Just
in time for Cryptography week. Many IoT devices are too small to run
elaborate software.
This
is interesting:
Creating these defenses is the goal of NIST's lightweight cryptography initiative, which aims to develop cryptographic algorithm standards that can work within the confines of a simple electronic device. Many of the sensors, actuators and other micromachines that will function as eyes, ears and hands in IoT networks will work on scant electrical power and use circuitry far more limited than the chips found in even the simplest cell phone. Similar small electronics exist in the keyless entry fobs to newer-model cars and the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags used to locate boxes in vast warehouses.
All of these gadgets are inexpensive to make and will fit nearly anywhere, but common encryption methods may demand more electronic resources than they possess.
The NSA's SIMON
and SPECK would certainly qualify.
Not
what I expected. Is it all in the questions?
Creepy
or Not? Your Privacy Concerns Probably Reflect Your Politics
… A
new poll on surveillance from the Annenberg School for Communication
at the University of Pennsylvania found that Americans are deeply
divided over tracking, both online and in real life. And political
affiliation is a main predictor of Americans’ emotional reactions
to surveillance, the researchers found.
Among people who identified themselves as
Democrats, for instance, 62 percent said they felt “creeped out”
by the idea of companies checking job applicants’ credit history
before hiring them. By contrast, half of independents and just 29
percent of Republicans felt creeped out.
… The
study, published on Monday, focused specifically on Americans’
emotional responses to snooping techniques that could
disproportionately affect low-income populations. Among other
things, the survey asked participants about practices like police
profiling and landlords subscribing to profiling databases to screen
potential tenants. Professor Turow said the report was the first
national study of its kind.
The
problem with using a technique pioneered by the bad guys.
Telegram
has been putting up an impressive
fight against the governments of Russia and Iran in high-profile
efforts to censor the messaging service over the last few weeks. But
we’ve heard little about its fellow encrypted messaging app Signal.
Both services have used an anti-censorship technique called “domain
fronting” to get around tyrants—and now, Google and Amazon say
that’s no longer an option.
Amazon officially announced it’s increased focus
on stamping out domain fronting on Friday.
The statement followed closely behind a similar
move by Google.
… “The
idea behind domain fronting was that to block a single site, you’d
have to block the rest of the internet as well. In the end, the rest
of the internet didn’t like that plan.”
In simple terms, domain
fronting allows a service like Signal to hide the endpoint of
internet traffic behind a domain that’s permitted by a censor. In
this case, Amazon specifically pointed to Signal’s use of Souq.com,
a domain owned by the online retail giant. A country that’s
blocking Signal would see traffic going to Souq.com and allow it. On
the other side of Amazon’s clean SSL certificate, the traffic would
be routed to Signal. You can read more about how it all works here.
The big
thing is, the technique has been effective because governments
haven’t been willing to block tons of IP addresses and break
crucial parts of the internet just to stamp out a single banned site
using domain fronting. But the clash between Telegram and Russia is
different. The
Russian government has been all too willing to block millions of IPs
in its quest to destroy Telegram
founder Pavel Durov’s service
Because
my students had
better be
are interested in this topic.
CRS
Report – Artificial Intelligence and National Security
CRS
report via FAS – Artificial
Intelligence and National Security – Daniel S. Hoadley, US Air
Force Fellow; Nathan J. Lucas, Section Research Manager, April 26,
2018.
“Artificial
Intelligence (AI) is a rapidly growing field of technological
development with potentially significant implications for national
security. As such, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is
developing AI applications for a range of military functions. AI
research is underway in the fields of intelligence collection and
analysis, logistics, cyberspace operations, command and control, and
a variety of military autonomous vehicles. AI applications are
already playing a role in operations in Iraq and Syria, with
algorithms designed to speed up the target identification process.
Congressional action has the potential to shape the technology’s
trajectory, with fiscal and regulatory decisions potentially
influencing growth of national security applications and the standing
of military AI development versus international competitors. AI
technology presents unique challenges for military acquisitions,
especially since the bulk of AI development is happening in the
commercial sector. Although AI is not unique in this regard, the
Defense Acquisition Process (DAP) may potentially need to be adapted
for acquiring systems like AI. In addition, many commercial AI
applications must undergo significant modification prior to being
functional for the military. A number of cultural issues challenge
AI acquisition, leading to discord with AI companies and potential
military aversion to adapting weapons systems and processes to this
disruptive technology.”
Not sure
I believe this. Surely some manager will come up with a more
efficient process by the 2020 Presidential election? Or perhaps they
could charge more for “first time” ad purchasers?
Facebook
will spend so much reviewing political ads this year that it will
lose money on them
Facebook
is spending so much money hiring moderators to review political ads
that it will cancel out the revenue those ads generate in this year’s
election cycle, says CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
“We’re essentially going
to be losing money on running political ads,” because the company
is hiring “thousands” in advance of the 2018 elections,
Zuckerberg said in an interview today. “That cost is going to be
greater than the money that we make.”
Cute
and simple. This could freak someone out if they didn’t know it
was coming.
I
haven’t noticed this, yet.
In
abid to gain market share publishers have slashed the cost of digital
textbooks
Inside
Higher Ed: “New print textbooks can still cost students
hundreds of dollars, but the cost of etextbooks is falling fast,
according to data from etextbook distribution platforms VitalSource
and RedShelf — both of which work with all major publishers. Since
2016, the average price of etextbooks on VitalSource has fallen by 31
percent, from $56.36 in 2016 to $38.65 in 2018. Some areas, such as
mathematics, have seen more drastic change, said VitalSource. In
2016, the average math etextbook cost $79. Now it’s $39 — a
decrease of almost 50 percent. RedShelf confirmed a similar price
drop. In 2015, the average etextbook cost $53.11, the company said.
Now it’s $39.24. Mike Hale, VitalSource vice president of
education for North America, described the price change as
“dramatic.” Since January 2016, prices have fallen every month,
he said. “Prices on textbooks were, everybody agrees, way too
high,” said Hale. “Publishers have finally responded with
pricing that is rational.” Tom Scotty, chief operating officer at
RedShelf, said the reason the publishers were dropping prices was to
capture market share…”
Dilbert explains bad
Software Architecture.
No comments:
Post a Comment