One of the internet's most hated and annoying bits of software, and one that endlessly needs updating due to security holes being endlessly exploited by bad guys, is finally going to die a long and slow death over the next three years. Adobe, the makers of the Flash software that first allowed the internet to sparkle and move about two decades back, will no longer be updating or distributing Flash as of 2020, as they announced here on Tuesday.

This of course means you'll still be dealing with it as a browser extension for a while now, but perhaps fewer and fewer advertisers and developers will use it for anything. Adobe itself acknowledges that the software is all but obsolete because of several other developments in recent years.

"As open standards like HTML5, WebGL and WebAssembly have matured over the past several years, most now provide many of the capabilities and functionalities that plugins [like Flash] pioneered and have become a viable alternative for content on the web."

The reason, as many in the development and IT communities know, is that Flash has been a special favorite of hackers, which is part of the reason we end up being prompted to update it so often on various browsers — though apparently, as Wired explains, Microsoft's Internet Explorer is really the only browser that still fully supports and relies on Flash.

Apple famously decided not to include Flash as part of its iOS for the iPhone because Steve Jobs himself hated it, despite the company's long relationship with Adobe. And Google's Chrome has long included Flash within its software, rather than as an extension, making it "a bit more secure" according to OSX Daily, with updates happening automatically whenever you restart Chrome.

As Consumerist notes, Flash lovers (whoever they are!) still have some time to use the tool and migrate stuff to those other, open-source tools.

And then they post this joke, which of course I do not get, but perhaps some of you will.

A recent investigation alleges that San Francisco-based company Cloudflare provides extremist websites with data delivery services and delivers the contact information of people who complain about hate speech to the hate spewers. As a result, some of those who have complained have allegedly been subjected to harassment.

According to ProPublica, who wrote about Cloudflare's alleged issues in a recent article, an attorney for the company named Doug Kramer explained that it's cool if they turn over the names and emails of folks who dared to complain because it is "base constitutional law that people can face their accusers."

In court, Doug. You can face your accuser in court. Also, brief Googling indicates that the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment only applies to criminal cases.

Cloudflare's clients include the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer, The Right Stuff, Iron March, American Renaissance and Storefront. According to Cloudflare, they also have mainstream clients like OK Cupid and the FBI. (Wait, wha? The FEDS?)

"We've got 6 million customers," said Kramer. "It's easy to find these edge cases."

With so many customers, it probably wouldn't make much of a dent to get rid of the "edge cases." But unlike Google, Amazon Web Services, and GoDaddy, Cloudflare is reportedly not making an effort to shed customers who host hate speech websites.

Oh, except one: when asked by ProPublica, Kramer said Cloudflare would not accept ISIS as a client, but only because there are laws against helping terrorism.

You can read the entire ProPublica investigation here.

Friday's attack on critical internet infrastructure is likely the first of many, with a hacking group claiming responsibility and saying that it was only a test and that another larger attack is still to come. So reports the Associated Press, which notes that the method used by the attackers relied on unsecured "internet of things" devices and cannot be easily stopped.

The attack on Dyn, a New Hampshire-based company tied to the Domain Name System, meant browsers were essentially unable to find their intended destination. According to the company, DNS turns web addresses like "twitter.com" into a machine-readable IP address — with that service down, sites such as Twitter, Netflix, and Spotify couldn't be located. In attacking one company, Dyn, the hackers were thus able to prevent access to other websites that rely on Dyn's DNS services.

As Krebs On Security reports, hackers likely used a botnet that consisted of compromised devices like internet CCTV's to launch a distributed denial of service attack (DDoS). Because many of these devices are shipped with default passwords, and because consumers often fail to change those passwords, hackers can easily gain control over the cameras.

The group New World Hackers claimed responsibility for the attack in a Twitter message, and told a reporter with the AP via direct message that they don't really have any beef with Dyn. Rather, they just wanted to get everyone's attention and prep for an upcoming attack. "Twitter was kind of the main target," someone who identified him or herself as "Prophet" wrote. "It showed people who doubted us what we were capable of doing, plus we got the chance to see our capability."

Prophet also reportedly told the same reporter that the next target would be aimed at the Russian government.

Regardless of the truth of Prophet's claims, Krebs On Security warns us that attacks like the one we saw Friday are likely to become more common in the future. Malware by the named of Mirai, which is believed to have been used to harness the IoT botnet, has been released publicly and is rather low-tech to employ.

So, in other words, get used to a future where your internet-enabled refrigerator ruins your ability to Netflix and chill.

Previously: Twitter, Spotify And Other Sites Suffered Outages Due To DDOS Attacks

A number of websites, including Twitter, SoundCloud, Spotify and Github, were down this morning, apparently due to a DDOS attack on the DNS provider Dyn that mostly affected the East Coast of the country. Dyn now says, "Services have been restored to normal as of 13:20 UTC" (9:20 a.m. EST/6:20 a.m. PST).

Earlier, the provider said, "Starting at 11:10 UTC [7:10 a.m. EST / 4:10 a.m. PST] on October 21st-Friday 2016 we began monitoring and mitigating a DDoS attack against our Dyn Managed DNS infrastructure. Some customers may experience increased DNS query latency and delayed zone propagation during this time. Updates will be posted as information becomes available," and then updated, "This attack is mainly impacting US East and is impacting Managed DNS customers in this region. Our Engineers are continuing to work on mitigating this issue."

As Gizmodo explains, "Domain Name Servers (DNS) act as the Internet’s phone book. Basically, they facilitate your request to go to a certain webpage and make sure you are taken to the right place. If the DNS provider that handles requests for Twitter is down, well, good luck getting to Twitter. Some websites are coming back for some users, but it doesn’t look like the problem is fully resolved."

Sites ranging from IHeartRadio, Airbnb and the NY Times to Wired, Reddit and Etsy suffered outages.

Update: A second round of outages among the same sites swept the West Coast later this morning. From Dyn, the DNS provider that was the target of the original attack: "As of 15:52 UTC [11:52 a.m. EST / 8:52 a.m. PST], we have begun monitoring and mitigating a DDoS attack against our Dyn Managed DNS infrastructure. Our Engineers are continuing to work on mitigating this issue."

The issue is still being mitigated but appears mostly resolved, with Twitter, for example, back up after an outage for West Coast users.

Wired points out that Dyn’s principal data analyst Chris Baker wrote a blog post just yesterday titled "Recent IoT-based Attacks: What Is the Impact On Managed DNS Operators?" There, Baker writes, "As the Internet grows to support more people and societal functions its perceived criticality increases, but its core architecture remains designed for openness and not security." So it would seem.

Update: In the wake of the attack, Kyle York, Dyn’s chief strategist, told the New York Times that “The number and types of attacks, the duration of attacks and the complexity of these attacks are all on the rise.” Yet "This was not your everyday DDoS attack," York added. "The nature and source of the attack is still under investigation.” Dyn is working with law enforcement officials, York says, to ascertain what that nature and source might be.

When a San Francisco family was reportedly kicked off a plane over their child's peanut allergy, their story received national attention. But now, says the kid's father, the family is getting virulent hate mail on the subject — no, not just nasty comments or Facebook mentions (both of which are distressingly common in this day and age) — some people were so incensed by the fairly benign story that they tracked the family down and started sending them angry emails.

Here's how it all began: Bay Area parents Kyson and Sara Dana had just boarded a flight from Provo to Oakland Monday, when Sara informed a flight attendant that their two-year-old son, Theo, had a severe allergy to peanuts.

"My son has a peanut allergy, is there anything you can do, like can you not serve peanuts around us, is there anything you can do to help accommodate for that?" Kyson told Fox 13 his wife asked the attendant on the Allegiant Air flight.

"My wife said, 'We're obviously flying on the plane, and we recognize the risks. We have an EpiPen with us,'" Kyson says.

When they got to their seats, Fox 13 reports, the parents "wiped their seats down with the sanitation wipes and got settled in," as a second flight attendant notified those seated around the Dana family of the peanut situation "And it seemed like the situation was resolved."

But then a third flight attendant told them "We've spoken to... the pilot, and we are going to have you removed from the plane," Kyson says, claiming to him that they had spoken with a medical professional and determined that allowing them to fly would be unsafe.

Following the incident, Allegiant first seemed contrite, with a spokesperson telling the Danas "allow me to offer my sincere apology for the inconveniences this incident has caused for you and your family...We regret that you were denied boarding due to any misunderstanding regarding the severity of your child’s peanut allergy."

The airline took a harder line when contacted by CNN, which picked up the story this morning. In a written statement to the broadcast network, the airline said that "The Dana family indicated to our flight crew that their son had a severe peanut allergy. The flight crew then contacted a third party organization that advises Allegiant and other carriers when making decisions about the safety of passengers with potential medical issues onboard an aircraft...The third party organization, which includes on-call medical doctors available to provide guidance, advised that the family not fly on that specific flight."

The airline gave the Danas "tickets on another carrier," Allegiant told CNN, but according to Fox 13 it was "a generous Provo Airport worker" who "secured them a new flight at no cost and with a different airline, then personally drove them to the Salt Lake City International Airport to fly home."

It was that CNN attention, as well as, I suspect, the patriarch's easily-googleable name that led to this story's rather odd postscript. Kyson Dana, a SF-based UX and visual designer, quite reasonably has a personal website in which his contact details are easily found. From there, it appears, some opted to drop him a line...mainly to tell him to shove it. For example, this email, which Dana tweeted:

According to American Board of Allergy and Immunology Certified allergist Dr. Kay Walker, who spoke to Fox 13, the Danas weren't actually being "drama momma"s, the airline was. Characterizing the Danas' rejection from the flight as "unreasonable," Walker says that plane passengers with peanut allergies are always advised to "alert the airline, wipe the seat area down with sanitation wipes, and avoid eating airline food," making the Danas' behavior pretty normal.

If one takes those steps, they should be safe to fly, Walker says, though nut dust, "when it settles, could possibly harm you--even though that is also rare."

Less rare, it seems is the ire of people eager to castigate a parent for their efforts to care for their child. Hang in there, Dana family, and take comfort in the knowledge that every one of these angry emailers lives a life significantly sadder than yours.

Legislation currently being considered before the state assembly would give certain judges the authority to fine jurors whose internet use puts the integrity of a trial in question. What's more, the Associated Press reports that going forward, being an internet addict might be enough to get you bumped from a trial.

Paula Hannaford-Agor, Director of the Center for Juries Studies at the Nation Center for State Courts, suggested that those who can't help themselves from accessing the internet may just be sent home. “If you have an internet addict who just can't psychologically stop, you may want to excuse that person,” she explained to the AP.

As noted by the AP, a 2011 state law means that "improper electronic or wireless communication or research by a juror" is already punishable with a contempt charge. However, that was rarely done as it is a bureaucratically time-consuming process, and so the new legislation would lower the barrier for censuring jurors.

"It's disruptive of the judicial process, and there ought to be a fairly simple and convenient way for a judge to sanction a juror based on the order that the judge has given,” Assemblyman Rich Gordon (D-Menlo Park), who authored the legislation, explained. Fines could be as high as $1,500 for any juror that looks up information about the case online, or who otherwise engages in inappropriate digital activity.

If passed, the new law will first undergo a five-year pilot program in selected areas throughout the state.

Related: Is It Possible To Truly Go On Vacation Anymore Unless You're Off The Grid?

Perhaps reinforcing the idea that the divide between the haves and have-nots of San Francisco is very stark and wide these days, a new report by the city estimates that about an eighth of the population here, or 100,000 people, lack internet connections in their homes. It's a surprising figure just given how techie San Francisco is portrayed as being these days, but this almost crazier: There are some 50,000 people who are still on dial-up connections! Dial-up!

Anyone old enough to remember this?

It should go without saying, but the report confirms that those without home internet connections tend to have lower incomes, and are typically older, less educated, and/or are people of color.

The study was done by city budget analyst Harvey Rose, and as the Examiner reports, it was requested by Supervisor Eric Mar after the Mayor submitted his five-year technology plan, which was part of the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Mar says "The city can have a much broader vision of digital inclusion like we did years ago," and he's hoping that the mayor will champion a plan for a municipal broadband network — something that was previously studied back in 2007 at the request of then supervisor Tom Ammiano.

Affordability and accessibility of good internet service were cited as the main reasons for not having connections. A municipal broadband network, while expensive, would potentially level the field for people in providing discounted broadband connections, and provide a new revenue stream for the city.

Currently, the mayor has no plan for a municipal broadband network — and that free citywide wi-fi we were promised years ago never really materialized, though there is city-sponsored free wi-fi in 32 public parks and along the Market Street corridor, though it doesn't always work. It was estimated, at least eight years ago, that a citywide municipal broadband network would cost $560 million and take 15 years to construct. Mar hopes it could still happen within 10 years.

Read the full report embedded here.

Getting parking tickets blows, even the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's chief admits. But getting them when you're not even at fault? That blows even more, which is why the SFMTA says that they're now enabling you to fight your wrongful tickets online — but, sadly, only to a point, after which the MTA's trademark inefficiency again rears its ugly head.

Let's be clear: this isn't for moving violations (aka "speeding tickets") or other citations you'd get from a cop. This is a system to protest tickets you'd get from an SFMTA staffer, like meter maids or fare inspectors.

The new online protest "portal" (which you can find here), can be used to replace the old first battle in your slog of a fight against the MTA's whims, a written protest you had to mail — like a caveman — to their Van Ness offices.

Now, says the MTA, you can submit all your evidence that the ticket you got (for fare evasion, parking, etc) is bullshit online.

Of course, this is still going to be a huge pain in the ass, don't be fooled. After all, the SFMTA says, it'll take them at least six to eight weeks to respond to your initial ticket rebuttal.

And that's when the system kind of breaks down, for after that "results of the administrative review will be mailed [Ed note: NOT emailed] to the person submitting the protest. All other correspondence regarding payment due and collections will be mailed to the vehicle’s registered owner only. It is important to ensure that mailing information with the Department of Motor Vehicles is correctly and promptly updated."

And, of course, if they deny your, uh, denial, you'll need to request a hearing. Think you can do that online? Think again, sucker! The MTA says that "requests for hearings, which are the second step in the protest process and provide customers with a second opportunity to discuss their citation with a hearing officer, will continue to be accepted by written request only through U.S. mail or in-person at the SFMTA Customer Service Center."

Laughably, Ed Reiskin, the SFMTA's Director of Transportation says via press release, “Getting a ticket is unpleasant enough...By making the protest process more efficient through technology, we hope to reduce the need for customers to endure a burdensome paper process.”

We'll leave it to you to decide if this one small step qualifies as "making the protest process more efficient through technology." But from where I'm sitting, this seems like another case of the MTA making one sad, shuffling step forward, only to take a few more back.

You can try the protest portal here. Let us know how it goes!

In a move that really should have happened sooner, Facebook will now let you block articles and content from individual sites that you'd just rather not see in your news feed anymore. It may very well save countless friendships that might otherwise be soured by an overload of Internet quiz results.

Blocking by site works exactly the same way as blocking your Tea Party cousin who shares all the chemtrail videos, except it puts a stop to everything coming from the specific site without actually unfriending them. That way you get to keep all the baby pictures and vacation photos, without all the bull.

Now that we've been blessed with this godsend from Menlo Park, you can ban whatever site you like the next time an offender pops up: just click the down arrow on the top-right of the post and click "Hide all from [Sitename]." Then sit back and enjoy the zen-like tranquility of your news feed.

[H/t: On The Media]

Nope, it's not just you, Facebook is currently experiencing some technical difficulties. Around 6 p.m. PST, the site was merely showing an error page, denying scroll-happy users immediate access to their friend's recent activity, Instagram shares and, yes, possibly even this very post. Feel free to panic as you see fit. Or just go read a book.

Internet downtime watchdog site Downrightnow.com confirms, as does AllThingsD, where they're getting the same "Sorry, something went wrong" message.

We will, of course, update you when we find out more. But how will you know? Twitter, we suppose.

Update: Although it looks like the outage is still going on 40 nightmarish minutes for some, Facebook appears to be online for most users. Carry on folks. Tend to your farms and whatnot.