An advance notice:
The Privacy Foundation encourages you to save April 30th for the 2021 Virtual Spring Seminar: US State and EU Privacy Developments. The panel experts will delve into the impact of the CCPA and the GDPR since they were initiated. CLE credit is being applied for.
This spring’s panelists include Tyler Thompson, of GreenbergTraurig, Arielle Brown, of Hogan Lovells US LP, Bob Sprague, Professor of Business Law, University of Wyoming, and Camila Tobón, of Davis Graham and Stubbs LLP.
Stay tuned for a follow-up email containing the seminar schedule and registration link to the webinar.
As I see more and more articles like these, I wonder if we are getting close enough to the line for more people to start sending warnings.
https://threatpost.com/crossing-line-cyberattack-act-war/165290/
Crossing the Line: When Cyberattacks Become Acts of War
… The question is, when does a cyberattack cross the line between a criminal action or mere prank, to an act of war? Is it the nature of the victim? The nature of the attacker? The nature of the damage? Or a combination of them all?
(Related)
Should countries ever respond to cyberattacks with physical force?
In conventional warfare, it’s accepted that if a state finds itself under attack, it’s entitled to respond – either with defensive force, or with a counterattack. But it’s less clear how countries should respond to cyberattacks: state-backed hacks which often have dangerous real-world implications.
(Related)
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/india_admits_china_outmatches_cyber_defences/
Indian defense chief admits China’s cyber-weapons would ‘disrupt large number of systems’ whenever Beijing presses the button
The highest-ranked officer in India’s armed forces has admitted that China has cyber-war capabilities that can overwhelm his nation’s defenses and suggested that only cross-forces collaboration will get India to parity with its giant neighbor.
The FBI claims that encryption makes their job impossible. Perhaps they should sub-contract to the guys from Belgium?
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/sky_ecc_drugs/
Belgian police seize 28 tons of cocaine after 'cracking' Sky ECC's chat app encryption
The Belgian plod says it seized 27.64 tons of cocaine worth €1.4bn (£1.2bn, $1.65bn) from shipments into Antwerp in the past six weeks after defeating the encryption in the Sky ECC chat app to read drug smugglers' messages.
"During a judicial investigation into a potential service criminal organization suspected of knowingly providing encrypted telephones to the criminal environment, police specialists managed to crack the encrypted messages from Sky ECC," the Belgian police claimed, CNN reports.
Sounds bad, but they may be correct.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-data-leak-idUSKBN2BU2ZY
Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
Facebook Inc did not notify the more than 530 million users whose details were obtained through the misuse of a feature before 2019 and recently made public in a database, and does not currently have plans to do so, a company spokesman said on Wednesday.
Business Insider reported last week that phone numbers and other details from user profiles were available in a public database. Facebook said in a blog post on Tuesday that “malicious actors” had obtained the data prior to September 2019 by “scraping” profiles using a vulnerability in the platform’s tool for synching contacts.
The Facebook spokesman said the social media company was not confident it had full visibility on which users would need to be notified. He said it also took into account that users could not fix the issue and that the data was publicly available in deciding not to notify users. Facebook has said it plugged the hole after identifying the problem at the time.
How broad is this coverage? Would a Colorado victim be able to sue a Utah breached company?
Utah is the 2nd State to Create a Safe Harbor for Companies Facing Data Breach Litigation
Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Jason C. Gavejian, and Maya Atrakchi of JacksonLewis write:
In mid-March, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed into law the Cybersecurity Affirmative Defense Act (HB80 ) (“the Act”), an amendment to Utah’s data breach notification law, creating several affirmative defenses for persons (defined below) facing a cause of action arising out of a breach of system security, and establishing the requirements for asserting such a defense.
In short, the Act seeks to incentivize individuals, associations, corporations, and other entities (“persons”) to maintain reasonable safeguards to protect personal information by providing an affirmative defense in litigation flowing from a data breach. More specifically, a person that creates, maintains, and reasonably complies with a written cybersecurity program that is in place at the time of the breach will be able to take advantage of an affirmative defense to certain claims under the Act:
Read more on Workplace Privacy, Data Management & Security Report
Such ignorance at this late date is concerning.
https://www.bespacific.com/sorry-judges-encrypted-chat-is-not-like-a-private-thought/
Sorry, judges, encrypted chat is not like a private thought
Engadget: “A state judge recently ruled that two of the men who plotted to kidnap Michigan’s governor did not make terrorist threats because they used an encrypted chat app to do so. Since federal agencies and lawmakers have been trying to get encrypted comms backdoored by arguing that they are the tool of choice for terrorists, we won’t blame you if your double-take gave you whiplash. It already boggles the mind to see a terrorism charge dropped against people doing domestic terrorism things, like plan and coordinate to attack the Capitol, blow up a bridge to stop police, murder law enforcement that got in the way to kidnap a US state governor, and murder said governor. But hang on. Just try not to strain anything when we tell you that the judge’s reason not to charge the foiled kidnappers for “threatening an act of terrorism” is because 12th District Court Judge Michael Klaeren said that using encrypted comms is the same as having private thoughts. “After onboarding new members through mediums such as Facebook, the group’s conversations took place in encrypted chats,” reported The Detroit News…”
Interesting topic. Registration required.
