Shipping company Maersk says June cyberattack could cost it
up to $300 million
Container shipping company A.P. Moller Maersk on Tuesday said it
expects that computer issues triggered by the NotPetya cyberattack will cost
the company as much as $300 million in lost revenue.
"In the last week of the [second] quarter we were hit
by a cyber-attack, which mainly impacted Maersk Line, APM Terminals and
Damco," Maersk CEO Soren Skou said in a statement.
"Business volumes were negatively
affected for a couple of weeks in July and as a consequence, our Q3 results
will be impacted. We expect that the
cyber-attack will impact results negatively by USD 200-300m."
Maersk Line was able to take bookings from existing
customers two days after the attack, and things gradually got back to normal
over the following week, the company said. It said it did not lose third-party data as a
result of the attack.
A change is coming.
Is that good or bad?
Privacy and Court Records: Online Access and the Loss of
Practical Obscurity
by
on
Ardia, David S., Privacy and Court Records: Online Access
and the Loss of Practical Obscurity (August 4, 2017). University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2017,
No. 5, 2017. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3013704
“Court records present a conundrum for privacy advocates. Public access to the courts has long been a
fundamental tenant of American democracy, helping to ensure that our system of
justice functions fairly and that citizens can observe the actions of their
government. Yet court records contain an
astonishing amount of private and sensitive information, ranging from social
security numbers to the names of sexual assault victims. Until
recently, the privacy harms that attended the public disclosure of court
records were generally regarded as insignificant because court files were
difficult to search and access. But this “practical obscurity” is rapidly
disappearing as the courts move from the paper-based world of the twentieth
century to an interconnected, electronic world where physical and temporal
barriers to information are eroding. These changes are prompting courts — and
increasingly, legislatures — to reconsider public access to court records. Although this reexamination can be beneficial,
a number of courts are abandoning the careful balancing of interests that has
traditionally guided judges in access disputes and instead are excluding whole
categories of information, documents, and cases from public access. This approach, while superficially appealing,
is contrary to established First Amendment principles that require
case-specific analysis before access can be restricted and is putting at risk
the public’s ability to observe the functioning of the courts and justice
system. This article pushes back against the categorical exclusion of information
in court records. In doing
so, it makes three core claims. First,
the First Amendment provides a qualified right of public access to all court
records that are material to a court’s exercise of its adjudicatory power. Second, before a court can restrict public
access, it must engage in a case-specific evaluation of the privacy and public
access interests at stake. Third, per se
categorical restrictions on public access are not permissible. These conclusions do not leave the courts
powerless to protect privacy, as some scholars assert. We must discard the notion that the protection
of privacy is exclusively the job of judges and court staff. Instead, we need to
shift the responsibility for protecting privacy to lawyers and litigants, who
should not be permitted to include highly sensitive information in court files
if it is not relevant to the case. Of course, we cannot eliminate all private and
sensitive information from court records, but as long as courts continue to
provide physical access to their records, the First Amendment does not preclude
court administrators from managing electronic access in order to retain some of
the beneficial aspects of practical obscurity. By minimizing the inclusion of unnecessary
personal information in court files and by limiting the extent of electronic
access to certain types of highly sensitive information, we can protect privacy
while at the same time ensuring transparency and public accountability.”
Do they blame the Russians? Partly.
Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media
and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
by
on
“The Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at
Harvard University today released a comprehensive analysis of online media and
social media coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign. The report, “Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online
Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election,” documents how highly
partisan right-wing sources helped shape mainstream press coverage and seize
the public’s attention in the 18-month period leading up to the election.
“In this study, we document
polarization in the media ecosystem that is distinctly asymmetric. Whereas the left half of our spectrum is
filled with many media sources from center to left, the right half of the
spectrum has a substantial gap between center and right. The core of attention from the center-right to
the left is large mainstream media organizations of the center-left. The right-wing media sphere skews to the far
right and is dominated by highly partisan news organizations,” co-author and
principal investigator Yochai Benkler stated. In addition to Benkler, the report was
authored by Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, and Ethan
Zuckerman.
The fact that media coverage has become more polarized in
general is not new, but the extent to which right-wing sites have become
partisan is striking, the report says. The study found that on the conservative side,
more attention was paid to pro-Trump, highly partisan media outlets. On the liberal side, by contrast, the center
of gravity was made up largely of long-standing media organizations. Robert Faris, the Berkman Klein Center’s
research director, noted, “Consistent with concerns over echo chambers and
filter bubbles, social media users on the left and the right rarely share
material from outside their respective spheres, except where they find coverage
that is favorable to their choice of candidate. A key difference between the right and left is
that Trump supporters found substantial coverage favorable to their side in
left and center-left media, particularly coverage critical of Clinton. In contrast, the messaging from right-wing
media was consistently pro-Trump.” Conservative
opposition to Trump was strongest in the center-right, the portion of the
political spectrum that wielded the least influence in media coverage of the
election. In this recently-emerged
universe, Breitbart stands at the center of a right-wing media ecosystem and is
surrounded by sites like Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, the
Washington Examiner, Infowars, Conservative Treehouse, and Truthfeed, according
to the report’s analysis.”
I’ve been trying to tell my International students about
the rules of discovery. They seem to
find it a very difficult concept.
Waymo v. Uber: Judge says Uber
lawyers ‘misled the court,’ wants to tell jurors so
Waymo may get an edge over rival Uber as the two head into
an explosive trade secrets trial this fall after a federal judge on
Wednesday said he’ll likely tell the jury how Uber’s lawyers “misled the court”
and repeatedly failed to produce documents that could be important in the case.
… Uber’s lawyers
from Morrison & Foerster recently disclosed that their firm has some
information taken from Levandowski’s electronic devices. Waymo is convinced that information contains
stolen documents, which it says Uber’s team spent months hiding from the court.
“Wrong,” Uber’s lawyer, Arturo Gonzalez, said Wednesday. His firm has some information, he said, but
not the allegedly stolen documents.
But U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who is presiding
over the case, seemed to side with Waymo.
“I am concerned that Mr. Gonzalez failed to disclose that
he had the documents and took a long time to come clean,” Alsup said. “Maybe he can get on the stand and explain it
away. But I am inclined … to tell the
jury exactly this scenario: that he was ordered to come clean, did not come
clean, ordered to come clean again, and did not come clean — finally in June or
July came clean.”
Might be amusing.
An Augmented Reality Hackathon for Teachers
Earlier this week I shared some ideas for creating and using your own augmented reality experiences in
school. Metaverse is the free platform that makes it possible for
teachers and students to create their own augmented reality experiences. If you haven't tried it yet, I highly
recommend taking a crack at making your own augmented reality experience. As some participants in my workshops this
summer demonstrated, you really can create your own augmented reality
experiences in as little as ten minutes. Of course, the more time you spend using
Metaverse, the more complex and robust you can make your augmented reality
applications.
This weekend Metaverse is kicking-off a hackathon for teachers. The Metaverse Hackathon starts on Saturday, August 19th and
runs through Saturday, August 26th. The
purpose of the hackathon is to showcase the creative augmented reality
experiences that teachers make for educational uses. The winner of the Metaverse Hackathon will
receive $200 in classroom supplies. You can
get all of the details and register for the Metaverse Hackathon here. I can't wait
to see what everyone creates.
Perspective. Is
this the start of something?
How artists can (finally) get paid in the digital age
For all my students.
… everyone should
check out Wolfram Alpha’s Problem Generator. But every dumbfounded student knows that you
need more than one lasso to tame the perils of mathematics… so enter Symbolab Math
Solver.
… Symbolab is
meant to be a search engine for discovering the meaning of an equation, and it
helps you do that not with search keywords but with mathematical symbols.
… The step-by-step
solution helps you work through the explanation. You have the option to hide the steps and work
through it on your own. Here are some
key features:
- The engine has more than 300 calculators. You can use the calculators (and graphing calculators) to solve a variety of equations and download the results in PDF.
- Pick a topic and practice math equations. You can choose from pre-algebra, matrices, vectors, functions, exponents, trigonometry, calculus, and word problems.
- Test yourself with quizzes. Check your progress with the quizzes on the site and also make your own.
- Download PDF Cheatsheets. Print them and carry them around for handy reference (not to cheat during your exams).
- Save your work in an online notebook. Register for an account and save your practice problems in a personal notebook.
- Create groups. Make your own group and interact with other students.
I’m beginning to think this is for real!
… MoviePass has
actually been around for several years, but high prices and countless
restrictions have prevented it from really taking off. But that may all be about to change…
MoviePass is now offering unlimited movies in theaters for
$9.95-per-month. The only restrictions
are that you’re limited to one film every day, and 3D and IMAX movies are off
the menu entirely. But beyond that it’s
anything goes. Which sounds too good to
be true, to be honest.
How it works is that you pay MoviePass $9.95 every month
via a debit card. You then visit your
local movie theater as usual, but MoviePass will pay for your ticket. If you go once a month you’ll just about break
even, but if you go more often than that you’ll be saving some serious cash.
This could be a win-win for everyone involved. However, according to Variety, AMC is already trying to prevent
MoviePass subscriptions from being used at its theaters. The chain claims the pricing makes this an
unsustainable model which will harm the movie business in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment