The police will probably not toss out those
stingray devices just yet.
Appellate
court rules tracking cellphones without a warrant unconstitutional
by Sabrina
I. Pacifici on Sep 21, 2017
Washington
Examiner: “The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday
[September 21, 2017] that it is unconstitutional for law enforcement
to use certain technologies that allow the tracking of a suspect’s
cellular phone without a warrant. The ruling reversed a decision of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia that allowed police to
use a particular tracking tool, the cell-site simulator, calling it a
violation of Fourth Amendment privacy protections as they relate to
policing tactics. Investigators have used cell-site simulators to
act as fake cell towers to connect to devices they are searching
instead of the device’s regular network.”
It might be useful to know how thinly the
algorithm slices the data. I’d wager that there were hundreds of
thousands (perhaps millions) of ad categories identified by analyzing
all the data available to Facebook.
Facebook
can't hide behind algorithms
If
Facebook’s algorithms were executives, the public would be
demanding their heads on a stick, such was the ugly incompetence on
display this week.
First, the
company admitted a “fail” when its advertising algorithm
allowed for the targeting of anti-Semitic users.
Then
on Thursday, Mark Zuckerberg said he was handing over details of
more than 3,000 advertisements bought by groups with links to the
Kremlin, a move made possible by the advertising algorithms that have
made Mr Zuckerberg a multi-billionaire.
Gross misconduct, you might say – but of course
you can’t sack the algorithm. And besides, it was only doing what
it was told.
“The algorithms are working exactly as they were
designed to work,” says Siva Vaidhyanathan, professor of media
studies at the University of Virginia.
… Facebook didn’t create a huge advertising
service by getting contracts with big corporations.
No, its success lies in the little people. The
florist who wants to spend a few pounds targeting local teens when
the school prom is coming up, or a plumber who has just moved to a
new area and needs to drum up work.
Facebook’s wild profits - $3.9bn (£2.9bn)
between April and June this year - are due to that automated process.
It finds out what users
like, it finds advertisers that want to hit those interests, and it
marries the two and takes the money. No humans necessary.
… That system will be slightly less human-free
in future. In his nine-minute address, a visibly uncomfortable Mark
Zuckerberg said his company would be bringing on human beings to help
prevent political abuses. The day before, its chief operating
officer said more humans would help solve the anti-Semitism issue as
well.
“But Facebook
can’t hire enough people to sell ads to other people at that
scale,” Prof Vaidhyanathan argues.
(Related). One verb is as good as another to an
algorithm. Apparently, nothing triggers alarms.
Instagram
uses 'I will rape you' post as Facebook ad in latest algorithm mishap
Instagram
used a user’s image which included the text “I will rape you
before I kill you, you filthy whore!” to advertise its service on
Facebook, the latest example of social media algorithms boosting
offensive content.
Guardian reporter Olivia Solon recently discovered
that Instagram, which is owned by Facebook,
made an advertisement out of a photo she had posted of a violent
threat she received in an email, which said “Olivia, you fucking
bitch!!!!!!!” and “I Will Rape You”.
Instagram selected the screenshot, which she
posted nearly a year ago, to advertise the photo-sharing platform to
Solon’s sister this week, with the message, “See Olivia Solon’s
photo and posts from friends on Instagram”.
Change is hard. People (and companies) resist
change way beyond all logic. They prefer to keep doing the same
thing, even if the science proves them wrong.
European
Commission Accused Of Burying Controversial Piracy Report
The European Commission has been called out for
failing to publish data indicating that piracy has little effect on
legitimate content sales.
Back in 2014, it paid Dutch consultancy Ecorys
more than $400,000 to research how unauthorised access of music,
video, books and video games displaced legitimate sales, both online
and offline.
The report was completed in May 2015, but was
never published - and Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda thinks this is
fishy.
"Why did the Commission, after having spent a
significant amount of money on it, choose not to publish this study
for almost two years?" she asks.
The
report concludes that, in most cases, piracy has little impact on
legitimate sales.
… Indeed, it found that games piracy actually
increased legitimate sales.
There is an exception to this, in the form of
blockbuster movies.
"The results show a displacement rate of 40
per cent which means that for every ten recent top films watched
illegally, four fewer films are consumed legally," reads the
report.
Even so, the researchers conclude that the reason
for this is almost entirely down to cost, and that cutting fees for
TV and movies would make a big difference.
For my Computer Security students.
No comments:
Post a Comment