Tuesday, May 08, 2018

Getting closer to a definition of an “act of cyberwar?”
In Defense of Sovereignty in Cyberspace
… Two Tallinn Manual groups of experts explored applicability of the principle to cyber operations between 2009 and 2017. The first concluded in Rule 1 of the 2013 Tallinn Manual that “A State may exercise control over cyber infrastructure and activities within its sovereign territory.”
… In other words, a cyber operation causing physical damage to either governmental or private cyber infrastructure violates the sovereignty of the state into which it is conducted and accordingly amounts to a breach of international law. As such, it opens the door to the taking of countermeasures in response. Countermeasures are proportionate actions by the “injured” state that would be unlawful but for the fact that they are designed to put an end to the “responsible” state’s unlawful conduct, in this case a sovereignty violation. The experts agreed that only cyber operations conducted by, or attributable to, states violate the prohibition, although they acknowledged that there is an “embryonic view” that non-state actors may do so as well.

When should we start getting concerned?
The US Is Unprepared for Election-Related Hacking in 2018
This survey and report is not surprising:
The survey of nearly forty Republican and Democratic campaign operatives, administered through November and December 2017, revealed that American political campaign staff – primarily working at the state and congressional levels – are not only unprepared for possible cyber attacks, but remain generally unconcerned about the threat. The survey sample was relatively small, but nevertheless the survey provides a first look at how campaign managers and staff are responding to the threat.

How victims view companies that breach their data?

"It is better 92 innocent persons should be arrested that one guilty person should escape."
Welsh police wrongly identify thousands as potential criminals
… As 170,000 people arrived in the Welsh capital for the football match between Real Madrid and Juventus, 2,470 potential matches were identified.
However, according to data on the force’s website, 92% (2,297) of those were found to be “false positives”.

This should get my students talking!
Uber reportedly thinks its self-driving car killed someone because it ‘decided’ not to swerve
Uber has discovered the reason why one of the test cars in its fledgling self-driving car fleet struck and killed a pedestrian earlier this year, according to The Information. While the company believes the car’s suite of sensors spotted 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg as she crossed the road in front of the modified Volvo XC90 on March 18th, two sources tell the publication that the software was tuned in such a way that it “decided” it didn’t need to take evasive action, and possibly flagged the detection as a “false positive.”

Drive.ai's Self-Driving Car Service Will Soon Shuttle Texans to Shops, Restaurants, and the Office
Drive.ai, an autonomous vehicle startup, is launching a pilot program in a busy commercial sector of Frisco, Texas that will let people hail self-driving vehicles for free using a smartphone app.
The pilot program, which will kick off in July 2018, will run for six months and be limited to a specific geographic zone in Frisco that has a concentration of retail, entertainment venues, and office space.
… To avoid confusion, Drive.ai has outfitted these self-driving vans with a bright orange paint job and four external screens that communicate the vehicles’ intended actions to pedestrians and other drivers on the roads. There will also be signs posted along the planned route, which is posted below.

Who’s Winning the Self-Driving Car Race?
In the race to start the world’s first driving business without human drivers, everyone is chasing Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo.
The Google sibling has cleared the way to beat its nearest rivals, General Motors Co. and a couple of other players, by at least a year to introduce driverless cars to the public.
… Goldman Sachs Group Inc. predicts that robo-taxis will help the ride-hailing and -sharing business grow from $5 billion in revenue today to $285 billion by 2030. There are grand hopes for this business. Without drivers, operating margins could be in the 20 percent range, more than twice what carmakers generate right now. If that kind of growth and profit come to pass—very big ifs—it would be almost three times what GM makes in a year. And that doesn’t begin to count the money to be made in delivery.
The Clear Leaders

“Because we don’t want to hear about anyone’s success or failure, or any facts for that matter!”
Facebook to block all foreign ads about Eighth Amendment referendum
Facebook is to block all ads related to the Eighth Amendment referendum that come from advertisers outside of Ireland.
The social media giant is responding to criticism that unaccountable foreign advertising is gaining traction in the referendum campaign.
… Facebook has also indicated that it will implement the same rule for future elections in Ireland, disallowing any ads that do not come from registered entities in Ireland.
However, the move will not prevent ads that are funded from abroad if they are placed through organisations located in Ireland.

EFF and Coalition Partners Push Tech Companies To Be More Transparent and Accountable About Censoring User Content
… EFF, ACLU of Northern California, Center for Democracy & Technology, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and a group of academic experts and free expression advocates today released the Santa Clara Principles, a set of minimum standards for tech companies to augment and strengthen their content moderation policies. The plain language, detailed guidelines call for disclosing not just how and why platforms are removing content, but how much speech is being censored.

Because the founding fathers got it all wrong? Because small populations don’t count? Because Democrats can’t count? (Last time Hillary Clinton got 52.1% of the vote in Connecticut and won the popular vote.)
Connecticut OKs Bill Pledging Electoral Votes To National Popular-Vote Winner
Connecticut is poised to commit its electoral votes to whichever U.S. presidential candidate wins the nation's popular vote — regardless of who wins the state.
By embracing the plan, Connecticut's General Assembly gave new momentum to a push to change the way Americans elect their president.
Ten states and the District of Columbia are already in a compact to pool their electoral votes and pledge them to the popular-vote winner. With Connecticut added, the compact's voting power would rise to 172 — fewer than 100 electoral votes away from the 270-vote majority that decides the presidential contest.
Connecticut's Senate gave final approval to the bill over the weekend, using a 21-14 vote to send the legislation to Gov. Dannel Malloy — who responded by saying, "I applaud the General Assembly for passing this commonsense legislation."
… As NPR noted in 2016, it's mathematically possible for a candidate to win the U.S. presidency with less than 25 percent of the national popular vote.
All of the states that have so far committed to the pact are also states whose electoral votes went to Clinton in 2016.

No comments: