsoft Windows 10 operating system, and I have held it for over two years. I access the internet using either Google Chrome or Internet Explorer and I have three Google LLC (Gmail) email accounts, and seven Microsoft Plc, MSN/Hotmail email accounts the latter maintained by Microsoft Plc’s European computer services division, Microsoft Ltd. All the email accounts are co-registered in the United States and I have held them for between 4 and 15 years. Since the evening of Tuesday the 1st of May 2018, I have been unable to access both the internet and my email accounts from my home address. I was disconnected without warning or explanation. In response, I followed the Windows Network Diagnostics message and procedural guidelines that appeared onscreen in order to identify the problem and attempted to reconnect to the internet. When I followed the instructions, an error message appeared stating that:” ‘Ethernet’ does not have a valid IP configuration” which I assumed to mean, that my Internet Service Provider EE (UK company registration number: 02382161) had disconnected my internet account from the Public Switch Telephone Network (PSTN). My Internet Protocol address is now invalid and a further diagnostic message confirmed that I had no internet connection.I contacted EE by telephone on the same day, as the disconnection, and a member of staff I spoke to was able to manage a structured walkthrough of reconnection instructions whilst talking to me, to determine what the cause of the problem might be. However, the operative seemed unable or unwilling to allow my reconnection. Instead it was suggested that as my PC runs on the Microsoft Windows 10, operating system, I should contact the technical team at Microsoft head office on Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1 9TQ, as they might be responsible, for the disconnection. I duly contacted Microsoft and I shall return to the response I received later in my submission.Both email account service providers Google LLC (Gmail) and Microsoft Plc (MSN/Hotmail) supposedly run their utilities on separate USbased operating systems managed from different corporate sites. As the email password interruptions occurred concurrently, it would suggest however, that a jointly agreed computer override mechanism is in place either in the US, the UK or elsewhere. Instantiating the disconnection process would have been a very straightforward procedure. A human or an automated signal, was sent out beginning an electronic process which bypassed, the different layers of security and mainframe computer defenses of each internet service provider. The signal broke through the intrusion detection systems, anti-virus, anti-hacking hardware and application firewall protection software that I have installed on my personal computer. It then crossed the Secure Sockets Layer/Transport Layer Security internet linked machine to machine encryption defenses, which secure the communication lines between my web browser and the multiple web servers I contact when trawling the internet. It interrupted transmission between all other external devices operating over the internet and blocked all intranet connections to my internal household electrical network. Access to each email service provider’s operating system was then gained and my individual passwords for each respective email address were deleted.Obviously, the loss of both my internet connection and my email access is a major inconvenience. I use my email accounts for business transactions with Account Information Service Providers; and for domestic and company financial record keeping including receiving updates from Payment Information Service Providers and for the dissemination of, prognostic and diagnostic medical information in reply to enquiries. My medical and academic opinions, are usually conveyed to hospital staff, consultants, university students, medical staff, and NGO healthcare workers in England, Washington DC, Chicago, California, Melbourne, Brussels, Italia, India, France, Kenya and finally China. Predictably without such telecommunications capabilities, I am unable to liaise with my work place when I work from home, nor can I retrieve email messages outside of office hours. As a result, I have lost opportunities to engage in further professional, commercial and charitable activity missed invitations to attend, networking and social events, curtailing my future earnings potential. I now have limited email and website contact with colleagues and institutions, and restricted access to information databases and membership services as my various online registration details and entitlements, and my employment and identity data are harder to verify on input from an unregistered or new email address and a new ISP location.My email accounts, some of which I use on a regular basis, and some intermittently, also contain;(a): medical records relating to General Practice visits and Hospital examinations;(b): my employment history dating back several decades;(c): records of my employers;(d): data on clients, agreed to be shared by the said clients, myself, partners and other networked mutual colleagues;(e): confirmation of membership records detailing my affiliations with professional American and Italian medical societies, and other organisations worldwide of which I am a member, secretary or a director;(f): my bank account and credit card details and related transactions and;(g): invitations to attend discussions at medical, economic, philosophical and scientific symposia, in US, the UK, the European Union, China, Singapore and other countries in South East Asia as a member of the audience, panel constituent, or as a lead podium speaker.Many of the email records and the content within are in effect public property, as they are of confirmed local and international historical interest, to members of heritage societies, libraries, museums and medical associations, in the Europe Union, Australia and North America. In the United Kingdom, the heritage status of tangible and intangible properties is detailed by the Treasury Department of the government. All my email records are to be reviewed by a solicitor after which they will be archived. Each relevant blocked email account is below undermentioned:[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@hotmail.comIn order to verify the status of my Internet Service Provider registration, I searched an online database at another location and found that no ISP geolocation data for my address or name appeared. Neither did any information on my name, ISP and Internet Protocol (IP) appear, when I searched the: American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) nor did any information appear on any European geolocation database registry. My home IP address is, however indirectly registered and the details obtainable from the United States Department of Commerce, as the IP address is logged, with their subcontracted service providers the: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers(ICANN) based in California. To avoid IP address conflicts, the ICANN reserves certain IP address blocks in the US for both private and public use. When an organization such as EE requires a block of IP addresses, each IP address is assigned to a US Internet Service Provider. An identical process of submission and allocation, of ISP and IP address data, is used by database registration compilers in the European Union.After failing to regain access to my email accounts by using my normal username and password combinations, I attempted to access them three different times, from three other separate locations using three alternative personal computers all of which used the Windows operating system. Email password entry was blocked on each occasion. As is known to regular email users when such occurrences take place, a new password is required to reenter each email account. An online onscreen prompt will ask the email account holder to provide security information to verify their identity in order to reset their password. As I had done at my home address, I entered my name; the approximate date the email account contract was confirmed, and the account opened; my date of birth; sample email subject headings which I had used; and the email addresses of various recipients to which I had sent correspondence. Then I correctly answered a standard security question, the answer to which was known only to myself. My preaccount opening, emergency contact email address, was also entered, however, it had been rendered inaccessible by the invalidation of all my passwords. I therefore had to create a totally new email address in order to receive new password security codes for my Microsoft MSN/Hotmail and Google Gmail accounts which I did. I then received a new password retrieval code which allowed me to go through the security process once more. Yet even after recompleting the security procedure, and entering the required data from my new email address I was informed by the onscreen prompt that I had supplied insufficient information and as a result my email access was denied. As regards Microsoft and their data retrieval methods, it is the case, that once an email account data retrieval query is entered into the email password reaccess webpage by an email account holder via the computer keyboard a Microsoft supercomputer will retrieve the confirmatory data from their database of registered email accounts in a matter of nanoseconds. Their supercomputer email and social media data retrieval software is built for precisely such predictable eventualities. Retrieved details will appear in realtime on a Microsoft technical team monitor. They can also be voiced in panoramic soundscape at the same time. Envisage. If the password reconfirmation request is made over the telephone to a member of the email or social media sites technical team or even inputted orally via a close field computer microphone (the latter is also feasible) it will also be processed in a very standard format. Once the usual security verification questions are answered granting renewed email access to the email account holder is a formality.To gain, an explanation for the email account closures, I firstly wrote to Google LLC (Gmail) at their regional head office in the UK and at their global headquarters in Palo Alto, California, USA on the 2nd of May 2018; and sent a letter of complaint to Microsoft Ltd (MSN/Hotmail) at their headquarters in London, England on the on the 3rd of May 2018. Both corporations were asked to respond within fourteen days giving their explanations as to why my account passwords had been blocked, and to restore my email account access both declined to respond within the specified period. On the 18thof May, however, I did receive a written response from Google UK Limited, the UK subsidiary of Google LLC, from their UK headquarters in, London, (no telephone number was given) detailing their legal position in email related litigational disputes, namely, that it is their United States parent company Google LLC and not they, that are to be held liable in legal cases concerning Gmail accounts. Alphabet Inc. is the US holding company of Google LLC (Gmail) however, I can find no trace of their, United States company registration number on any online website. On the 19th of May 2018, I received a further written reply from the UK headquarters of Microsoft Limited at the Microsoft Campus at Thames Valley Park, England (listing an obsolete telephone number and their UK company registration number: 01624297) in which a Microsoft staff member implausibly, claimed not to be able to locate the email account(s) I had cited with the information I had submitted. It is not the case, as the email username details I supplied were adequate for a very standard email database records trace. To put matters into a very relatable perspective, for the court’s benefit, my local library in London can do a full trace of every library member account with a ‘Fearon’ surname with the initial ‘W’ timed from the moment of data entry to their appearance on screen in a hand timed approximately 2-3 seconds. My company database controller can carry out the process of checking on our clients at an even quicker pace.As we are concerned with data verification and recovery issues, it is important to remember that comparable organizations with similar supercomputer facilities to those used by Microsoft and Google do exist in the American public sector. Their computer security staff are equally adept at data retrieval and unscrambling and decrypting deliberately hidden information. For example, it is well known, and often and openly reported in the American press that both the FBI and the CIA computer examination forensic squads can recover information data from a rain or fire damaged portable phone and download the stored data on its SIM card. They can also regain seemingly permanently lost data from a formatted, deleted and damaged personal computer hard drive disc, and SCSI or USB memory sticks even after the details have supposedly been wiped. Then after security checks have been carried out they can return the recovered data in a digitized format to the correct owners. Then if circumstances dictate they can provisionally retain the reusable data, pending further enquiries; or keep the data as a forfeit if data transmission regulations or civil or criminal laws are alleged to have been infringed. In relation to data recovery from a mainframe server, the same success rate percentage in data retrieval accuracy is expected of their computer forensic teams. This would also apply when their forensic detectives are examining a mainframe supercomputer that has been exposed to a computer virus infection, or suffered an unexpected and unexplained system crash or hardware or software failure. Both the FBI and the CIA are obviously proud of their abilities in the field of computer data rescue and repair and don’t feel the need to hide their capabilities from the American public. Most likely the fallback method used to affect such accurate high percentage rate data retrieval by American policing and security agencies is, that it is achieved by searching Internet Service Provider data storage records held in a CLOUD data store. In the United Kingdom, our four main Security Service agencies use similar methods and retain full or partial records of every used, email account in Europe that has interacted with a UK internet or email address or those located in a UK overseas territory and can gain virtually unobstructed access to every UK email, corporate website or personal social media account.Given the preceding anecdotal evidence, and its reasonableness, when the comparable memory, speed and processing power of a high performance mainframe cluster of supercomputers as used by Microsoft Plc and its social media divisions, MSN, Hotmail, LinkedIn, etc.; are taken into account, and then compared with the supercomputer facilities used by both the CIA and FBI, each respective organizations mainframe computers would be matchable in terms of terahertz chip speed and random data retrieval access. Thus it can be sensibly assumed, and the sedentary conclusion drawn, that the written comments made by Microsoft staff, suggesting that they are unable to find my email records are little more than a pretext used by the technical and legal staff of each corporation, to prevent me from accessing my email accounts. I am not often prone to enumerating new additions to jurisprudential legal theory, although I have done so in the past; nor am I predisposed to making prescriptive comments or recommendations on future statutory inclusions in the legal canon itself. However, in this case, in the process of the creation of new law, I am willing to assert in relation to the former: that each of the email addresses I have registered in the United States has: (a) attached obvious intellectual property rights; in respect of additions to the latter:(b) it shall be the case that: legitimate retention of an email address conveys implied, and enforceable legal entitlements to the copyright protection of the username registered; and:(c) by extension, the law of copyright will be extended to cover the data contained within the email account irrespective of the format in which it is transmitted or recieved. In nondebatable terms, therefore, I interpret the remit of US statute law, corporation regulations and future judicial court decisions on data protection, as extending to the owners of US registered email accounts the same protected status and right of copyright and proprietal ownership that is given to the person or persons registering a unique internet website domain name, and its purpose or purposes. The aforementioned legal criteria should be applied and adhered to, by all email service providers; regardless of where the email or social media or account owner resides. Overseas residence temporary or permanent is not meant to be a legal loophole for US Information Technology companies who provide internet based services to use to justify their evasion of United States consumer protection laws or copyright legislation that upholds and imposes restrictions on the wanton sale or redistribution of intellectual or intangible property, of which the content of email transmissions are but one form out of many.Circumstantial evidence, suggests that Google LLC and Microsoft Plc work together on the maintaining of email and other social media websites and the transfer of associated data records between them. This is despite United States corporate registration legal guidelines for technology companies which stipulate that all internet collaborations should appear on an Internet Routing Registries list which contains information submitted and maintained by Internet Service Providers on shared projects. This would Include joint corporate enterprises such as the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) which creates separate Access Control Lists to permit or deny traffic on specific networks based on route registry information. No information on the joint data processing arrangement between Microsoft Plc and Google LLC is as far as I am aware, known to exist. Eventhough realtime information on their combined operations is difficult to obtain, without a warrant, or an installed telecommunications monitoring device the inferential evidence of their collusion, is quite high. Their telecommunications, software and internet market dominance statistically now appears to be close to the level of a market oligopoly, in some regions of the globe.To effect such a tethering of their financial business operations and their computer and information technology processes, there are likely to be a number of undeclared software compatibility tests and financial arrangements between the two companies. At boardroom level the development of their software and internet linked corporate model is likely to be approached from three quite distinct perspectives: firstly, agreement on their combined corporate policies; secondly an agreed set of business rules including; subscription or an agreement to subscribe for securities of one or both companies; or its subsidiaries or to underwrite, sub-underwrite or guarantee subscriptions for any such securities of one or both companies; and thirdly; the outlining of the technical specifications for shared product development and any new technological innovations. Periodically each company’s policies on their joint strategy will be reviewed and developed in consultation, primarily, with each corporation’s investment and strategic planning committee and their respective finance and audit teams. In conjunction with their computing departments each committee will take into account the uncertainty inherent in any forward looking business model and then create a joint software marketing and sales approach. It will need to provide flexibility for accurate future scenario planning; integration with each company’s finance system; and be required to support the iteration and updating of actual software testing results, departmental budgets and official forecasts. Whilst the exact nature and extent of their financial entanglements is predictably more of an issue for a team of Californian state auditors or the IRS, I can, within limits of course, provide a little insight into how certain shared software operational standards are likely to be arrived at by information technology firms working covertly and in unison. In this instance, in order to synchronize their online internet operations, it is likely to be the case that a combined Microsoft/Google programming unit would be assembled, either in one site or clustered across several locations. JavaScript is the shared programming language used by Microsoft and Google joint programming teams, and it supports interactive communications in accessing internet web browsers, popular searchengines and managing downloadable software, music and film videos, internet conference calls and other online applications. The same programming language is also used to manage and operate the communication and hardware access gateways on the internet network server that is nominally controlled by my Internet Service Provider EE. A vertically displayed touch sensitive software screen on a Perspex wall would probably be used to depict and move overlapping data flow and feedback model diagrams. Programmers can then construct an unlimited number of data transmission scenarios for instant display. These would tend to initially be centered on, the data processing requests of an idealized consumer software user or a machine, which would be interactively communicating with an online searchengine or website and any auxiliary email account portals. Both computer programming teams would generally use the same visual schematic model, using known procedures with the test results reflected within a strategic planning model at an aggregated level. Clear visual mobile representation of data programming entities will provide a straightforward monitorable means of capturing the flow of data movement across a hypothetical software website interface. At various stages in the testing process there will be team discussions concerning the value of the inclusion or the exclusion of each modular piece of software programming code and the associated risk factors if any, linked to the code segment remaining as part of the telemobile computer program that has been schematically represented. Once the visual software testing has been completed those items of code found to be inflexible or too lengthy and therefore responsible for limiting the ability of the programming team to refresh the testing model and to run different test case scenarios under times series conditions will also be removed.In this way the software team will reduce the possibility of the deleterious effects of accidental data strings or malicious program code being introduced into, and remaining in the program, and being undetected and effecting the integrity of, for example, a network server access procedure; or a Gmail or MSN/Hotmail password security and user identification and email account access routine. If sections of erroneous code are found at any stage in the implementation process the lead systems analysis team will make functional recommendations and systems programmers will make the necessary syntactical and semantical changes to individual data strings in the program code modules to delete the incorrect data block or lines and to make the amended code much simpler and quicker for software maintenance teams to review at a later stage and for the compiler to process at runtime during the testing of an executable program.It is likely to be the case that Microsoft and Google will use a specially developed cross-compiler as their software programs are built to connect with other computers whose CPU or Operating System is different from the one on which their dual standard independent compilers run.Basic machine to machine, anti-intrusion joint computer software program defenses are constructed, tested and