Getting closer to a definition of an “act of
cyberwar?”
In Defense
of Sovereignty in Cyberspace
… Two Tallinn
Manual groups of experts explored applicability of the principle
to cyber operations between 2009 and 2017. The first concluded in
Rule 1 of the 2013 Tallinn
Manual that “A State may exercise control over cyber
infrastructure and activities within its sovereign territory.”
… In other words, a cyber operation causing
physical damage to either governmental or private cyber
infrastructure violates the sovereignty of the state into which it is
conducted and accordingly amounts to a breach of international law.
As such, it opens the door to the taking of countermeasures in
response. Countermeasures are proportionate actions by the “injured”
state that would be unlawful but for the fact that they are designed
to put an end to the “responsible” state’s unlawful conduct, in
this case a sovereignty violation. The experts agreed that only
cyber operations conducted by, or attributable to, states violate the
prohibition, although they acknowledged that there is an “embryonic
view” that non-state actors may do so as well.
When should we start getting concerned?
This survey
and report is not surprising:
The survey of nearly forty Republican and Democratic campaign operatives, administered through November and December 2017, revealed that American political campaign staff – primarily working at the state and congressional levels – are not only unprepared for possible cyber attacks, but remain generally unconcerned about the threat. The survey sample was relatively small, but nevertheless the survey provides a first look at how campaign managers and staff are responding to the threat.
How victims view companies that breach their data?
"It is better
92 innocent persons
should be arrested
that one guilty person should escape."
Welsh
police wrongly identify thousands as potential criminals
… As 170,000 people arrived in the Welsh
capital for the football match between Real Madrid and Juventus,
2,470 potential matches were identified.
However, according to data on the force’s
website, 92% (2,297) of those were found to be “false positives”.
This should get my students talking!
Uber
reportedly thinks its self-driving car killed someone because it
‘decided’ not to swerve
Uber has discovered the
reason why one of the test cars in its fledgling self-driving car
fleet struck and killed a pedestrian earlier this year, according
to The Information. While the company believes the
car’s suite of sensors spotted 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg as she
crossed the road in front of the modified Volvo XC90 on March 18th,
two sources tell the publication that the software was tuned in such
a way that it “decided” it didn’t need to take evasive action,
and possibly flagged the
detection as a “false positive.”
(Related)
Drive.ai's
Self-Driving Car Service Will Soon Shuttle Texans to Shops,
Restaurants, and the Office
Drive.ai, an autonomous vehicle startup, is
launching a pilot program in a busy commercial sector of Frisco,
Texas that will let people hail self-driving vehicles for free using
a smartphone app.
The pilot program, which will kick off in July
2018, will run for six months and be limited to a specific geographic
zone in Frisco that has a concentration of retail, entertainment
venues, and office space.
… To avoid confusion, Drive.ai has outfitted
these self-driving vans with a bright orange paint job and four
external screens that communicate the vehicles’ intended actions to
pedestrians and other drivers on the roads. There will also be signs
posted along the planned route, which is posted below.
(Related)
Who’s
Winning the Self-Driving Car Race?
In the race to start the world’s first driving
business without human drivers, everyone is chasing Alphabet
Inc.’s Waymo.
The Google sibling has cleared the way to beat its
nearest rivals, General
Motors Co. and a couple of other players, by at least a year to
introduce driverless cars to the public.
… Goldman Sachs Group Inc. predicts that
robo-taxis will help the ride-hailing and -sharing business grow from
$5 billion in revenue today to $285 billion by 2030. There are grand
hopes for this business. Without drivers, operating margins could be
in the 20 percent range, more than twice what carmakers generate
right now. If that kind of growth and profit come to pass—very big
ifs—it would be almost three times what GM makes in a year. And
that doesn’t begin to count the money to be made in delivery.
The
Clear Leaders
Waymo
GM
Daimler
Aptiv
Zoox
Renault-Nissan
Audi
BMW
Toyota
Ford
Volvo
Hyundai
“Because we don’t want to hear about anyone’s
success or failure, or any facts for that matter!”
Facebook to
block all foreign ads about Eighth Amendment referendum
Facebook
is to block all ads related to the Eighth Amendment referendum that
come from advertisers outside of Ireland.
The social media giant is responding to criticism
that unaccountable foreign advertising is gaining traction in the
referendum campaign.
… Facebook has also indicated that it will
implement the same rule for future elections in Ireland, disallowing
any ads that do not come from registered entities in Ireland.
However, the move will not prevent ads that are
funded from abroad if they are placed through organisations located
in Ireland.
(Related)
EFF and
Coalition Partners Push Tech Companies To Be More Transparent and
Accountable About Censoring User Content
… EFF, ACLU of Northern California, Center for
Democracy & Technology, New America’s Open Technology
Institute, and a group of academic experts and free expression
advocates today released the Santa
Clara Principles, a set of minimum standards for tech companies
to augment and strengthen their content moderation policies. The
plain language, detailed guidelines call for disclosing not just how
and why platforms are removing content, but how much speech is being
censored.
Because the founding fathers got it all wrong?
Because small populations don’t count? Because Democrats can’t
count? (Last time Hillary Clinton got 52.1% of the vote in
Connecticut and won the popular vote.)
Connecticut
OKs Bill Pledging Electoral Votes To National Popular-Vote Winner
Connecticut is poised to commit its electoral
votes to whichever U.S. presidential candidate wins the nation's
popular vote — regardless of who wins the state.
By embracing the plan, Connecticut's General
Assembly gave new momentum to a push to change the way Americans
elect their president.
Ten states and the District of Columbia are
already in a compact to pool their electoral votes and pledge them to
the popular-vote winner. With Connecticut added, the compact's
voting power would rise to 172 — fewer than 100 electoral votes
away from the 270-vote majority that decides the presidential
contest.
Connecticut's Senate gave
final approval to the bill over the weekend, using a 21-14 vote
to send the legislation to Gov. Dannel Malloy — who responded by
saying, "I applaud the General Assembly for passing this
commonsense legislation."
… As NPR
noted in 2016, it's mathematically possible for a candidate to
win the U.S. presidency with less than 25 percent of the national
popular vote.
All of the states that have so far committed to
the pact are also states whose electoral votes went to Clinton in
2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment