Jonathan Stempel reports:
The owner of the
Ashley Madison adultery website said on Friday it will pay $11.2 million to
settle U.S. litigation brought on behalf of roughly 37 million users whose
personal details were exposed in a July 2015 data breach.
Ruby Corp,
formerly known as Avid Life Media Inc, denied wrongdoing in agreeing to the
preliminary class-action settlement, which requires approval by a federal judge
in St. Louis.
Read more on Reuters. Ruby Corp issued the following press release:
Ruby Corp. and Ruby Life Inc.
(ruby), and a proposed class of plaintiffs, co-led by Dowd & Dowd, P.C.,
The Driscoll Firm, P.C., and Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, have reached a
proposed settlement agreement resolving the class action lawsuits that were
filed beginning July 2015 following a data breach
of ruby’s computer network and subsequent release of certain personal
information of customers of Ashley Madison, an
online dating website owned and operated by Ruby Life Inc. (formerly Avid
Dating Life Inc.) The lawsuits, alleging
inadequate data security practices and misrepresentations regarding Ashley Madison, have been consolidated in a
multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
If the proposed settlement
agreement is approved by the Court, ruby will contribute a total of $11.2 million USD to a settlement fund, which will
provide, among other things, payments to settlement class members who submit
valid claims for alleged losses resulting from the data breach and alleged
misrepresentations as described further in the proposed settlement agreement. Since July 2015,
ruby also has implemented numerous remedial measures to enhance the security of
its customers’ data.
… In 2015, hackers gained access to
ruby’s computer networks and published certain personal information contained
in Ashley Madison accounts. Account credentials were not verified for
accuracy during this timeframe and accounts may have been created using other
individuals’ information. Therefore,
ruby wishes to clarify that merely because a person’s name or other information
appears to have been released in the data breach does not mean that person
actually was a member of Ashley Madison.
A question I ask in almost every class. Turns out, my students are rather
bloodthirsty…
There is an old debate (at least, counting in internet
years) that tends to crop up after major cybersecurity breaches such as the widespread WannaCry ransomware attack in May. In the aftermath of such incidents, some decry the sorry state of cybersecurity and insist that if
only tech firms, with their wealth of resources and technical expertise, were
allowed to go after the perpetrators of these attacks, they would do a much
better job of stopping the damage and deterring other perpetrators than the
slow, plodding, over-worked, under-resourced, jurisdiction-bound
law-enforcement agencies.
Which raises a question: Beyond the standard set of
protective tools—encryption, firewalls, anti-virus software,
intrusion-detection systems, two-factor authentication—should companies be
allowed to go outside the boundaries of their own networks and crash the
servers that are attacking them, or delete data that has been stolen from them
off their adversaries’ machines? The
answer of most companies and cybersecurity experts is no. But that doesn’t stop a vocal minority—usually
researchers at libertarian think tanks and lawyers concerned by how restrictive
anti-hacking regulations have become—from suggesting otherwise.
For my Software Assurance students.
The Future of Artificial Intelligence: Why the Hype Has
Outrun Reality
… In that world,
as with other robot applications, progress comes by moving from “data to
information to knowledge.” A fundamental
problem is that most observers do not realize just how vast an amount of data
is needed to operate in the physical world — ever-increasing amounts, or, as
Kumar calls it — “exponential” amounts. While
it’s understood today that “big data” is important, the amounts required for
many physical operations are far larger than “big data” implies. The limitations on acquiring such vast amounts
of data severely throttle back the speed of advancement for many kinds of
projects, he suggested.
I can see a Tech Support app that no matter the problem,
always says, “Restart your computer!”
Metaverse - Program Your Own Augmented Reality Apps
Metaverse
is a free platform that lets anyone create an augmented reality app. I had the opportunity to have a guided
tutorial through the Metaverse platform last week and I was so impressed that
I'm now planning to include it along with the MIT App Inventor during the Practical Ed Tech
BYOD Camp at the end of the month.
Metaverse's programming platform is based on the premise
of using a storyboard to outline the actions that you want your app to perform.
You then connect each frame of the
storyboard with action commands that you pick from a menu of action commands. The more scenes you add to your storyboard,
the more options you can add to your app. Essentially, creating an augmented reality app
through Metaverse is the same process as designed a good
choose-your-own-adventure story. The
video embedded below provides an overview of the Metaverse design tool.
Metaverse could be used by students to bring the
characters from a favorite story to life in augmented reality like in this example.
Or you could create an educational
augmented reality scavenger hunt as this person shared.
Keep current!
Here’s a round-up of developments in California,
New Hampshire, and Vermont this week.
Let’s start with California. Mike Maharrey writes:
Earlier this week, a second
California Assembly committee passed a bill that would require all law
enforcement agencies in the state to get local government approval before
acquiring or using surveillance technology.
… Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) and Sen.
Steven Bradford (D-Inglewood) introduced Senate Bill 21 (SB21) earlier
this year. The legislation would require law enforcement agencies to propose a Surveillance Use Policy for each type of surveillance technology
it operates and the information collected.
Read more on Tenth
Amendment Center.
And up in New Hampshire:
Earlier this week, a bill that
bans the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up
electronic communications without a warrant in most situations became law
without the governor’s signature. The
new statute not only protects privacy in New Hampshire, but will also hinder
one aspect of the federal surveillance state.
A bipartisan coalition of
representatives introduced House Bill 474 (HB474) earlier this year. The legislation will help block the use of
cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.”
Read more on Tenth
Amendment Center.
But some of the biggest state news comes out of Vermont.
Pam Dixon of World Privacy Forum sends notice this along. Note that you can provide your comments and/or
attend:
CONTACT: My-Lanh Graves,
Administrative Secretary, 802-828-5479
June 30, 2017
June 30, 2017
On Tuesday, July 25 and
Wednesday, July 26, 2017, meetings will be held at which any interested person
may provide comments on data broker regulatory legislation. Broadly speaking, a data broker collects
information, including citizens’ personal information, from a variety of
sources and then sells that information to advertisers and others for various
purposes.
The Vermont Legislature tasked
the Attorney General and the Department of Financial Regulation (DFR) to
propose legislation or make a recommendation about whether, or how, to regulate
the data broker industry. The working group will consult with consumer and
industry stakeholders, and receive comments from the public. The working
group’s recommendation or draft legislation is due by December 15, 2017.
The meetings will be held between
10:00 AM and 3:00 PM at the Department of Financial Regulation’s office,
located at 29 Church Street, 3rd Floor in Burlington, Vermont. These meetings are open to the public. If you wish to comment or attend, please
contact: My-Lanh Graves at 802-828-5479 or MyLanh.Graves@Vermont.gov.
An agenda will be posted on the Attorney General’s and DFR’s websites prior to
the meetings.
The Legislature passed S.72 in
June 2017; it requires the Attorney General and DFR to provide a recommendation
or draft legislation reflecting:
1. An
appropriate definition of the term “data broker”;
2. Whether
and, if so, to what extent the data broker industry should be regulated by the
Commissioner of Financial Regulation or the Attorney General;
3. Additional
consumer protections that data broker legislation should seek to include that
are not addressed within the framework of existing federal and State consumer
protection laws; and
4. Proposed
courses of action that balance the benefits to society that the data broker
industry brings with actual and potential harms the industry may pose to
consumers. The full text of S.72 can be found here.
The public meetings are intended
to provide an opportunity for industry, consumer advocates, and the public to
comment on the above-listed specific topics and on potential legislation
regarding data brokers generally. Written comments will also be accepted
through Friday, August 11, 2017 and will become part of the public record in
this matter. Please send any written comments to My-Lanh Graves at MyLanh.Graves@Vermont.govor
by mail to the Attorney General’s Office at 109 State St., Montpelier, VT
05609.
Published: Jun 30, 2017
Keeping up on a changing field?
… as important new
developments arise during the coming year, we will continue to document them by
posting edited new materials on the websites for the two casebooks —
supplements to this Supplement — from which they may be
downloaded by teachers and shared with students. The website for National Security Law (6th
ed.) may be found at http://www.aspenlawschool.com/books/Dycus_NatSec/default.asp;
the website for Counterterrorism Law (3d ed.) may be found at http://www.aspenlawschool.com/books/Dycus_CounterTerror/default.asp.
We encourage you to return to those
portals regularly to keep abreast of major developments during the year — and
to alert us if and when you come across new materials that deserve to be
included.
Something to amuse my students.
Airline CEO predicts a future where 'we will pay you to fly'
In January, WOW launched a sale for $69 one way tickets from the US to
Europe. In June, the airline followed up with a sale for $55 trans-Atlantic
tickets. These sales have helped bring
awareness to the airline that's expected to double in size over the next two
years.
… However, the
question must be asked. How low can they go?
"I can see a day when we pay you to fly," WOW
Air founder and CEO Skúli Mogensen told Business Insider in an interview.
For years now, airlines have worked to diversify their
revenues streams and to reduce their reliance on ticket sales for income. Fees for things such as seat selection, early
boarding, and in-flight meals have become the norm. In addition, they have developed lucrative
partnerships with hotels, restaurants, rental car agencies, and other travel
industry players to ensure their ability to derive revenue from all facets of a
passenger's travel needs.
… "Our goal,
and we're working hard towards it, is for our ancillary revenue to actually
surpass our passenger revenue," Mogensen said. "What ever airline becomes the first to achieve
this will be a game changer."
As a big SciFi fan, I could not agree more. Perhaps IBM should ask Watson to read
SciFi?
At the end of the 19th century, New York City stank. One hundred fifty thousand horses ferried
people and goods through the streets of Manhattan, producing 45,000 tons —
tons! — of manure a month. It piled up
on streets and in vacant lots, and in 1898 urban planners convened from around
the world to brainstorm solutions to the impending crisis. They failed to come up with any, unable to
imagine horseless transportation.
Fourteen years later, cars outnumbered horses in New York,
and visions of manure dystopia were forgotten.
If
19th-century urban planners had had access to big data, machine learning
techniques, and modern management theory, these tools would not have helped
them. They simply would have
confirmed their existing concerns. Extrapolating from past trends is useful but
limiting in a world of accelerating technological change.
Science fiction can help. Maybe you associate it with spaceships and
aliens, but science fiction offers more than escapism. By presenting plausible alternative realities,
science fiction stories empower us to confront not just what we think but also
how we think and why we think it. They
reveal how fragile the status quo is, and how malleable the future can be.
… Science fiction
isn’t useful because it’s predictive. It’s useful because it reframes our
perspective on the world. Like
international travel or meditation, it creates space for us to question our
assumptions.
