If you want a job that rides the wave of the future, get hired by a firm that combats cyber-threats.
Criminal and malicious hackers are endlessly inventive and every day despatch novel viruses and other digital threats into cyber-space to wreak havoc.
Getting paid to tackle these is about as cutting edge as you can get.
One emerging discipline in this field of cyber-incident response tackles the most skilled and serious of these hackers - those who work for nation-states.
The UK's GCHQ now estimates that 34 separate nations have serious, well-funded cyber-espionage teams targeting friends and foes alike.
The threat from these state-sponsored digital spies has been deemed so serious that the intelligence agency has designated five firms victims can all on if they are caught out by these attackers.
"We get called when people have a big fire and we come along with our hoses and try to put it out," says James Allman-Talbot, head of incident response in the cyber-security division of BAE Systems.
"We're like the fire service," says BAE's James Allman-Talbot
That captures the fact that, more often than not, the fire brigade arrive to find a building still in flames. When it comes to cyber-fires, that means the hackers are still embedded in a victim's network and are still trying to steal data or burrow more deeply.
Unlike the fire service, the BAE team do not arrive in a blaze of lights and sirens. They have to be more stealthy.
"If the attackers have access to the victim's email servers the last thing you want to do is discuss it on there," says Robin Oldham, head of the cyber-security consulting practice at BAE, who is also part of the incident response team.
Tipping off the bad guys could prompt them to delete evidence or, if they have more malicious motives, shut down key systems and destroy data, he says.
Instead, responders first gather evidence to see how bad the incident is and how far the hackers have penetrated a network.
It's at this point that the team use the skills picked up during earlier careers. All of the team have solid technical computer skills to which they have added particular specialities.
Responders first gather evidence to see how bad the incident is and how far the hackers have penetrated a network
Prior to working at BAE, Mr Allman-Talbot did digital forensics for the Metropolitan Police and Mr Oldham has significant experience running large complex networks.
The good news about most organisations is that they typically gather lots of information about their network and often it is anomalies in the logs that expose suspicious activity.
But that extensive logging has a down side, says Mr Oldham.
"It can mean we have a large amount of data to work with and analyse. In some cases that means a few hundred million lines of log files."
Once incident response teams get their hands on data from a victim they start analysing it to see what has happened.
It's at this point that the allied discipline of threat intelligence comes into play. This involves knowing the typical attack tools and techniques of different hacking groups.
A stealthy response to an incident is key, says Robin Oldham
Good threat intelligence can mean responders hit the ground running, says Jason Hill, a researcher at security firm CyberInt.
"If you understand how they operate and deploy these tools and use them to attack the infrastructure you know what to look and how to spot the tell-tale signs."
In the past, nation state hackers have tried to bury themselves in a target network and siphon off data slowly.
"Criminal hackers have a more smash and grab mentality. They do it once and do it big," he says.
More recently, he adds, it has got harder to separate the spies from the cyber-thieves.
One example was the attack on Bangladesh's central bank - widely believed to have been carried out by North Korea. It netted the rogue state about £58m ($81m).
Russian groups also span both sides of the divide. Some criminal groups have been seen working for the state and often they use the tools gained in spying for other jobs.
North Korea is widely believed to have been behind an attack on Bangladesh's central bank
"The motivations of the groups have really become blurry of late," says Mr Hill.
Attribution - working out which group was behind a breach - can be difficult, says Mr Allman-Talbot, but spotting that one attack shares characteristics with several others can guide the investigators.
One widespread attack, dubbed Cloud Hopper, sought to compromise companies selling web-based services to large businesses. Getting access to a service provider could mean that the attackers then got at all its customers.
Thoroughly investigated by BAE and others, Cloud Hopper has been blamed on one of China's state-backed hacking groups known as APT10 and Stone Panda. Knowing how they got at a victim can help free the hackers' hold on a network and reveal all the places that need cleaning up.
Even with up-to-date intelligence on attack groups and their chosen methods, there will still be unanswered questions thrown up by an investigation, says Mr Allman-Talbot.
The joy of the job comes from during investigations as the team figures out how the bad guys got in, what they did and what data they got away with, he adds.