CDW Tech Talk: Finding the Humanity in Artificial Intelligence and Big Data
Data is at the core of everything businesses do. Sometimes, however, organizations can be inundated with information, and they can fail to understand how ethics should inform decisions about how to use that data.
The confluence this past year of a global pandemic, an economic crisis and civil unrest exposed the need for businesses to prioritize social responsibility and humanity when making technology decisions.
The ethical use of data, technology and artificial intelligence was the subject of a recent CDW Tech Talk series session featuring Allen Clingerman, chief technology strategist for server and workloads for Dell Technologies.
“The problem’s only getting harder,” Clingerman said. “The amount of data that the average organization manages has grown to a staggering 13.53 petabytes.”
Could evolve into labels like” “flaming liberal” or “radical right” Does Facebook have rules for applying these labels as well as a procedure to challenge them? What is you call it satire but I think its true? Will the people who believe this rubbish understand what the word satire means?
Facebook hopes tiny labels on posts will stop users confusing satire with reality
Facebook is adding additional labels to posts from Pages that appear in users’ News Feeds in a bid to reduce confusion about their origin. These labels will include “public official,” “fan page,” and “satire page.” The company says it’s already started testing the deployment of these labels in the US, and will gradually add them to more posts.
Facebook hasn’t offered any explanation as to why it’s adding these labels, but identifying satire seems particularly important. Take a look at the social shares for any news articles written by well-known satirical sites like The Onion or The Babylon Bee and you’ll find plenty of people taking these stories at face value. In such a context these posts are essentially a type of misinformation, even if their creators did not intend this. Even high profile figures like former president Donald Trump have mistaken these stories for real reports.
Perspective.
https://www.bespacific.com/social-media-use-in-2021/
Social Media Use in 2021
Pew Research Center – “A majority of Americans say they use YouTube and Facebook, while use of Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok is especially common among adults under 30. Despite a string of controversies and the public’s relatively negative sentiments about aspects of social media, roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they ever use any kind of social media site – a share that has remained relatively stable over the past five years, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults. Beyond the general question of overall social media use, the survey also covers use of individual sites and apps. YouTube and Facebook continue to dominate the online landscape, with 81% and 69%, respectively, reporting ever using these sites. And YouTube and Reddit were the only two platforms measured that saw statistically significant growth since 2019, when the Center last polled on this topic via a phone survey. When it comes to the other platforms in the survey, 40% of adults say they ever use Instagram and about three-in-ten report using Pinterest or LinkedIn. One-quarter say they use Snapchat, and similar shares report being users of Twitter or WhatsApp. TikTok – an app for sharing short videos – is used by 21% of Americans, while 13% say they use the neighborhood-focused platform Nextdoor…”
Not sure I agree. Removing individual actors, even President Trump, is unlikely to bankrupt Facebook or even seriously reduce their revenues. Congressional overreaction could have that effect.
Follow the money: to rein in Big Tech, lawmakers are right to focus on business models
At the March 25th congressional hearing on disinformation, members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce highlighted some of the more serious harms brought on by targeted advertising and content curation systems, including the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and viral disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. The CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter deflected lawmakers’ questions about how their technologies actually work and drive profits. Instead, they touted their efforts to weed out disinformation and extremism with things like fact-checking labels and abuse-detecting algorithms.
These efforts are a sideshow, and members of congress finally seem to understand this. The real problem at hand, as our research group has argued for some time, was succinctly described by Committee Chairman Frank Pallone: “it’s the business model.” Companies are choosing profit over the public interest and deliberately concealing how they build their algorithmically-driven ad systems. This is not just about trade secrets or bad actors. It is about their fundamental goal: growth.
Trump’s words will get out. And some people believe them before they even see them.
https://www.bespacific.com/national-archives-cant-resurrect-trumps-tweets-twitter-says/
National Archives can’t resurrect Trump’s tweets, Twitter says
Politico: “Twitter will not allow the National Archives to make former President Donald Trump’s past tweets from his @realDonaldTrump account available on the social media platform, the company told POLITICO on Wednesday, in the latest display of Silicon Valley’s power over communications channels used by the U.S. government. The statement came as the National Archives and Records Administration has been working to create an official online archive of Trump’s tweets as president, including those that prompted Twitter to permanently suspend him earlier this year as a threat to public safety. NARA already maintains archives for the institutional and personal accounts of many other former Trump administration officials, in which the old tweets live on the Twitter platform and users can retweet, like and otherwise interact with them. Twitter’s decision is further fuel for a debate in Washington about social media companies’ control over users’ speech, amid Republican accusations that Silicon Valley’s giants are censoring conservatives. Just two days ago, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas lamented in a 12-page opinion that technology has placed “control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties,” suggesting Congress may need to step in. NARA spokesperson James Pritchett said that while the National Archives “is still exploring the best way” to make the @realDonaldTrump archival content public, the agency would defer to Twitter on whether that archive should be available on the social media site and would still post the preserved tweets to the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library website.…”
No comments:
Post a Comment