What
happens when “lessons learned” become “lessons ignored?”
Russia
Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds
The
Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Thursday that election
systems in all 50 states were targeted by Russia in 2016, an effort
more far-reaching than
previously acknowledged and one largely
undetected by the states and federal officials at the time.
But
while the bipartisan report’s warning that the United States
remains vulnerable in the next election is clear, its findings were
so heavily redacted
at the insistence of American intelligence agencies that even
some key recommendations for 2020 were blacked out.
… In
his testimony to two House committees on Wednesday, Mr. Mueller had
sought to highlight the continued threat that Russia or other
adversaries would seek to interfere in the 2020 elections. He said
many more “countries are developing capability to replicate what
the Russians have done.”
… While
the report is not directly critical of either American intelligence
agencies or the states, it described what amounted to a cascading
intelligence failure, in which the scope of the Russian effort was
underestimated, warnings to the states were too muted, and state
officials either underreacted or, in some cases, resisted federal
efforts to offer help.
Similar
but different.
The
Unsexy Threat to Election Security
Much
has been written about the need to further secure our elections, from
ensuring the integrity of voting machines to combating fake news.
But according to a report quietly issued by a California grand jury
this week, more attention needs to be paid to securing social media
and email accounts used by election officials at the state and local
level.
California
has a
civil grand jury system designed
to serve as an independent oversight of local government functions,
and each county impanels jurors to perform this service annually. On
Wednesday, a grand jury from San
Mateo County in
northern California released a report which envisions the havoc that
might be wrought on the election process if malicious hackers were
able to hijack social media and/or email accounts and disseminate
false voting instructions or phony election results.
“Let
us watch your neighbors from your doorbell camera.”
Amazon
Requires Police to Shill Surveillance Cameras in Secret Agreement
Amazon's
home security company Ring has enlisted local police departments
around the country to advertise its surveillance cameras in exchange
for free Ring products and a “portal” that allows police to
request footage from these cameras, a secret agreement obtained by
Motherboard shows. The agreement also requires police to “keep the
terms of this program confidential.”
… Police
already have access to publicly-funded street cameras and
investigative tools that help them track down almost any criminal
suspect. But Ring cameras are proliferating in the private sphere,
with close to zero oversight. Amazon is convincing people to
self-surveil through aggressive, fear-based marketing, aided by de
facto police endorsements and free Ring camera giveaways.
… The
agreement gives the Lakeland Police Department access to Ring’s
“Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal.” This
portal is an interactive map that
shows
police all of the active Ring doorbell cameras in their town.
The exact addresses of the doorbell cameras are hidden. Police can
use the portal to directly interact with Ring doorbell camera owners
and informally request footage for investigations, without a warrant.
Andrew
Ferguson, a professor at the University of the District of Columbia
School of Law, said in a phone call that products
like Ring can remove typical due process. Typically,
police have to get a warrant from a judge before collecting digital
evidence. Ring’s Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal, given to
police for free as a part of the agreement, lets police request
footage directly from Ring owners.
(Related)
Google,
Christopher Reeve Foundation to Give Away 100,000 Google Home Minis
Google
has
teamed up with the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation to give
100,000 Google
Home
Mini smart speakers to people living with paralysis and their
caregivers, the company announced Friday morning. Eligible U.S.
residents can apply on
the website of the foundation.
What
are they matching my face to? If I add my photo, identified as
Donald Trump to their database, will I receive proper obeisance?
Brandi
Vincent reports how Customs and Border Protection claims to be using
facial recognition technology these days:
Today, Hardin said the agency’s main use for facial recognition is to confirm that people are who they say they are as they move in, out and around the nation.
“It’s a huge advantage for us now, not just because the machine can perform better than the human in the actual matching, but also because it frees up the person to do other law enforcement activities in a small amount of time, which is really all they have,” he said.
Benji Hutchinson, vice president of federal operations at the information technology company NEC Corporation, also differentiated between how facial recognition has come to be used across law enforcement versus how Hardin and others are implementing it across immigration services. Hutchinson said it’s used in family reunification to identify matches of children that have been kidnapped, it helps dispel [(sic) Is that the right word? Bob] people who are wrongfully convicted and it supports officials in developing investigatory leads.
Read
more on NextGov.
Sounds
so benign when you put it that way, doesn’t it?
Clarification.
Italian
Supervisory Authority Issues Judgment Concerning ‘Right to be
Forgotten’
On
July 22, 2019, the Italian supervisory authority for data protection
(“Garante”) issued a judgment
involving
the so-called “right to be forgotten”. The Garante’s decision
explores the boundaries of this right in a case in which Internet
users could access an article by using a professional position as a
search term, whereas it was not possible to access the article merely
by using an individual’s name as a search term.
… the
Garante made clear that the principles of data protection apply to
any information concerning an identified or identifiable natural
person. Citing the GDPR’s definition of “personal data”, which
refers to “factors specific to cultural or social identity of that
natural person”, the Garante concluded that the data subject’s
position as president of a cooperative constituted identifiable –
and therefore personal – data relating to him.
Could
these problems be universal? (Hint: Fer Sure, dude.)
ACCC
Digital Platforms Inquiry to recommend changes to stop tech giants’
anti-competitive behaviour
Facebook
and Google will be forced to better protect Australians’ privacy
and be more transparent about collecting personal data if the
government adopts the findings of a “groundbreaking” consumer
watchdog report handed down today.
The
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has made 23
recommendations in its 623-page final report into anti-competitive
behaviour and the market power of tech giants in Australia.
The
ACCC stops short of calling for tech giant Google to be broken up
Worth
reviewing.
No comments:
Post a Comment