Four quotes were taken from the interview to infer Facebook's role in Donald Trump's 2016 US election victory, such as "Facebook was our hands-on partner," and "Without Facebook we wouldn't have won," coupled with the call to #DeleteFacebook in response.
This seemed to be the starting point for people to begin expressing their desire to leave Facebook, with blink-182's Mark Hoppus amassing over 6,000 likes in 24 hours for simply tweeting the words "Delete Facebook".
But the irony of using one social media account to decry another was not lost on some people.
Neither Twitter nor Instagram are accused of using personal data in a similar way to the dispute concerning Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, although one person suggested an extreme approach to data security as the solution.
If you are worried about companies using data to target you, then you need to delete your Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and Snapchat and stop buying things from Amazon and stop searching with Google and cancel all your credit cards and stop donating to charity and cancel mag
If you want to delete Facebook, go ahead. Just know that's a privilege.
For much of the world, Facebook is the internet and only way to connect to family/friend/business. That's why its important to have a real discussion re Facebook's security/privacy issues.
Click edit button under Apps, Websites and Plugins
This will mean that you won't be able to use third-party sites on Facebook and if that is is a step too far, there is a way of limiting the personal information accessible by apps while still using them:
Log into Facebook's App settings page
Unclick every category you don't want the app to access, which includes bio, birthday, family, religious views, if you are online, posts on your timeline, activities and interests
Digital fingerprints are getting bigger as people share more information online
There are some others pieces of advice too.
"Never click on a 'like' button on a product service page and if you want to play these games and quizzes, don't log in through Facebook but go directly to the site," said Paul Bernal, a lecturer in Information Technology, Intellectual Property and Media Law in the University of East Anglia School of Law.
"Using Facebook Login is easy but doing so, grants the app's developer access to a range of information from their Facebook profiles," he added.
How else can you protect your Facebook data?
There really is only one way to make sure your data remains entirely private, thinks Dr Bernal. "Leave Facebook."
"The incentive Facebook will have to protect people more will only come if people start leaving. Currently it has very little incentive to change," he told the BBC.
But Dr Bernal acknowledges that it is unlikely many will quit - especially those who see Facebook as "part of the infrastructure of their lives".
Can you find out what data on you is stored?
Mr Schrems has been involved in a series of complaints against Facebook since 2011
Under current data protection rules, users can make a Subject Access Request to individual firms to find out how much information they have on them.
When Austrian privacy advocate Max Schrems made such a request to Facebook in 2011, he was given a CD with 1,200 files stored on it.
He found that the social network kept records of all the IP addresses of machines he used to access the site, a full history of messages and chats, his location and even items that he thought he had deleted, such as messages, status updates and wall posts.
But in a world where Facebook information is shared more widely with third parties, making such a request gets harder.
As Dr Bernal says: "How do you ask for your data when you don't know who to ask?"
That is likely to change this summer with the introduction in Europe of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which aims to make it far easier for users to take back control of their data.
The threat of big fines for firms that do not comply with such requests could make it more likely that they will share this information, which must be given to consumers "in a clear and readable form".
How long is data kept?
Can you remove your profile from social media?
Data protection laws in Europe suggest that firms should only keep user data "as long as necessary" but the interpretation of this can be very flexible.
In Facebook's case, this means that as long as the person posting something does not delete it, it will remain online indefinitely.
Can you delete historic data?
Users can delete their accounts, which in theory will "kill" all their past posts but Facebook encourages those who wish to take a break from the social network simply to deactivate them, in case they wish to return.
And it must be remembered that a lot of information about you will remain on the platform, from the posts of your friends.
One of the biggest changes of GDPR will be the right for people to be forgotten and, under these changes it should, in theory, be much easier to wipe your social network or other online history from existence.
Despite the failure of Google Glass, the company is still investing in augmented reality
Blue Vision's augmented reality app in action
Google has confirmed plans to plough $14.5 million into augmented reality (AR) software start-up Blue Vision Labs.
GV, Google's investment arm, better known by its former name of Google Ventures, along with private equity firms Accel, Horizon Ventures and SV Angel have all invested in the company.
Based in the UK, the company is working on a collaborative augumented reality platform that will enable experiences similar to Nintendo's Pokemon Go.
The company explained that it will use the investment to create a new cloud AR platform that enables users to create and share interactive AR experiences using their smartphone cameras.
This will be one of the company's first major products since 2011. It is looking to tap into what it claims is the growing popularity of mobile AR gaming and AR entertainment applications.
It recently detailed the Blue Vision AR Cloud platform, which "enables the building of city-wide, shared and persistent applications where everyone sees the same thing for the very first time".
Peter Ondruska, co-founder and CEO of Blue Vision Labs, explained: "We are opening it for developers to help them redefine how people interact with their technology, their environment, and each other in gaming, social and collaborative AR applications that were previously impossible to build."
In the future, users of the platform will be able to interact with AR objects in real-life settings. These will be placed throughout the app by collaborators.
The experience will work in a similar way to Pokemon Go, but the main difference is that the designers of the latter are responsible for distributing objects.
Blue Vision Labs is also working on AR developer tools. "It took us years to perfect this technology and we are making it available today," wrote Ondruska in a blog post.
"With our easy-to-use SDK you can build shared and persistent AR experiences for multiple devices within minutes."
He said the company's recent investment will allow it to "empower developers to build widespread AR applications using our platform, and to grow our team".
Ondruska added: "We plan to use our underlying technology to open new possibilities in AI, machine learning, robotics, self-driving and other applications.
"Our goal is to enable a better future where both AR and robotics technologies can be enjoyed by everyone."
Mr Collins said reports by the Guardian and the Observer made it "clear that he [Mr Nix] has deliberately misled the committee and Parliament by giving false statements".
Cambridge Analytica has denied allegations that Mr Nix misled that committee.
Facebook claims Cambridge Analytica, among others, did not destroy all the data it obtained, which breached its policies.
The claims against the company rose to prominence after a former employee told the Guardian about his time at Cambridge Analytica.
Mr Collins also criticised Facebook, saying his committee had "repeatedly" asked the firm about how companies accessed user data from the website and if information had been taken without users' consent.
He claims that the firm "deliberately avoided answering straight questions" from the committee by sending witnesses who claimed not to know the answers.
"This also creates a false reassurance that Facebook's stated policies are always robust and effectively policed."
He also claimed Facebook had failed to supply evidence of the relationship between the social media platform and Cambridge Analytica.
"The reputation of this company is being damaged by stealth, because of their constant failure to respond with clarity and authority to the questions of genuine public interest that are being directed to them.
"Someone has to take responsibility for this."
A spokesperson for Facebook said that the data collection was not a hack or a breach.
"People knowingly provided their information, no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked," the company said.
Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker best known for passing on information that led to the arrest of Chelsea Manning, has died aged 37.
In online messaging conversations, Manning confided in him, describing confidential military material Manning had sent to Wikileaks.
Wikileaks published the video of a US helicopter strike that killed seven people, including a journalist working for the Reuters news agency.
The cause of Lamo’s death, confirmed to the BBC by the Sedgwick County coroner in Kansas, has not yet been made public.
On Facebook, his father Mario wrote: “With great sadness and a broken heart I have to let know all of Adrian's friends and acquittances [sic] that he is dead. A bright mind and compassionate soul is gone, he was my beloved son.”
Lamo's own record as a hacker included some high-profile targets, such as Microsoft and the New York Times.
Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is facing intensified calls to appear in person at investigations into the social network's conduct.
His company has been accused of failing to properly inform users that their profile information may have been obtained and kept by Cambridge Analytica, a data firm widely-credited with helping Donald Trump win the 2016 US presidential election.
Facebook said on Friday it had blocked Cambridge Analytica from Facebook while it investigated claims the London-based firm did not, as promised, delete data that was allegedly obtained using methods that were in violation of Facebook's policies.
Both Cambridge Analytica and Facebook deny any wrongdoing.
Despite pledging that in 2018 he would "fix" his company, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has managed to avoid engaging with the site's growing number of critics - instead sending lawyers or policy bosses to various committee hearings.
The 33-year-old's recent remarks on some of Facebook's controversies have been communicated in the relatively safe space of a blog post or video message published on his Facebook page.
Some called for investigations into whether Mr Zuckerberg's company may have violated laws governing disclosure of a data breach - and also rules on properly obtaining a user's consent to collect personal information.
"This is a major breach that must be investigated," demanded Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
"It’s clear these platforms can’t police themselves. I've called for more transparency and accountability for online political ads. They say 'trust us'."
She added: "Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify before Senate Judiciary."
'High on themselves'
That sentiment was backed by Adam Schiff, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which is already investigating social media manipulation in the run up to the 2016 presidential election.
"I think it would be beneficial to have him come testify before the appropriate oversight committees," he told the Washington Post.
"And not just Mark but the other CEOs of the other major companies that operate in this space."
On Sunday morning TV, Florida senator and former presidential hopeful Marco Rubio told NBC's Meet the Press he felt technology companies acted as if they are "above" regulations.
"Their growth has been a lot faster than perhaps their ability to mature institutionally from within on some of these challenges that they're facing," he said.
"I think another part about it is sometimes these companies grow so fast and get so much good press, they get up high on themselves that they start to think that perhaps they're above sort of the rules that apply to everybody else."
There are a lot of big problems that the big tech companies need to be better at fixing. We have collectively been too optimistic about what we build and our impact on the world. Believe it or not, a lot of the people at these companies, from the interns to the CEOs, agree.
This was followed by remarks from Alex Stamos, the firm's chief security officer, who wrote and then deleted a series of tweets. He objected to the word "breach" being used to describe how data from as many as 50 million peoples' user profiles may have been obtained without explicit user consent.
"I have deleted my tweets on Cambridge Analytica," he later wrote.
"Not because they were factually incorrect but because I should have done a better job weighing in."
Christopher Wylie, a Canadian data analytics expert who worked with Cambridge Analytica, revealed how it and its partners harvested data belonging to mostly US voters. Over the weekend, he announced he had been suspended from Facebook.
On top of its initial statement, Facebook on Sunday said it was conducting a "comprehensive internal and external review" into whether the data, gathered via an app created by Global Science Research (GSR), still existed.
GSR was set up by University of Cambridge associate professor Aleksandr Kogan and his colleague Joseph Chancellor. According to the Guardian, Mr Chancellor was given a job at Facebook as a researcher just months after GSR carried out the data-gathering exercise that Facebook now says violated its policies.
Facebook has not commented on the calls for Mr Zuckerberg to appear in front of the several committees expressing a desire to hear from him.
But one analyst warned that this controversy is a direct threat to Facebook's business model, and therefore Mr Zuckerberg will be expected to put investors at ease, sooner rather than later.
"This has potential to grow into something a lot more onerous," said Daniel Ives from GBH Insight.
"So he has to get ahead of this storm before it turns into a hurricane."
Twitter has regained its importance since Donald Trump’s election as the president of the USA. The US president likes to spread his opinion and often uses the social media platform, Twitter to do it. So that you don’t ever miss any of his ( and other important ) tweets ever again, there is now Twitter bookmarks.
With the new bookmarks feature, you can save tweets and read them later. Read on to find out how this works and what benefits it has.
The message service Twitter has been around for almost 12 years. The service has been under enormous pressure for just as long, due to profit issues. In the battle for user numbers, Twitter had repeatedly made changes. Recently, the number of characters was doubled from 140 to 280 – with success. The message service achieved its first quarterly profit at the end of 2017.
Thanks to Twitter Bookmarks you will now find tweets better.
Twitter bookmarks to tag tweets
Twitter keeps you up to date with the latest news. If you’re not online all the time, you may lose track of the news. Twitter bookmarks will now help against this. With them you can easily save tweets and read them later in peace.
Until now, you could only mark tweets with the public “Like it” button and save them for later retrieval. However, you don’t automatically like everything you want to read, so many users were not satisfied with this form of tagging.They needed a more private way to store messages. With the new Twitter Bookmarks this is possible. In contrast to the “Like” button, the author of the tweet will not get a message if you set the new Twitter bookmark.
Twitter bookmarks – how does it work?
One question remains: Where do you find the Twitter Bookmarks and how can you save tweets with them? First you have to update Twitter to make the bookmarking function possible.
If you want to save a tweet, click on the newly introduced “Share” icon in the selection “Add tweet to bookmarks”. You will find the “Share” icon on the right underneath the tweet. As soon as you have time to read your marked messages, you will see your personal list. There you will find all tweets saved with Twitter Bookmarks. And best of all, this list is only accessible via your user profile. This means that it is not open to the public, but your very own private reading list.
Favourites used as a bookmark feature
Until this update, which Twitter has now rolled out to all users, you could only save tweets with an asterisk under the “favourites”. However, the author of the tweet received a notification. Nevertheless, many users use this option as a bookmark function to find tweets and read them later. Recently when Twitter turned the star into a heart, many users asked themselves whether they marked a message with the heart for later reading only or whether the heart is equivalent to a “like”.
I once asked Alexa "what's the weather in Yemen" and got the reply: "'Das wetter' is German for 'the weather'."
And when I told Google to "play music in the kitchen", it responded by streaming Lee Brice's Songs In The Kitchen to a speaker in the dining room (congratulations, Lee, on your new royalty stream).
To find out which smart assistant was the smartest, I put each of the speakers to the test - posing 50 random questions on music, sport and general knowledge. Like all good quiz show hosts, I only accepted their first answer.
Alexa fared best, with 37 correct answers, followed by Google on 32, and Siri, which scored a lowly 27.
Apple's assistant was hobbled by its lack of integration with other apps - meaning it couldn't read my calendar or look up recipes.
When it came to music-related queries, however, Siri had more success.
For instance, the HomePod was the only speaker that could parse the command "play the James Bond theme next". Its competitors all tried to find a song called "James Bond Theme Next", failed, and gave up.
As you'll see, none of them are perfect - but smart speakers look set to replace the smartphone as the tech giants' biggest growth products.
Choosing the right one can be tricky. So here's our guide to the speakers, and how they might fit into your lifestyle.
Apple HomePod (£319)
Apple has arrived late to the smart speaker market, but not through laziness.
The HomePod has been in development since 2012, and boasts a unconventional design - with seven tweeters (the speakers that produce treble) arranged in a circle to project music into every nook and cranny of your house. The bass is also punchy and well-balanced, even at low volumes.
I found it worked better with acoustic, singer-songwriter material. Playing Regina Spektor's Samson, the HomePod championed the singer's vocals without losing the detail in her piano work. On a busier song like Stevie Wonder's Superstition, however, it struggled to pick out the star's intricate drumming.
It's also an incredibly insistent speaker - demanding your attention with a very "forward" soundstage. We found that was great in the hustle and bustle of a family kitchen, but less attractive when listening to music in bed at night.
One important note: You can't set up the HomePod unless you have an iPhone or an iPad. The speaker is then tethered to that device and certain functions, like updating your shopping list, only work when they can "see" each other.
HomePod is also completely loyal to Apple Music. You can't ask Siri to stream from Spotify or Deezer - although you can access them on your phone and beam them to the speaker.
Best for: Apple enthusiasts; audiophiles
Amazon Echo Plus (£139)
If you want a speaker that comes with a free light bulb, then Amazon's Echo Plus is your only choice.
The speaker aims to be a "home hub", controlling all sorts of connected devices, from your lights to your kettle. I wasn't able to test those abilities, though, as the BBC budget didn't stretch to buying me remote control curtains.
As a music player, the Echo Plus is competent but unspectacular - but it'd make an ideal replacement for a kitchen radio.
Alexa will happily stream from Spotify and Deezer, as well as Amazon's own Music Unlimited service - which you get at a discount if you purchase an Echo device.
It's particularly good at finding the music you want, even if you have a terrible memory. I managed to get Alexa to cue up Girls Aloud's Love Machine by asking, "What's the song that goes, 'Let's go, Eskimo?'"
One word of warning: Amazon's streaming service doesn't have a parental filter, so you're stuck with the explicit versions of the songs in their catalogue.
