The botnet, a group of computers infected with malicious software and remotely controlled without their owners’ knowledge, is a ubiquitous tool of cybercrime. Law enforcement can take over botnets, typically by seizing their central “command and control” servers. They can then manipulate the malware installed on private computers to shut the botnet down. This Note examines the Fourth Amendment implications of the government’s use of remote control of malware on private computers to neutralize botnets. It finds that the government could take more intrusive action on infected computers than it has previously done without performing a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Most significantly, remotely finding and removing malware on infected computers does not necessarily trigger Fourth Amendment protections. Computer owners have no possessory interest in malware, so modifying or removing it does not constitute a seizure. Additionally, even if the government’s efforts cause some harm to private computers, this will rarely produce a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because any interference with the computer will be unintentional. Remotely executing commands on infected computers does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment unless information is returned to law enforcement.
Monday, May 25, 2015
We no longer teach employees how to use technology safely – this is the result. Apparently they do not have group emails (like: TopFourGuys) nor do they have the press flagged (like: WARNING:REPORTERS!)
The Bank of England reminds us why it is important to check recipients before sending an email
The Bank of England has been the latest victim of the internet. They have taught all of us a very important lesson as far as email etiquette is concerned. Whenever you are sending an email, you need to ensure you are sending it to the correct person. And don’t forget to double check just before hitting send.
This issue was created when the bank accidentally sent an email to the Guardian which contained vital information on a project wherein the financial implications of the U.K. parting from the European Union were discussed. This email was supposed to be sent out to 4 senior executives from the bank and eve contained plans on how the bank was going to avoid any questions from the press.
The argument seems to be that if the “private computer” owner didn't notice the malware infecting his computer, they won't notice the government removing it. And if they happen to delete your doctoral thesis or cause your computer to become inoperable, no big deal. Must we assume they at least tested their bot removal software before they deploy it?
Law Review Article: Botnet Takedowns and the Fourth Amendment by Sam Zeitlin, 90 NYU Law Rev. No. 2 (May 2015).
An interesting round table for my entrepreneurial students. Does this sound like MoneyBall? Where is the tech for the individual amateur?
How technology will change sports: Owners, players, industry experts sound off
When discussing his company’s new multimillion dollar partnership with Real Madrid FC earlier this month, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella made quite the statement.
“There isn’t another industry that is being so fundamentally transformed with data and digital technology like sports,” Nadella said.
Perspective. Have social networks made this change inevitable? Perhaps my Data Management students can tell me.
How Facebook is Killing the Open Web
… There are a couple of ways for you to be reading this article: you could have entered MakeUseOf.com into your browser and come here directly, you could have searched for something online and followed a link to this page. What’s most likely, though, is that you could have followed a link on a social media site or app.
… Facebook has more than 1.4 billion monthly users, According to Digital Marketing Ramblings — that means that 72% of adults who use the Internet visit the site at least once a month. 936 million of them, or 65% of Internet using adults, use Facebook daily. It’s the second most visited site globally, just behind Google.
… Even more interesting than the raw user numbers, are how long people are spending on social media everyday. A report by eMarketer found that the average Facebook user spent 42 minutes on the service everyday.
… According to data from Shareaholic, the percentage of website visits from social networks has risen from around 11% in 2011 to just over 30%. In the same time period, traffic from search has fallen from well over 40% to just under 30%.
The biggest shift has been with Facebook. In 2011, Facebook was responsible for 6.53% of all website referrals. Last year, Facebook drove 24.63% of them — just under a quarter of all website visits.
The open web just isn’t as important as it once was.
Something for my researching students. Note there are two eBooks here. Be sure to grab both.
Investigating With Databases: Verifying Data Quality
by Sabrina I. Pacifici on May 24, 2015
“The Verification Handbook for Investigative Reporting is a new guide to online search and research techniques to using user-generated content and open source information in investigations. Published by the European Journalism Centre, a GIJN member based in the Netherlands, the manual consists of ten chapters and is available for free download. We’re pleased to reprint below chapter 5, by investigative journalist Giannina Segnini.
Never before have journalists had so much access to information. More than three exabytes of data — equivalent to 750 million DVDs — are created every day, and that number duplicates every 40 months. Global data production is today being measured in yottabytes. (One yottabyte is equivalent to 250 trillion DVDs of data.) There are already discussions underway about the new measurement needed once we surpass the yottabyte. The rise in the volume and speed of data production might be overwhelming for many journalists, many of whom are not used to using large amounts of data for research and storytelling. But the urgency and eagerness to make use of data, and the technology available to process it, should not distract us from our underlying quest for accuracy. To fully capture the value of data, we must be able to distinguish between questionable and quality information, and be able to find real stories amid all of the noise. One important lesson I’ve learned from two decades of using data for investigations is that data lies — just as much as people, or even more so. Data, after all, is often created and maintained by people. Data is meant to be a representation of the reality of a particular moment of time. So, how do we verify if a data set corresponds to reality? Two key verification tasks need to be performed during a data-driven investigation: An initial evaluation must occur immediately after getting the data; and findings must be verified at the end of the investigation or analysis phase.”