Responding
to attacks is Okay. Preventing them by requiring adequate security
would be better.
Schumer
calls for federal response to school cyberattacks
U.S.
Sen. Charles Schumer Wednesday called on Congress and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to help school districts and other local
government bodies threatened by increasingly common and sophisticated
cyberattacks.
The
issue has put school districts across New York on guard, particularly
after the Syracuse City School District was hit with ransomware
earlier this year. The district ended up paying
a $50,000 insurance premium [???
Bob] to free itself, Schumer said.
"It’s
a threat that’s wreaking havoc on our state and more specifically
our schools," he said. “It's
time to hit 'control-alt-delete' on ransomware and take a megabyte
out of hackers." [Trying
to sound like a techie? This fails miserably. Bob]
He
put forward two proposals. The first is a bill called the Department
of Homeland Security Cyber Incident Response Teams Act, which already
has passed the House of Representatives. It would create specific
teams within DHS to assist local government with cyberattacks.
Schumer
also said the FBI should be more active in targeting attacks at their
source, often out of the country. State bureau offices, meanwhile,
would investigate specific incidents and report back to various
levels of government.
(Related)
How they do it in the UK.
NCSC
urges UK universities to shield themselves from possible
cybersecurity threats
Question:
Is a private corporation the way facial recognition should go?
(license
plate:cars=face:people)
This
Company Built a Private Surveillance Network. We Tracked Someone With
It
… I
gave the private investigator, who offered to demonstrate the
capability, a plate of someone who consented to be tracked.
… The
results popped up: dozens of sightings, spanning
years. The system could see photos of the car parked
outside the owner's house; the car in another state as its driver
went to visit family; and the car parked in other spots in the
owner's city. Each was tagged
with the time and GPS coordinates of the car. Some showed
the car's location as recently as a few weeks before. In addition to
photos of the vehicle itself, the tool displayed the car's accurate
location on an easy to understand, Google Maps-style interface.
This
tool, called Digital Recognition Network (DRN), is not run by a
government, although law enforcement can also access it. Instead,
DRN is a private surveillance system crowdsourced by hundreds of repo
men who have installed cameras that passively scan, capture, and
upload the license plates of every car they drive by to DRN's
database. DRN stretches coast to coast and is available to private
individuals and companies focused on tracking and locating people or
vehicles. The tool is made by a company that is also called Digital
Recognition Network.
Perspective.
Read
the Privacy Commissioner’s Submission to the New Zealand Law
Commission on the Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations (Issues Paper
43). You can
view
it here .
Here’s
a snippet:
1.18. In my view, a legitimate reason needs to be articulated for the State to collect and retain the DNA profiles of some people and not others. The incremental changes to the CIBS Act implemented over time mean there is a risk is that the scheme has become a de facto databank of those citizens who have come to the attention of the Police for a variety of reasons (where through being charged with an offence, being excluded as a suspect, being present in crime scene DNA analysis, or as a victim).
1.19. Function creep can intensify privacy intrusions and erode trust and confidence. Without proper safeguards there is a clear risk of gradual “creep” if DNA gathered for one law enforcement purpose ends up being used for a broader range of purposes than originally articulated or intended.
1.20. There appears to be a real risk of discriminatory impacts. As the Issues Paper notes, this has significant implications for Māori who are over-represented in the justice system. The DNA held in the databank is an available source for the investigation of future offences, regardless of the purpose for which it was originally collected.
After all, 100 billion flies can’t be wrong –
eat garbage!
Poll:
Two-thirds of Americans want to break up companies like Amazon and
Google
Vox:
“Americans are pretty on board with breaking
up Big Tech,
especially if it means companies such as Amazon
and
Google
stop
showing them search results they make money off of first. Nearly
two-thirds of Americans would support breaking up tech firms by
undoing recent mergers, such as Facebook’s acquisition of
Instagram, if it means ensuring more competition in the future.
Another tech company issue appears to strike a chord with people even
more: Almost seven in 10 Americans say it’s a good idea to break up
big tech companies when the content they’re showing people is
ranked depending on whether the company is making money off of it or
not. Basically, when you search for a suitcase to buy on Amazon, it
might show you options from its proprietary AmazonBasics line instead
of from a company it doesn’t own.
That’s according to polling from progressive think tank Data for
Progress in partnership with YouGov Blue shared exclusively with Vox.
And
the results hold across most age groups, education levels,
demographics, and political ideologies …”
Perspective. A phone that is just a phone! What
a concept!
A
No-Internet, Just-For-Kids Cell Phone Is Here, and It's Every
Parent's Dream
Much
to our chagrin, it seems like the
age where kids get their first cell phone is
skewing younger by the day. And while it's important that we're able
to reach
our children after soccer practice do
they really need access to the internet on top of all the other bells
and whistles? According to Stephen Dalby - a dad from Palo Alto, CA,
and the founder and CEO of Gabb
Wireless -
the answer is no.
… geared
toward kids ages 8 to 14
… Your
kids can communicate with their loved ones freely via call or text,
sans unlimited internet access and an app store.
I always talk about a book called “How to lie
with statistics”
How juries
are fooled by statistics
TED
Talk –
“Oxford
mathematician Peter Donnelly reveals the common mistakes humans make
in interpreting statistics — and the devastating impact these
errors can have on the outcome of criminal trials.”
No comments:
Post a Comment