This could be very difficult. Some messages are
obvious, others not so much.
Web firms
told to remove terror content within two hours
Tech giants like
Google, Facebook and Twitter must find ways to remove terror
propaganda within two hours of being posted online - or face fines,
Theresa May will demand.
The prime minister will help lead an international
call for the internet firms to be set a deadline of a month to show
they can develop the necessary technology fixes.
The move comes as YouTube
faced criticism for failing to take down extremist content
that included videos praising Hitler and the Taliban.
And days after a report found more jihadist
propaganda is viewed online in the UK than any other country in
Europe.
… The so-called Islamic State generated 27,000
extremist postings on platforms like Twitter in a five-month period
between January and May this year.
The links ranged from bomb-making instructions to
calls to commit atrocities with cars and knives, with
the majority of shares taking place in the first two hours. [So
even a two hour window will miss ‘the majority’ of shares? Bob]
(Related).
Twitter
says its controls are weeding out users advocating violence
Twitter said it had removed 299,649 accounts in
the first half of this year for the “promotion of terrorism”, a
20 percent decline from the previous six months, although
it gave no reason for the drop. Three-quarters of those accounts
were suspended before posting their first tweet.
(Related). A drop in the bucket or a way to
identify potential solutions?
Google.org
launches $5 million innovation fund to counter ‘hate and extremism’
With controversy continuing to mount over the role
the internet has played in fueling extremist groups, Google.org
today announced a new initiative it hopes will put a dent in the
problem.
The organization said it will pump $5 million into
an innovation fund that will give grants to researchers and
organizations that are building products and services to combat the
problem.
We need some new thinking.
The Hill reports:
A District of Columbia court has dismissed two lawsuits over the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data breach disclosed in 2015.
The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers union, filed the class action lawsuit against the OPM in June 2015, alleging that the breaches stemmed from gross negligence on the part of federal officials.
The lawsuit was one of two consolidated complaints related to the OPM breach that the U.S. District Court for D.C. dismissed on Tuesday, ruling that both sets of plaintiffs lacked the standing to bring their cases.
Read more on
The Hill.
Okay, since these lawsuits weren’t under the
same laws we generally see in consumer lawsuits over breaches, we’ll
have to dig into this one a bit more to see why the court did not
find that the plaintiffs had standing. In the meantime, I’ll keep
an eye out to see if any law firms provide an analysis of the opinion
on their sites that I can link to here.
Keep in mind that I consider the OPM breach one of
the worst breaches ever because of the amount of personal and
sensitive information involved. If these plaintiffs have trouble
demonstrating why they have standing, well….. maybe it’s time to
revisit what it should take to demonstrate standing when your
background checks, biometric data, and other personal and sensitive
information wind up in the hands of unknown threat actors due to an
entity’s failure to adequately safeguard your information.
Not all algorithms are perfect. (But some are
amusing.)
Amazon
sends accidental gift email to shoppers due to glitch
A technical glitch caused Amazon.com Inc to email
some of its customers erroneously that they had received a gift, the
company said on Tuesday.
The email displayed an image of a crawling infant
and told shoppers they had received a present from their baby
registry. A number of recipients, however, reported on social media
that they were not expecting a child.
“Amazon just informed me that someone has
purchased a gift from my baby registry. My baby is 21, and hopes
it’s a keg,” Washington Post reporter Karen Tumulty said on
Twitter.
I bet they would! Big money, but is it enough to
get the attention of other Boards of Directors?
Equifax May
Be Happy to Spend $1 Per Customer for Their Trouble
… While the 118-year-old credit-reporting firm
has been hit with more than 100 consumer lawsuits over its massive
security breach, legal experts say there’s room for a deal because
neither side has a slam-dunk case.
A global settlement of about $200 million is
plausible, said Nathan Taylor, a cybersecurity lawyer with Morrison
Foerster LLP in Washington. That’s a projection based on the
$115 million Anthem
Inc. agreed to pay in June -- setting a U.S. record -- to resolve
claims that it didn’t protect a smaller number of people from a
2015 criminal hack that stole similarly sensitive information, Taylor
said.
With lawyers collecting as much as a third of any
payout, the company may end up spending an average of less than $1
per person for credit monitoring and out-of-pocket expenses for 143
million Equifax consumers whose data was compromised.
That’s a good deal for the embattled credit
reporting company as its
exposure theoretically could amount to $143 billion under
a federal law that carries damages of as much as $1,000 per
violation, plus punitive damages.
(Related). Look before you leap. Caveat
emptor. There’s a
sucker born every minute.
LifeLock
offers to protect you from the Equifax breach — by selling you
services provided by Equifax
A link for my Computer Security students.
I may use this in my next Statistics class.
A visual
introduction to machine learning
by Sabrina
I. Pacifici on Sep 19, 2017
R2D3
is an experiment in expressing statistical thinking with interactive
design: “In machine learning, computers apply statistical
learning techniques to automatically identify patterns in
data. These techniques can be used to make highly accurate
predictions… Using
a data set about homes, we will create a machine learning model to
distinguish homes in New York from homes in San Francisco…”
Hard to show you’re a serious worker if you
can’t even complete the application…
… Where once teenagers or early 20-somethings
may have wandered into their local supermarket and applied for their
first job, now
a substantial share of employers are using online personality
assessments to gauge the skill and character of potential
dishwashers, burger-flippers and other entry-level jobs.
That’s putting young job seekers at a
disadvantage, according to a report
released Wednesday by JobsFirstNYC, a New York City-based
nonprofit that advocates for out-of-school and out-of-work young
adults. The report is based on an experiment, which asked 18 to
22-year-olds to submit applications to 42 major employers in the New
York City area in 2012 and 2014.
The authors found that tests were so extensive —
in some cases 200 questions — that they
discouraged young people from applying or made it difficult for them
to complete the applications, a problem that was
particularly acute for low-income young people who may not have
regular access to the internet. Young adults may struggle more than
older applicants to answer some of the questions because their brain
and personality development isn’t complete, they added.
(Related).
Kids today are in no hurry to grow up.
Teenagers are increasingly less likely to engage
in adult activities like drinking alcohol, working jobs, driving or
having sex according to research from San Diego State University and
Bryn Mawr College published
in the peer-reviewed journal Child Development Tuesday.
This could be an interesting addition to student
research papers.
No comments:
Post a Comment