And now that Amazon has leased Alexa to other speaker manufacturers, there are better devices in a similar price range.
Best for: Casual listening, smart assistant abilities
Ultimate Ears Megablast (£199)
The Megablast is a long, tall cylinder of fun, available in a range of colours (our review unit was a lurid yellow, which I became weirdly fond of).
It gives out a bassy, fulsome sound; which goes up really, really loud without losing any finesse. You can use Alexa to play songs from Amazon Music Unlimited (but not Spotify yet), or simply use it as a bluetooth speaker to stream music directly from your phone.
Best of all, you can unplug it and take it to a party, with a generous battery life that means you won't be left tuneless when the clock strikes midnight. And it's waterproof, so it won't go kaput if you spill your drink.
On the downside, the microphone is poor at picking up your voice commands - especially when music is playing. And the charging port is awkwardly placed at the bottom of the speaker, meaning it has to be laid on its side when its plugged in, ruining the sound. (Ultimate Ears sells a separate charging dock, pictured above, for £35 if this is a deal-breaker).
Best for: Portability, volume
Sonos: One (£199)
Sonos are masters of multi-room audio, but the One is their first foray into smart speaker territory.
There's an intriguing set-up, where you're asked to wave your phone around the room while the unit emits a series of sci-fi bleeps and bloops.
This helps the speaker adapt to its environment and, to be fair, it performed admirably in our cluttered bedroom, with a weighty, dynamic delivery that belied its tiny size.
Superstition, which confounded Apple's HomePod, sounded bright and lively, with a deep, funky bass and plenty of breathing room for Stevie Wonder's vocals.
Best of all, Sonos welcomes all music streaming services - with 49 currently available in the UK, including Apple Music (not all of them can be controlled by Alexa, though).
You can also chain two Sonos speakers together to get stereo, while the Sonos app is the only one that allows you to tweak settings like treble and bass to tailor the music to your tastes. And if you buy multiple units, you can scare your family by playing ghost noises in the attic while you're in the kitchen.
One small niggle: Sonos has programmed Alexa to speak over the start of your music, so you constantly miss the first five seconds your favourite album.
Best for: Stereo, choice of streaming services, multi-room audio
Google Home (£129)
It looks like an air freshener. An air freshener on the Starship Enterprise, but an air freshener nonetheless.
Still, I was quite enamoured with the Home's sleek, matte white finish and the easygoing, friendly voice of its virtual assistant.
It transpires that her dialogue was written by Emma Coats, a former Pixar employee who drew up the film studio's 22 rules of storytelling - which explains why Google feels more engaging than its competitors.
There are a few neat touches to the AI, too. When you ask Google to "flip a coin", for example, you hear the sound of a coin being tossed before learning the result. Even better, the Google Home enables you to make voice calls to any UK landline or mobile number - for free.
Sadly, though, the device isn't up to much as an actual speaker. It had the worst sound of all the units we tested, and was prone to distorted bass even at low volumes.
Best for: Personality, design
JBL Link 300 (£249)
Luckily, fans of Google's voice assistant have some alternatives. Sonos are promising a Google-enabled speaker later this year and JBL will release their Link 300 in the next couple of weeks.
It's a chunky little device that works best on pop and hip-hop, with an eloquent sound that emphasises the low end thanks to a circular resonator on the back that pumps out the bass.
One neat feature is a wi-fi light that shows the strength of your internet connection (something I'd like to see on more devices, given the patchy wi-fi in our house).
In the end, this became our go-to speaker in the living room and kitchen, despite an infuriating five-minute fight to make it play the Hamilton soundtrack.
It turns out you had to say "OK Google, play 'Hamilton: Original Broadway Cast Recording'" - a command that's as intuitive as a lead wetsuit.
Best for: Google smarts with better sound.
Amazon Echo Show (£199)
The Echo Show has a 7-inch screen, which displays song lyrics while you listen. It's a bit of a gimmick, but it was a big hit with our kids.
The device also came in handy in the kitchen, where we used it to display recipes and set timers without having to touch the screen with our sticky fingers.
All this functionality comes at the cost of sound quality, though. Don't expect anything beyond your average clock radio.