Why can’t it happen here?
It was not
the first time Muhammad Rabbani had problems when returning to the
United Kingdom from travels overseas. But on this occasion something
was different — he was arrested, handcuffed, and hauled through
London’s largest airport, then put into the back of a waiting
police van.
… Particularly unusual about Rabbani’s case
is that he had been stopped on many prior occasions — dating back
to 2008 — and never before did police arrest him when he declined
to turn over his phone or laptop passwords. He is already well known
to the authorities due to his employment with Cage, and he has never
been accused of involvement in any sort of terrorism plot.
… While the existence of Schedule 7 is widely
known in the U.K., the government has kept secret some significant
details about its function.
Those who are examined under the law will usually
be searched and questioned by officers. Like Rabbani, they may also
have cellphones or laptops they are carrying inspected or
confiscated.
Unknown to people who have gone through this
process, however, is that police may also have covertly downloaded
the contents of their phone and sent copies to the British
eavesdropping agency Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ.
Every month the agency was receiving a copy of
phone data that had been “downloaded from people stopped at U.K.
ports (i.e. sea, air and rail),” according to a classified GCHQ
document
obtained by The Intercept from Edward Snowden.
As long as you think it through…
The Ethics
of Running a Data Breach Search Service
No matter how much anyone tries to sugar coat it,
a service like Have I been
pwned (HIBP) which deals with billions of records hacked out of
other peoples' systems is always going to sit in a grey area. There
are degrees, of course; at one end of the spectrum you have the likes
of Microsoft
and Amazon using data breaches to better protect their customers'
accounts. At the other end, there's services like the
now defunct LeakedSource who happily sold our personal data
(including mine) to anyone willing to pay a few bucks for it.
Even systems that seem quite complex may be simple
to break. Just saying.
Distrustful
U.S. allies force spy agency to back down in encryption fight
An international group of cryptography experts has
forced the U.S. National Security Agency to back down over two data
encryption techniques it wanted set as global industry standards,
reflecting deep mistrust among close U.S. allies.
In interviews and emails seen by Reuters, academic
and industry experts from countries including Germany, Japan and
Israel worried that the U.S. electronic spy agency was pushing the
new techniques not because they were good encryption tools, but
because it knew how to break them.
As in ‘Standing?’
The Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop
on informational injury on December 12, 2017. The FTC’s three main
goals for hosting the workshop are to:
-
“Better identify the qualitatively different types of injury to consumers and businesses from privacy and data security incidents;”
-
“Explore frameworks for how the FTC might approach quantitatively measuring such injuries and estimate the risk of their occurrence;” and
-
“Better understand how consumers and businesses weigh these injuries and risks when evaluating the tradeoffs to sharing, collecting, storing and using information.”
FTC Acting Chairwoman
Maureen Ohlhausen announced the workshop during her speech
[PDF] to the Federal Communications Bar Association,
titled “Painting the Privacy Landscape: Informational Injury in FTC
Privacy and Data Security Cases.” The speech focused on the five
different types of consumer informational injury alleged in the FTC’s
body of privacy and data security case law: (1) deception injury or
subverting consumer choice; (2) financial injury; (3) health or
safety injury; (4) unwarranted intrusion injury and (5) reputational
injury.
Acting Chairwoman Ohlhausen noted that the FTC
initiates many of its cases under the agency’s deception authority,
stating that “from an
injury standpoint, a company’s false promise to provide certain
privacy or data security protections harms consumers like any false
material promise about a product.” The Acting
Chairwoman further highlighted that the most commonly alleged
injuries in the FTC’s body of privacy and data security case law
are financial injury and health and safety injury. She also
emphasized that the type of injury is not dispositive in the FTC’s
decision of whether to bring a privacy or data security case. The
FTC also evaluates the strength of the evidence linked to the
consumer injury, the magnitude of the injury (both to individuals and
groups of consumers), and the likelihood of future consumer injury.
In closing her speech, Acting Chairwoman Ohlhausen rhetorically
raised three questions: (1) whether the list of consumer
informational injuries is representative, (2) whether these or other
informational injuries require government intervention, and (3) how
the list maps to the FTC’s statutory deception and unfairness
standards. Acting Chairwoman Ohlhausen plans to address these issues
in depth at the December 12 workshop.
SOURCE: FTC
Too late for summer reading?
‘Life
3.0’ gives you a user’s guide for superintelligent AI systems to
come
Do we need to be concerned about the rapid rise of
artificial intelligence? Some people say there’s nothing to worry
about, while others warn that a Terminator-level nightmare is dead
ahead.
MIT physicist Max Tegmark says both sides of that
argument are exaggerations.
In his newly published book, “Life
3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,”
Tegmark lays out a case for what he calls “mindful optimism”
about beneficial AI — artificial intelligence that will make life
dramatically better for humans rather than going off in unintended
directions.
Tegmark, who’s also the co-founder and president
of the Future of Life Institute,
says AI won’t be beneficial unless it incorporates safety measures
yet to be developed.
No comments:
Post a Comment