installed when quite specific alterations to retail software are due to be made. For example, when a new version of the Microsoft Windows operating systems is being devised; or when changes to a Google web browser or a Google searchengine and its listing procedures. Software defenses are also normally reexamined when Gmail or Googlemail email new account designs and updates are planned. Appropriate software anti-hacking, anti-virus testing regimes will be even more rigorous than those usually carried out for conventional software upgrades. So the number of hypothetical software consumers trying to access the modelled schematic website or proxy email address set up for stress testing can be increased by several degrees and, exponentially if needs be, and if such stress tests show the inbuilt software defenses to be ineffective in delivering the correct defensive response or responses to an outside threat, solutions will again be drawn up and embedded in the code to rectify any identified problems. Conventionally, this might require, for example an enhanced hypertext transfer protocol for delivering precise computer security defense hypertext manipulation language options and a variety of rigid hyperlinks, for their jointly shared web application programs and internet and social media systems interfaces.However, there are obvious weaknesses in the programmed based security defenses of both Google and Microsoft meaning that neither corporation can ensure that whilst an internet user is connected to one of their software or internet media sites that the server they are connected to is the correct one. Nor can they certify that the data requested by an email or social media account holder from a third party over the internet is the same as that which is delivered or downloaded. There is also a legal implication within all social media and email account contracts, that ostensibly guarantees that rights of the consumer when a website based email message or social media data is received or downloaded from another telemedia or domestic intranet address. It is implied that the data received will be actually in the same format, with the correct semantic content, as originally dispatched from the sender’s ISP internet address and website, or email or social media account. However, such assurance by Google LLC or Microsoft Plc are unsustainable given their limited software security procedures.Both corporations computer security defences arenot strong enough at the junction between website and server to withstand determined efforts to rewrite password data security codes and the subsequent creation by a skilled programmer of an infinite data entry loop which will cause a password security program to accept a string of data or a singular datum but ultimately prevent the successful acceptance of a new password or other user identification code by a server network an email account or a social media website. Additionally, unauthorized new information can be added to the security and access routine of an email or other social media account by a third party. This can grant email or social media account access to a totally different user or a hive of users in remote locations. Eventhough when an original account username remains the same the account holder or holders may have their entitlement to exclusive email or social media access compromised or even denied completely in some cases. Situationally, other than in incidences of an outright email password entry block, the impression is created, despite the intervention by an intruder that the social media or email account and the data within it are still only viewable and under the privileged control of the person or persons who opened and maintained it. Unknowingly, existing email and other social media correspondents can continue to assume that they are communicating exclusively with the correct person or email or social media group. It is often the case that they arenot. Social media and email accounts holders will be unaware that their internet accounts can be cloned and that their private data can be displayed on numerous computer screens as a read and write random access visual data file for some Joe Liges to gawp at in their home or office or on a cellphone on a Palo Alto street corner. This security gap allows the possibility that data can be sent illicitly from an internet user’s email or social media website by an unauthorized person using a cellphone to an unknown and theoretically untraceable ISP address. Genuine social media and email account owners would not even know that their accounts had been either accessed or that their incoming emails had been sent to another file in their email account, or diverted and sent to the email account of another email account user who they do not even know. Whole files. Email messages. Social media data feeds. Downloads. All forms of received social media and email correspondence can be read, altered or deleted by an unauthorized user prior to their email and social media accounts being opened and their correspondence being checked by their legitimate owners. As all American computer scientists know, and I mean all American, a supercomputer mainframe virtual machine in private hands can provide unlimited multiple screening options to unauthorized viewers across the globe. In consequence because of the inability of Microsoft and Google to mitigate against these structural weaknesses in their network and software defences the State expects that both corporations be required to take additional measures, and increase their dilligence in detecting software and network defects. They will be required to ensure, as far as is practicable, that their software and network systems can rapidly determine the scope of any breach in data security before recommending such products to potential purchasers. Thoroughly tested software systems should be able to determine at the end of the test cycle the time and source, of a security breach and whether it originated within the United States or abroad or if it was caused by the actions of an authorized or unauthorized person or if it was due to the planned or unplanned intervention of an unmanned or automated computer system. Suitably configured software defense systems will be able to detect if any data erasure, data duplication or data transfer has occurred if a security breach is discovered. If a breach has taken place both Google LLC and Microsoft Plc must be able to ‘restore the integrity of the data system’ and retrieve if applicable, all displaced data. At the current time both corporations are demonstrably unable to do either. An effective way of promoting more transparent and conformative results in relation to consumer complaints made against large IT corporations is of course to emphasize any known structural or personnel inefficiencies based on first-hand experience and real recorded evidence and then have it relayed back to the relevant institution. I have repeatedly encountered problems in the Microsoft and Google client email data defense, explanation and recovery process. It suggests to me that there is a high probability that both companies use relatively out of date personnel training regimes, at middle managerial level in particular, leading in turn to a conveyor belt of relatively inefficient technical staff with little brain held knowledge of either Californian or US data protection or telecommunications law. Their staff have do not appear to have the sharpened ability to marry US electronic informatique regulations with consumer protection legislation. Their frontline technical staff can be less than capable of reacting dynamically to relatively small changes in the circumstances of social media or email accounts or the account holders. This in turn leads to the maintenance of poor advice records, inefficient time utilization and limited staff accessibility to the newest client data, whether contact with a client is carried out online, in person or over the telephone. This is evidenced by the fact that in relation to the blocking of my email accounts neither corporation’s technical staff could update their legal, or technical database records interactively whilst corresponding with myself whilst on the telephone, or by letter or online. They appeared not to have a customer file with the dates of previous recorded telephone or email correspondence records to hand. Presumably their email and social media customer account digital ledger, or individual account records are just as summarily recorded. I have made over eight email password block related complaints to either Microsoft or Google in the past twelve years. Each complaint should be recorded in a company complaints file or a personal file listing the date of each complaint, coupled with my address and personal details, which incidentally have not changed at all. Judging from their responses to my complaints it would appear that both corporations are prepared to deny in the exchange of particulars, and in court that I have lodged formal complaints regarding email blocked access against them in the past. Complaints which were all resolved after an exchange of emails sent from my now blocked secondary email accounts and letters and interventions by my local Member of Parliament in London. It is also likely, that neither company uses, at selected periodic intervals, modern data sensitivity measurement analyses techniques or regular updates of their defenses as recommended by cybersecurity institutions in the IT industry. Basic attention to such details can help define any prior breach of data security before the launch of new or upgraded software or the changeover to another email or social media platform. For example, in the critical period before a wholescale changeover from MSN email accounts to Microsoft Outlook a data breach sensitivity test should take place to check the security of the connection between an email client such as Microsoft outlook and an email server such as Microsoft exchange.Both corporation’s executive boards are acutely aware that if an information technology based company suffers from exposure to repeated data breaches of its data security defenses; it is a portent for other negative underlying structural conditions including those which may necessitate corporate surgery and financial restructuring. Generally, these are factors that I associate with the onset of industrial and commercial retrenchment and permanent decline.Their corporate level, bulk order sales legal, managerial and technical staff, and their single and large order online and instore level, sales management teams, will also need to reappraise their incorporation of rules from sale of goods, and copyright protection legislation at the point of sale online or instore and be prepared to do so in realtime if it is needed. As of the moment, neither Microsoft or Google can legitimately claim that their risk assessment systems, including it must be said their technical personnel are effective in interactively underwriting and insuring against data security threats to their clients.On first reading it may seem that the matters raised in my dispute with Microsoft Plc and Google LLC do not give rise to a series of data protection legal issues but rather reveal a litany of customer service errors and missed performance parameters. However, there are transparent data protection legal issues involved that support a prima facie claim in a court of law for damages or indeed special damages against the prospective defendants. Elements of the claim can be framed in terms of corporate negligence and the establishment in law of a factual breach of duty of care with foreseeable loss or deliberate corporate maladministration. Now we may turn to the current legal status of the two corporations in relation to their possible failure to comply with US regulatory procedure on the status and meaning of a business joint enterprise for a US company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Legally, any unlisted commercial collaborations and issues of non-compliance with stock exchange rules, by the two companies are an issue for the market surveillance department of the New York Stock Exchange Regulation monitors. If an investigation by the NYSE is deemed necessary, and proven to be in the public interest, it will be undertaken to protect investors, to prevent manipulation of the market and to restore confidence in the running of either company. An NYSE investigation will look at any claims of unlawful or unethical behaviour by either company and if necessary report their findings to the Securities Exchange Commission to determine whether sanctions are appropriate. When undertaken, the usual reasons for an investigatory probe can be given by the regulatory authorities to the board members of Microsoft Plc and Google LLC. If that is, explanations are genuinely needed. Similarly, for Californian and United States federal taxation purposes, considering the apparent interdependency of each corporation both companies would need to have a declared, beneficial interest, to comply with each tier of relevant taxation law within each jurisdiction. Such a beneficial interest would probably be centered on joint agreements to share software technical specifications, pool software engineering resources and to annotate, list and distribute a number of undeclared and unregistered patents which will deliberately not be submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Both companies would thus avoid being held liable to pay United States corporation tax on revenue from the sale of all software products that include the patented items or derived intellectual properties. In the European Union in order to comply with relevant territorial legislation, each corporation would also need to file for patent registration marks with the European Patent Office and with the patent office of each national state where their software is sold in order to obtain multiple patent licences for all of the relevant European countries. Each corporation would also escape taxation in the US and the European Union on the nominal royalties gained by their joint investment in tax deductible economies of scale driven research and development programs. Then the proportion of their profits accrued from their lessened industrial process costs, is used to increase their marketing spend, and to saturate selected regional markets with internet, social media or conventional software products increasing their online internet and mobile telephonic presence and monopolising advertising revenue increasing the value of their market capitalisation. It reinforces their warped official corporate view, that their poorly disciplined financial capital base is the leading leverage based economic model for the computer software and internet market and related industries. It is not. It aids their domination of global online searchengine options; and underpins their leading positions in the information technology, internet and software production and associated services markets. It distorts the information technology market leading to each company perpetually recording above the curve abnormal profit margins relative to other competitors in the sector. Year on Year. It provides wholly disproportionate dividend returns for their shareholders and overvalues the earning per share ratio of the entire United States internet industry. Furthermore what is often left publically unsaid, in broadsheet analysis of the US technology sector, in respect of Microsoft Plc and Google LLC, is that their outright dominance of the technology sector routinely forces cellular phone and personal computer manufacturers and distributors in the US, Europe and Africa in particular, to favour their products and to make the inclusion of their internet searchengines and other software a legally binding and compulsory part of any mass order sales agreement. It increases their overall profit margins and revenue and renders the stocking of other software and hardware product options uncompetitive for wholesale importers, online distributors, retailers and insurers. Alternative software manufacturers are unable to compete on price and variety as well as product guarantees and online and over the counter insurance offers. More susceptible to inflationary price increases and are unable to defray passing on increased costs onto wholesalers and online retailers making their products more uncompetitive.Even after subtracting from the economic equation, the often irrational preferences that will persuade consumers to pay more for a particular technology brand rather than pay less for a similar alternative product their current sales statistics give a false picture of the long term commercial prospects and value of Microsoft Plc and Google LLC and their respective revenue intake. Venture capital funds and banks are less willing to treat their software investment and property rights, as low expense, high growth, projected royalty income streams that involve little to no negative cash flow. Thus they will continue lessening the value of their intellectual property and royalty based assets when they are proposed as collateral. This in turn forces both companies to rely more than ever before on short to medium term arbitrage; or expected profit based equity finance; or retained earnings rather than on advances from the banking sector.Each company is required under US law to submit formal returns setting out their marketing and administration expenditure and demonstrating that it has fallen within the limits declared by them. An auditor’s reading of each company’s balance sheet, cross checked with their annual company accounts and likely tax returns, prior to submission to the IRS at both state and federal level will show that their accountancy procedures are deliberately misleading.In relation to my own internet and email profile status, any theoretical conflict of identity issues with anyone living in, or outside of the United Kingdom can be summarily dismissed by the court. Likewise, in the United States, no alternative profiles with the same name or similar and with closely matching details have been brought to my attention by the security or legal teams at either technology corporation and cited as a reason for their joint refusal to reopen my email accounts. I have not seen online any alternative internet profiles bairing my name, which could be mistaken for mine by a stable person with an average IQ. There are no other legitimate claimants to any of the email accounts, I have sent correspondence from, or alternative claimants to the email messages I have received. Neither have I ever, received an email message addressed to someone who could be defined as a namesake and which was clearly not meant for myself. Not a single ground exists for any claims that my email accounts and their contents, were intended for another person and consequently should be held indefinitely or redistributed. Not one. Arguments, suggesting that there might be, would if raised before the bench by either the technical or legal teams of Microsoft Plc or Google LLC amount to little more than tiresome courtroom theatrics, masquerading as reason, and a wholly illegitimate defence strategy, designed to obstruct the court’s right of inquisition and my right to recover access to my email accounts and the data held within them. But, if the prospective defendants insist, that they have world class computer scientists at their disposable, that can double up as telecommunications and data regulation attorneys, to argue the adverse, I’m sure that juristicians and students of legal theory, in the state of California and in the European Union will be intrigued.As a matter of secondary, supporting, and mere inferential interest to the court, I can point out that my professional reputation in Africa, Australasia, Europe, and the United States is extensive. Thus although I live outside of the United States, my current domicile is known to the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and to a group of American lawyers who visit Runnymede in England once in a while. All four groups can confirm, if required, in any manner they choose that I live in the United Kingdom and that I am professionally recognised in Europe. As the Royal Society of Medicine in London, will verify, I am one of the most notable British based medical scientists of the past fifty years. Additionally, I am also a historical figure in American Information Technology, formal logic, logic programming and computer science and was known to boardroom staff at Google LLC and at Microsoft Headquarters in the USA and London prior to my current complaints. My reputation in computing alone was known at the IEEE, Microsoft, Apple, MIT and IBM and at the various collegiate centers of the University of California in the nineteen eighties. Nor am I regarded as an anonymous outlander within the Ivy League teaching and alumni network in both the USA and in London. My contact details, are, logged with various data collection departments at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and by, US, financial corporations, teaching academies, and historical societies.If the court for a moment chooses to focus on the conduct of Microsoft Plc and Google LLC and their joint enterprise, it is to be assumed that both corporations believe that they are acting within the parameters of legality. Nothing however, could be further from the truth, their joint conduct and the behaviour of Microsoft in particular, obviously amounts to a clear defense of their conduct centered on blatant false representation and concealment of material facts. The failure by the Microsoft Plc online technical team and their telephone support staff to take the requisite action to restore access to my email accounts, coupled with the written statements I have received from the corporation, indicate that Microsoft’s obstructional behaviour, is intended to ensure that I am severely prejudiced by the delay and constitutes a deliberate and malicious and knowing, foreseeable, and aggressive attempt at restraint of my right to trade and to use my own name in online communications. Such difficulties were obviously foreseen by the MSN/Hotmail technical team before they sanctioned the email password blockages. Therefore, Microsoft broke the implied terms of trust and confidence between an internet email or other social media service provider and a client which is inherent in all telemedia contracts. That such a situation, should persist, without immediate resolution, only emphasizes the clear onesidedness of the security matters involved, highlighting those issues that are to the detriment of myself the data subject and email account user, and those issues that overwhelmingly benefit Microsoft Plc the data service provider and data controller.An inordinate delay in my using my email accounts also allows both Microsoft Plc and Google LLC to claim that each of my email accounts has been inactive for too long and that as a result they are entitled to assert that I have voluntarily ceded my rights to retain each account thereby breaking any legal chain of causation tied to their own conduct and negating the possibility of a civil claim. Both email service providers, would then consider themselves free of any legal responsibility to maintain my accounts and then argue that they have the right to unilaterally close them, and sanction a permanent denial of my right of access, retrieval and transfer of all my email data to any other email account I open. They would not consider theirselves legally obliged to protect my email accounts from being illegally accessed by any unauthorized third party. Effectively, both companies are attempting to force through an act of novation, enacted by the unsanctioned closure of my existing email accounts and the repudiation of each individual email contract. Once that is achieved, the repercussions are, that I am then required to open up new email accounts and reenter into new contracts with each email service provider, but, and here is the caveat, I would then lose my rights to all of the data retained in my former accounts which both companies would then hold on their respective email servers as some type of corporate lien.As a very straightforward cognitive exercise, which the court may undertake before the hearing it is possible, to pose the rhetorical, and ask whether it is reasonable to believe that companies of the size, experience and efficiency Microsoft Plc (listed on the NASDAQ) or Google LLC (again NASDAQ listed, this time under the title of its parent company Alphabet Inc.) could lose track of sent or received email data or lose a complete email account or be unable to verify the details of the owner. A rational mind would quickly consider the facts and conclude that each scenario is almost unthinkable. There is no need for you here to consider an obvious, and rapidly constructed logical but purely semantic counterargument. If a process of email data loss or access denial of this type was to be defined and depicted schematically step by step, by a systems analyst it would be seen as a very simple argument to repudiate and a virtually impossible stance to maintain at a very early stage in the analysis process. Should such corporate practices be confirmed as regular occurrences, the simple possibility would lead to a general brokerage review of the share Price/Earnings ratio of both Google LLC and Microsoft Plc on the New York Stock Exchange, the Paris bourse, the London Stock Exchange where the ordinary shares of both companies are brokered. Similar decisions would probably be carried out by Wei traders on the Shanghai stock exchange on both ordinary and B class shares as well. Microsoft Plc and Google LLC ordinary shares are already apparently, judging by brokerage reports seen by registered stockbrokers and independent investors in North America and Europe alike as overvalued, tradeable commodities, on the grounds, amongst other things, that neither company will adequately guarantee the security, and accessibility on demand of customer data. Moreover, my complaint indicates, that both companies are unable to prove that their data security systems including those concerned with identity verification, have been adequately tested and that they are operating correctly. Neither company can demonstrate to an acceptable standard that their software testing and operational environments are completely separate, and that their network security devices are properly configured. As mentioned earlier it appears to be a fairly straightforward process for an unauthorized person, to be able to obtain Google and Microsoft default network server passwords in order to access the social media and email accounts of other people. A precarity, which of course, increases the risk of financial or systemic disadvantage to corporate clients, to independent traders, medical professionals and members of the general public who use their software or email portals and web sites. Both Microsoft Plc and Google LLC have to take the necessary steps to restore the integrity and defensive soundness of their data telecommunication systems and email and social media sites. It is noted that in June 2018 the CIA pulled out of a proposed billion dollar cloud data storage contract with Google LLC. The court, and the legal community in general, may assume that the reasons I have outlined above influenced the CIA directorate to make the correct decision.We can of course consider it likely that the Central Intelligence Agency would have put it to the tender/bid legal and technical team of Google LLC, during their negotiations over the cost and implementation strategy of the recently aborted proposed Cloud contract that: even when email and social media data is considered to have been ‘erased’ from a database processed on a super computer with a requisite server, from the viewpoint of a computer defense operative, a total eradication or complete disappearance of stored email or social media data is quite difficult to achieve. It is usually the case that such an end gambit is mentally ruled out prior to any computer security forensic investigation. Equally from a physicist’s perspective the likelihood of their being untraceable email or social media data records is also virtually impossible to countenance. You can delete the emails and associated data, such as address book contacts, from a visible and accessible email account, but you can not necessarily destroy them. This would also apply during the immediate damage assessment period immediately after a computer hack has been detected. I was tutored in the same data protection and telecommunications security principles decades ago in university. Before the term cybersecurity was even coined. Such guidelines are familiar to current undergraduate and postgraduate degree students on computer science based courses.Email and other data received via an android device for example, can be stored and backed up in a data cloud and retrieved. I suspect that both Gmail and MSN/Hotmail have done something similar with my email accounts; that is to say, they are likely to have stored my email data on a data cloud server in a third country, the Irish Republic, Iceland, Portugal or Liberia, being distinct possibilities and by doing so they avoid, in theory, United States federal law on the storage, retention and disposal of telecommunicated data records.I would not normally hazard an opinion, on the precise technicalities involved in initiating a full computer system override, from a remote location but on this occasion, I can, in the absence of a confirmation theory offer, a grounded and deductive, but nonetheless still informed speculative view of the options, used to affect the simultaneous disconnection of my internet service and the blocking of my email passwords.Firstly, severing the connections could have been carried out by a rather basic, crude and robotic, Real Independent Computer Controlled Intelligence System, of the type that has been in existence since before the first Gulf war. An automated RICCI system will allow an operator to indulge in enhanced methods of selection and targeting for tactile directed electronic manipulation of a variety of objects. In principle the premise behind the RICCI model, is that an electronically engineered neural network is created and then embedded in the hardware/software interface of a computer. Then the scale, speed and trajectory of synapse to synapse electron activity within the brain’s cerebral cortex can be replicated. The quantum neurological and electronic sensory inputs and outputs which occur when the brain instantiates the electrical muscular activity which controls the tactile movements of human hands for example can be automated and reproduced. A RICCI system can be seen as a variation of the brain computer interface interface modality, used in the control of modern standard neurological implants which allow the enhancement, reproduction and reconnection of neuromuscular electrical signals. If an arm or a leg has been severed in a motorway accident for example, the neurological implant will allow the disabled person to move a prosthetic brain controlled limb (BCL) and the appendages attached to it.Secondly, the computer system override and disconnections could have been initiated via a sequence of electronically aided quantum mechanical human thought processes of the type that convert a: Correlational Opposition-Ratio Enhanced (CORE) neurological electron signal in the brain into an electron manipulation operation. By way of explanation, we may examine in less detail than usual, it must be said, the rudimentary, mid to late 20th century CORE operational, medical and electronic origins of the thought processions, that orchestrate an neuroelectronic manipulative event. More importantly an event that will effect an unattached physical object. Contemporary neuroscience assures us, that the brain’s hippocampi controls memory, spatial navigation and electric fields and that ephaptic communication between the fibers of the nervous system is caused by the exchange of ions between cells. From that which precedes, we can deduce the following, namely, that at the precise moment when ionic interchange occurs in the brain, the electrical fields generated can be microelectronically amplified and their oscillating evoked potentials turned into exogenous neural communication signals. With assistance, an individual can be trained to neuroelectronically generate these hyper sensitive neural electron waves,effectively, becoming a human command and control central node propelling electron particles outwards with a level of kinetic energy, strong enough to mimic the staged gated transmissions of a microelectronic telecommunications network command center. A human brain, wirelessly coupled to a mains or battery powered radio frequency linked portable computer with an inbuilt spectrum analyser, can log and record the correct coordinates of specific locations. Then the brain’s enhanced electron flow of energy can be aimed via the cornea at the circuitry of an electronic switch or at a visible computer in direct view or one secreted in a remote location. The electron surge can replicate the actions of an on or off electrical decision gate by being able to flip the circuitry of an electronic switch or the embedded stop and start button of a personal computer and begin instantiating the starting process. Electronic neurons contained within what is basically a robotronic disembodied electronic brain, can be primed to fire a flow of particle wave electrons transmitting a signal which can be sent through an electro-magnetic field.Essentially, the locate, command, control and eliminate procedure used in a CORE operation to wirelessly attack and incapacitate a computer is an adaptation of the non-invasive, nucleus revolving, medical investigatory techniques that began to be used by radiologists in the early 1990s. Illustratively, and for comparative purposes only, let us look at some very basic medical radiological techniques of the type that might be employed during a surgical operation in the modern era, the 21st century that is. You as a radiologist, are working in a hospital theatre, alongside a neuro-oncologist, an anesthetist, a nurse and a dosimetrist. After having created a viable treatment plan you are scheduled to go into a medical operating theatre to conduct a chemotherapy examination and radiotherapeutic surgical procedure to treat a patient with a malignant cancerous brain tumor.Your planned radiographic data scans, will highlight the patient’s brain structure, cranial neural interaction, healthy tissues and those neuroanatomical substrates and organs at risk which are perfused by major cerebral arteries. Ions emitted by the radiographic scanner will elucidate the cerebral hemispheric organization highlighting each area of cognitive, motor and sensory function and specialised virtual simulation software will provide a clear unobstructed view. By employing a common neuroimaging radiological technique such as Computerised Tomography or Functional Magnetic Resonant Imaging all the radiological activity in the brain can be observed as conformal planned three dimensional televisual imageries on a high definition realtime virtual pixelated computer screen or pictograph images or a sonographic ultrasound display with 360 degree onscreen sliding window rotational field capabilities, and enlargement and miniaturisation focus. What you are then presented with is an unobstructed onscreen map of the shape and location of the tumor which will accurately delineate and localize the area to be treated and the sensitive, cerebral structures and cognitive areas to avoid, when the cancer tumour is being sonicated. A route is outlined and a centrum highlighted for the pulsed external beam of image guided electro-magnetic frequency radiation to lock onto. Then the radiation dosage that will follow is delivered via two-dimensional pencil beams which possess the capability of realtime adjustment achievable by controlling, or modulating, the radiation beam’s intensity and changing the speed and shape of the beam with a multileaf collimator. To ensure patient safety, input from an oximeter watched over by a nurse, is used to monitor the degree of blood oxygenation, blood flow velocity and neural activation in the patient’s brain which radio frequency ablation of this type might impair. Thereafter, guided by you, the radiologist, the neuro-oncologist, can step back and observe with a beam’s eye view the process of curative cancer treatment as the area of a malignant cancerous neuroendocrine brain tumour is eliminated by a precisely targeted beam or several beams from various angles of ionising electron energy eminating from a cathode ray tube linear particle accelerator. Then the radiation emitted will intersect the tumor and damage the DNA of the cancerous tissue halting its growth and leading to its cellular death. However, the magnetic-electron ultraviolet light emitting target in the case of an omnidirectional radiological guided electron probe of a computer hard drive or mainframe server is, quite different to the conventional examinatory matter used by physicians in medicine and associated forensic radiological sciences. Rather than being an invivo or an invitro biological sample or an anesthetised human being, or a corpse in a post mortem autopsy case, the target is an inanimate, static or mobile remote or close field, metallic or non-metallic entity. An object which will be highlighted and colored in various shades of the electro-magnetic spectrum radiating a fluorescent glow.Once the target has been selected, a stream of pulsed energy can manipulate a heat induced cathode ray tube propelling magnetic field particles which are responsive to experiential stimuli and under directional control. The particles would be transmitted over a privately owned and dedicated, and human operated Local Area Network towards the positively charged screen of a PC, it's hard drive, or a Microsoft and EE linked operating system server located elsewhere. If the magnetic-electron beam is on point, it can render a computer or another target immobile or otherwise inoperable, change the data content within it, including in realtime, the text on a web page or the spelling and orthographic outlay of letters on a word processing sheet whilst the file is still open. It can fuse the wiring, or rewrite the machine code on computer hardware, alter the structure of a silicon BIOS chip; or deactivate the cooling fan of a mainframe computer situated in a remote location. It can begin instantiating the computer starting process. Halt the motor of a computer when it is in full and active operational mode or completely erase personal websites, block email passwords and delete or alter computer software. Although the effects of an electron computer attack are known it is an exaggeration to suggest, that a computer screen under an electron cyberattack would give of a telltale sign of an electron overload by giving of phosphorus radiance. This is because the quanta energy of an electron is absorbed by the magnesium-aluminium metal in a computer when a cyberelectron operation of this nature is carried out, so there need not be any visible sign of electron intervention at all. Therefore, I cannot be precise, as to the realtime, the disconnections took place as I do not have an electron or ionising radiation monitor or a magnetic field sensitive transponder attached to my computer which can sense an incoming magnetic surge or an electron overload and can record coordinates, and log and measure incoming precisely aimed electrons. But, if I or any other computer user had such a transmitter device installed on their computer, it could be adapted by an electronician and turned into a sensor array and the data on the stream of electron sent to a positioning system and used for realtime tracking of the position of the sender. If a computer is attacked in this manner each electron sent to it, could be returned, ionic particle by ionic particle to its originating source, or redirected as per the laws of physics as controlled energy targeting the cerebral cortex of another human, or aimed at the beating electrical cardiovascular system of a moving animal stopping the beast in its tracks.In theory, the originating source of the electro-magnetic field energy that caused the disconnection of my internet and email accounts is traceable. You are also well aware, that a system override of a home personal computer or a mainframe supercomputer can also be carried out wirelessly from outside the United States or the United Kingdom; and that a computer system override can be achieved by directed energy emitted from a privately or publicly owned orbiting space satellite or an aeroplane or a radiation beam relayed from earth to a space station reflector and then deflected to hit a target on the planet’s surface.My Internet disconnection could have been carried out and coordinated through the main UK, postal and telephone telecommunications centre in the Mount Pleasant district, of north east London with electronic instructions issued from a PSTN console based computer screen command center with a full duplex switch panel under the control of a human operator. The telecommunications, internet and software systems of Microsoft Plc, Google LLC and EE in the United Kingdom are connected via a closed intranet network linking all three companies, across international borders with the likely acquiescence of state authorities.As regards infringements of the consumer protection laws of various United Nations territories and compositional federal states by the named corporations, my view of the legal position of Gmail and MSN/Hotmail; and EE; in relation to Californian United States, UK, and European Union legislation, is that all three corporations have been, since the 1stof May 2018 in breach of contract law applicable to each territory. In order to aid the court’s understanding of my contractual position with each named corporation, I can state, firstly that the internet connection contract between myself and the internet service provider EE is facilitated via a monthly direct debit arrangement under which I pay a specified amount, for uninterrupted broadband internet access for a set period of time. Actionable grounds for citing a breach of contract by either party are contained in the standard terms and conditions of the contractual agreement. Secondly, I have a set of confirmed online non fixedterm contracts, with both Gmail and MSN/Hotmail, in which reasons for a breach by either party are clearly stated. As regards consumer rights in the United Kingdom these are generally considered to be covered under the: United Kingdom Consumer Protection Act (2015), the remit of the Act is in no way comprehensive and should in my view, extend to the settlement of civil disputes concerning digital content whether it is paid for or supplied free with the option of paid for services. Currently UK law does not adequately cover digitized products and further lawyering and the introduction of new legal regulations on the issue are needed. Of course, what I am alluding to here, in the first instance, is the introduction of an amendment to the UK Consumer Protection Act (2015) that would be in keeping with the proportionate rise in internet commerce and associated payment assurances, mobile telephonic currency transactions, telemedical portable monitors, and injective devices, prosthetics and other wearable surgical equipment, and online personal and financial data storage.An amendment to the UK Consumer Protection Act can ensure that a clause is incorporated, that emphasises the point, that if transmitted digital content does not conform to the relevant contractual obligations, that consumers in the United Kingdom should then have the right to a repair or replacement of the aforesaid digital content. Existing UK consumer protection legislation allows for the reimbursement of the cost of faulty equipment in such situations but entitles no mandatory compensation for data loss. This is an obvious anomaly in the application of UK law.In actual fact, it is my interpretation of the future potential of telecommunications and consumer law in the state of California and throughout the remaining United States, and the European Union and how such new legislation may be applied in practice, is that if, whilst data is being processed digital content is returned or resupplied corrupted, or returned with noticeable omissions after an interruption in the continuity of data transmission has occurred, a consumer, corporate or individual has the legal right to force the corruptor of the data be it a broadband, email or internet service provider if proven, to repair the disarranged digital content, and replace the omitted data or be liable for monetary damages for the loss or the corruption of such data and the individual or corporate consumer may reserve the right to sue in court for monetary compensation in the form of unliquidated damages.An entitlement to compensation would correspond to the enforceable rights and remedies of a hypothetical plaintiff in a civil dispute, concerning the nature of actual, and fixed corporate liability where for example an electricity utility company is defined and assumed in law, as being potentially liable for monetary damages in negligence, devoid of intent, if a circuit breakage or powercut occurred in the home, at a factory, workary or office effecting the processing, legibility or memoritic storage of computerised and processable data held by a complainant. This should apply under the California Civil Code, United States federal law and under European Union legislation where the causal act or omission in question, is legally defined as an event leading to a negligent occurrence due to nonenvironmental factors.Regarding legislative exemptions to the extent of occupational or occupier’s liability in legal disputes involving the disruption of telecommunications transmissions which interrupt the processing of decipherable electronic data and or cause its loss, the court can take note that restrictions in law on the prosecutability of a freehold property owner or the proprietor of a leased or sublet premise be it private or corporate are not countervailing in the state of California. Given the cross border applicability of certain precepts of English law within nations that are predominately English speaking, it remains to be seen whether statutory legal exemptions from civil liability and a claim for damages for potential defendants in telecommunications disputes exist in the US due to what is sometimes termed by juristicians in the United Kingdom as, an Act of God. I may assert too, that complainants in telecommunications, data processing and social media and email disputes in the European Union and the United States should have the right to sue for the restoration of a deleted email account or other types of social media accounts. They should also be entitled to seek an injunction in a court of law, or equivalent authority to prevent the deletion of any email or social media account records by a service provider or the reallocation or sale to a third party by an email or social media service provider of a unique username, password or identification number. It should be borne in mind that an offer by an email or social media service provider to allocate a new username and a new password to a complainant’s profile, should a preexisting account be inaccessible, does not, unless mutually agreed, invalidate a contractual breach by the service provider involving the cessation of email or social media communications and any resultant data loss.Prior to a court or FBI application for an injunction against Microsoft Plc/Ltd and Google LLC preventing either from disposing or selling off my email accounts or usernames or incidentally those of any other American it should be clear to both potential defendants that no alternative accounts are to be set up and installed by third parties on Microsoft or Google owned websites which use the ‘Fearon’ forename and surname email address formats that I have listed and registered. This would apply whether the third party account in the ‘Fearon’ surname is in use as either an email alias or as an alternative email contact address. None of the email accounts I have registered using the ‘Fearon’ surname should be connected by Microsoft or Google to a third party email account or other social media account for the purpose of receiving diverted incoming emails originally intended for one of my listed accounts. Nor should a third party, who has registered an email account in another name be able to use any of my listed email accounts as a contactable and usable alternative email address if a password reset is needed to regain access to their primary email account and an alternative email address is required to receive a reconnection code be it alpha, alphanumeric or numerical. There are specified estimated limitations on the storage space for MSN/Hotmail email accounts (5 Gigabytes) and Gmail accounts (15 Gigabytes) space providing both companies with pseudo contractual reasons for not restoring all received email data. However, as computer mainframe electronicians, at Gmail and MSN/Hotmail know, all incoming emails to my accounts can be stored on a server if storage space in my email inbox is exceeded and it can no longer receive emails. Microsoft Plc or Google LLC have not produced an unanswerable technical or logical barrier to my complaints, and my background in the field of information processing allows me infer that there is not one. Therefore, the court may conclude that their corporate objections to the reopening of my email accounts are based on arguments that are either personal or due an adherence to some form of twisted political ideology and likely to have been endorsed at boardroom level and filtered down for enforcement by the management of their technical data recovery teams.In my opinion the ordinary shares of Microsoft Plc and Google LLC have a higher risk attached to them and mutual lower earnings growth potential in relation to other corporations in the telecommunications sector. Board members of both companies or a surrogate company, or independent brokers acting on their behalf will probably covertly buy their respective individual companies ordinary shares to uphold their share price and their company’s market capitalisation value, both of which are, as implied previously, grossly overvalued. Personnel details on the Google LLC board were unobtainable using online search engines. If they were viewable, I assume that they would reveal a number of interesting fiduciary appointments as well as unnamed trustees. The exoffficio members of their board would effectively form an institutional constructive trust whereby each person in a fiduciary position would be entitled to make an unauthorized and undeclared profit on their shareholdings or on the residual on any loans they have made to the corporation. despite the lack of transparency surrounding the details of the composition of board of Google LLC, the names, and ages of the Microsoft Plc board of directors and executive committee members were generally available online. Many of the names listed are aliases, used for tax avoidance purposes and a combined list is shown below:Satya NadellaAge 50William Gates IIIAge 62John ThompsonAge 68Charles NoskiAge 64Helmut Gunter PankeAge 71John StantonAge 62Teri List-StollAge 54Charles ScharfAge52Sandra PetersonAge58Padmasree WarriorAge 56Reid HoffmanAge 50Hugh JohnstonAge 55Penny PritzkerAge 58Arne SorensonAge 58Additional criteria on possible infringements of data privacy law are outlined in: Section.B.178 of the: California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986); detailing the legal prohibition of a third party from intercepting or disclosing electronic communications without authorisation from the data subject. It is my understanding upon reading the CECPA, that the status of my email accounts and their contents are also covered under section A.B.1541 as I am prevented from using my registered email addresses when combined with the correct password for access to my accounts. Indeed, the court may like to refer to: Senate Bill No.46 Chapter 396 of the State of California CivilCode2013 an act to amend Sections 1798.29 and 1798.82 of the Civil Code, relating to the retention of Personal Information and Data Privacy, by an agency, person or business in California in reference to a breach of the security of a computer system or personal data held within it. In this instance the security breaches would be the disconnection of my internet access and the rejection on input of my user identification codes and passwords for my email accounts and subsequent blocked email access. It should be noted by the court that the act stipulates that: ‘In the event of such security breaches being confirmed, the controller of the personal data is required to reveal any breach of the security of the system or data, to the person or organization whose data security is at risk or is believed to have been acquired by an unauthorized person’ or by an automated computer system. In particular, this applies to situations where a breach of data security involves the interception, retrieval and use thereafter of personal information that would permit access to an online email or other social media account by a third party.I would like a formal judicial recommendation to be made to both the Secretary of the Department of Justice and the Secretary of the Department of Business Oversight, in the state of California. I am advocating the passing of a future amendment to: Section 1798.29 of the State of California Civil Code relating to the retention and processing of personal information by a California based corporation. Subsequently matters can be sent to the Attorney General of the State of California with an additional recommendation that an amendment be made to the relevant act within the Californian Civil Code to include a clause which codifies the legal rights of overseas US and non US citizens, and foreign domiciled citizens resident in the state of California whose data is retained, processed and retransmitted over the internet or routed by telecommunications satellites owned by a US corporation with a fixed legal corporate identity and which is registered in the State of California for taxation purposes.Currently, individual citizens resident in the state of California and Californians who reside overseas or travel abroad for vacations, work or study, as well as other American citizens who use telecommunication services which are owned and controlled by Californian companies and who suffer a disconnection to their mobile telephony, or internet telecommunications, on for example a smartphone, kindle or a laptop computer or undergo a loss of their email services, resulting in a disruption to commercial or private activities, which may or may not include data loss; have limited enforceable rights of regulatory or statutory redress under either Californian consumer protection law or state data telecommunications legislation when their cause for complaint(s) arises irrespective of the location or locations. Californians arenot, it seems entitled to mandatory and equitable compensation, monetary or otherwise as justifiable payment for their inconvenience, loss of amenities and any resultant pecuniary disadvantage. So further legal remedies to protect Californians, and other American, digital data consumers are justifiably needed.At this juncture, I feel unfortunately, compelled to prepare you for my usage of a little more Latin, needed to emphasize a point of potential judicial deliberation on international law, the individual and the extent of territorial jurisdiction and whether such elements can be reenvisaged, interpreted and applied domestically in the state of California. Forthwith, it should be apparent to the court that the issues raised by the conduct of Microsoft Plc and Google LLC involve their international subsidiaries, based in the European Union. Most notably the Republic of Ireland. In light of such arrangements the, doctrinal legal principle of: erga omnes may have to be adopted in a mutually agreed manner to specifically enhance and protect the rights of individual citizens of the state of California and by implication, American citizens at home and abroad and non-Americans who use corporate services owned and supplied by American companies.The United States: Freedom of Information Act (1966) should in principle also apply in a US Federal civil law suit, involving myself as a single plaintiff or as a plaintiff likely to be cojoined with others in joint litigation against either Google LLC (Gmail); or Microsoft Plc/Ltd (MSN/Hotmail) or both. On this issue the advisory directions of the court as to the applicability of the of the Act may prove invaluable during the pretrial period. As the email blockage dispute involving Google(Gmail) relates to the activities of a United States company headquartered in California, my complaint may, and I stress may, also relate under Californian law to plausible grounds for civil litigation against Google LLC/Microsoft Plc under the: California Public Records Act (1968).To take this argument a stage further, the court might like to consider judicial rulings and statutory orders made under European Union legislative statutes, and European Union individual member state territorial bylaws, the state of California Civil Code, and United States federal law. In the first instance, it might well be the case that, Gmail, and MSN/Hotmail are in breach of the: United Kingdom Data Protection Act (1998/2018) and the UK General Data Protection Regulations Act 2018, in that they are restricting my rights as an individual to make a Subject Access Request regarding my own data as defined under the Act. Their actions amount to a clear breach of the legislation. As stated earlier it has to be recognised that neither corporation has taken the requisite technical and organizational security measures to prevent the unauthorized or unlawful processing, transfer, loss or destruction of personal data. Both corporations should be aware that the precourt settlement of UK Data Protection claims, are, referred to in European Union law on Alternative Dispute Resolution, and, supervened under: Article 15 of the European Union General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR 2018) which emphasises my rights as a data subject, to access my own data, and to be informed if such data is being shared with 3rdparties. A comparison with California and United States federal data law, on the sharing of data information with 3rd parties may also be regarded as appropriate by the court. All of my Gmail, and MSN/Hotmail email accounts and auxiliary records, such as the starting date of each contract, and which were stored on an updated Cray or an old IBM mainframe server before, on or after the 1st of May 2018 will have to be intact when my accounts are restored. Upon reviewing each agreed contract, I have determined that there is an absence of justifiable cause for the cessation of each internet service. I have committed no contractual infringements that would legally permit any of the providers to cease supplying their services with or without notification. I am not suggesting that it is illegal, for an email provider or internet service provider to act arbitrarily and without notice to interrupt internet or email telecommunications access. It is legal to do so, under particular circumstances as prescribed by Californian, United States, and individual European Union territories law. However, I am, in contravention, asserting that there are no legal grounds for preventing my internet and email access under Californian Law, United States Federal Law, or European Union law as introduced by the European Union Parliament or the European Commission or by the legislature of individual European Union member states. There have been no infringements by myself of laws, that relate to the illegal misuse of methods of telecommunications or forming and sending or attempting to send transmittable data of a malcontent and unlawful nature, be it crypted or unencrypted. Generally applicable prescriptive telecommunications and data protection legislation in the European Union and the United States relates to the prevention of a number of categories of auditory, visual, tactile telecommunicated acts, data transmissions, or, micro-transactions (including touch screen communications) and allows the permissibility of lawful intervention by a state agency, a service provider or a citizen. Disruptive methods employed include the retention of social media, or email data or the blocking of the transmission retransmission of stored data held in a social media or email account. Such interruptions are usually carried out, as we know, to prevent relayed data transmissions that would lead to a foreseeable threat to public safety or in extreme cases leading to a state of emergency. Restrictions on data transmission can also be employed to foreclose on telecommunications activities that could lead to or encourage the possible moral degeneration of a minor. Intervention may also be required to desist data transmissions that provide information that would assist in the abscontion of a suspect or a fugitive. There are also other generally specified or unspecified consensual legal grounds for intervention that reoccur from time to time within the jurisdiction of the state of California, or under the encompassing remit of United States federal legislation, or within the shared judicial territories of the European Union and which are all currently, valid legal reasons for intervention in telecommunications transmissions. However, the legal proviso to be considered here by all jurists, state agencies and citizens contemplating the sanctioning or legitimising of an intervention in data transmissions is, one of fidelity to lawful convention, and therefore interference in telecommunications and data displays should be justifiable, lawful and proportionate.Moreover, it should be noted that: Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) (15 USC §45)expressively states in clausal form the illegality of: ‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, by a corporation and which causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to a consumer, and cannot be reasonably avoided by a consumer’. Its utility as a practical piece of data transmission law may need to be examined by the Bureau of Consumer Protection and members of Congress in the state of California. An amended state legislative codicil should be introduced into the California Civil Code based in part on the FTC Act. Guidelines, should be centered on the settlement of complaints by individuals wishing to litigate (including the self-employed) citing infringements of their contractual and commercial rights by corporations, or public authorities accused of using unfair, or deceptive practices or both. Public policy, as established by statute, regulation, or judicial decisions made in court, may be considered withall other evidence in determining whether, assuming intent can be proven, or negligence established, a particular corporate act, omission or practice falls outside the boundaries of legality.To encourage the expediation of the prompt lifting of restrictions on my ability to access my Gmail, and MSN/Hotmail registered email accounts(which are, as stated previously, in effect United States public, records); If the matters in dispute are not resolved by an exchange of particulars, within the next 28 days then either myself or an attorney acting on my behalf may retain the right to request, or petition (as I believe it is termed) the bench requesting that the prospective plaintiffs are made aware of the requirement that they comply with the law regarding the full disclosure, of any court, FBI, NSA or police orders issued in the State of California. This legal stricture applies to both Google LLC and Microsoft Plc and imposes an obligation on them to reveal any known court orders, police requests or directives from a state agency, in the European Union, sent to state authorities in California requesting the restricting of the disclosure of my registered email accounts and their content and any other associated public records. It also places the onus on Google LLC and Microsoft Plc to release upon request all available evidence supporting a European Union state, Californian or United States government agency’s decision of nondisclosure of my email account records.In cases where there have been legal precedential court rulings on the extent of the territorial remit of US law enforcement the court may like to review the declaratory judgement in the case of: US v Watchmakers of Switzerland Information Center Inc. 133 F Supp 40(1955), where certain activities undertaken by a US corporation put it in conflict with US legislation at the federal or municipal level. A similar legal principle was applied in the European Union legal theatre in respect of the questionable conduct of company subsidiaries in the case of: A Ahlstrom Oy V Commission [1988] ECR 5193. The court may also refer to the U.S Supreme Court appeal case ruling in the case of: United States v Microsoft Corp (2017); and the ultimate judgement of the bench, regarding the extraterritorial rights of US law enforcement agencies seeking to retrieve electronic data from an obstructive data holder Microsoft Corp, under: Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act(SCA,1986), which set a legal precedent requiring American companies to produce remote data of which it has full control, when it is stored on servers outside of the United States, with no territorial limitations through the serving of SCA warrants. As I understand the matter, the FBI can ask for the creation of a mutual legal assistance treaty between the United States and another nation to assist in their data recovery during an investigation which requires cross-border law enforcement. Unfortunately, the right to use similar cross border legal entitlements and arrangements, are not legalities extended to Californian citizens.Expanding the remit of international law enforcement and cooperation on telecommunications and data mutual legal assistance treaties will need the inclusion as cosignatories of a number of nations who have not yet signed a joint protocol with the United States. Any new agreements that can be reached should provide legal coverage and protection for individual private US citizens involved in data and telecommunications disputes outside of the United States. These proposals will need to be considered in committee by Californian State and US Federal legislators.As the court knows the remit of the SCA has been superceeded and amended through the introduction by the United States Congress of the: Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act H.R.4943 (Cloud Act 2018) a piece of legislation which allows US federal law enforcement agencies to compel US registered technology and telecommunications and data companies to provide requested data stored on a server on demand. Or require a corporation to supply the data upon receiving an appropriate warrant or subpoena irrespective of whether the data is stored in the United States or in a foreign territory. Further supersucession in law, on the range of both the CECPA and the CLOUD Act, is needed. A clarifying piece of legislation can be introduced by the state of California to incorporate a clause which caters for the legal entitlements of individual Californian citizens in relation to data processing and information transfer. New statutory changes to Californian law will need to be capable of being interpreted by an attorney or a court as legislative enactments which pair the rights of the individual in the state of California with the entitlements given to various States, Federal, civil, criminal and financial law enforcement agencies. Of course the implied complexity, in introducing new legislation at each level of the American legal system and the rigor needed to uphold such enactments will vary. Regardless of such minor impediments, in my opinion these future rights should be mandatory entitlements for all Californian and American citizens unless prescribed by statute and lawful reasons apply for statutory restrictions.Indeed, the court may like to refer to: Senate Bill No.46 of the State of California Civil Code regarding the retention of Personal Information and Data Privacy, in reference to a breach of the security of a system or its’ data, in this instance the disconnection of my internet access and the rejection on input of my user identification codes and passwords for my email accounts and blocked email access. I would like a formal judicial recommendation to be made to both the Secretary of the Department of Justice and the Secretary of the Department of Business Oversight, in the state of California advocating the passing of a future amendment to: Section 1798.29 of the State of California Civil Coderelating to the retention and processing of personal information by a California based corporation. Subsequently matters can be sent to the California state Attorney General with an additional recommendation that an amendment be made to the relevant act within the California Civil Code to include a clause which codifies the legal rights of overseas US and non US citizens, and foreign domiciled citizens resident in the state of California whose data is retained, processed and retransmitted over the internet or routed by telecommunications satellite owned by a US corporation which has a fixed legal corporate identity and is registered in California for the purpose of taxation.Microsoft Plc and Google LLC have both been involved in a clear abrogation of their legal contractual obligations. Citizens of the state of California, the United States, and European Union member states, local legislators and the judicial wing of the European Commission and Parliament have a clear legal interest in discouraging, preventing and if necessary, punishing such conduct. A breach of contract in relation to an agreement entered into by a European Union citizen, a Californian citizen and a United States corporation, regardless of whether the breach is carried out by a European registered subsidiary of the said United States company, in European Union territory or the breach is due to the actions of the US parent company, is a matter of interest to Californian citizens, state legislators, consumer protection organizations and citizens of the rest of the United States and to citizens of the European Union.In summation, I believe that I have not only made a compelling case in law against Microsoft Plc and Google but in addition, I have laid out reasonable grounds for the further harmonization of the law in California in relation to mobile telecommunications issues, and data disputes concerning the misuse of data, its’ loss, or inaccessibility and unwarranted interventions in data transmission when such incidents take place outside of the United States.It would be appreciated if the Department of Legal Affairs of the state of California, could take note of my opinions, and liaise with the DOJ and DOBO; and, the Sacremento Superior Court could forward my letter of complaint in the appropriate manner, to the head of Data Control/Legal Affairs at the Microsoft Corporation, Headquarters at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-6399.Yours SincerelyDr William F FearonCC: A. France and Sons, London, EnglandCC: Legal Department, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern CaliforniaCC: Legal Department, Royal Society of Medicine, London, EnglandCC: Washington State Bar AssociationCC: A. Cheater, The Hundred, EnglandCC: CEN-CENELEC Management Centre, Brussels, BelgiumCC: Administrative Office of the Courts, Olympia, Washington State, USACC: Brain and Gamble, London, England