A bit overcautious, but worth considering.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/12/gchq-warns-not-use-windows-7-computers-banking-email-tuesday/
GCHQ warns not to use Windows 7 computers for banking or email after Tuesday
GCHQ has warned people not to do internet banking or use emails from computers with Windows 7 from Tuesday, when Microsoft will end support for the software.






“Rules? We don’t need no stinking rules!” (With apologies to The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/477795-congress-struggles-on-rules-for-cyber-warfare-with-iran
Congress struggles on rules for cyber warfare with Iran
The U.S. and Iran may have walked back from the brink of war, but the potential for a cyber battle looms with no clear rules of engagement.
Lawmakers and military officials say there’s no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes cyber warfare, leaving them to decide on a case-by-case basis how best to respond to individual incidents.






I wonder if intelligence agencies are notifying companies to ignore activity on certain accounts? Probably not. And they probably don’t like this article, reminding terrorists that not everyone hacking their phones is just in it for the money.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/facebook-reportedly-derailed-europe-terror-probe-by-alerting-users-of-phone-hack/
Facebook reportedly derailed Europe terror probe by alerting users of phone hack
Facebook in October reportedly derailed an investigation into an Islamic State terror suspect by European law enforcement and an Israeli intelligence firm by warning users that their phones had been hacked.
The company’s massively popular messaging platform, WhatsApp, notified some 1,400 users, including the suspect, that an “advanced cyber actor” had gained access to their devices. The suspect, who was believed to be planning a terror attack during the holiday season, disconnected shortly after.






Are lawyers relying on the techies to design the technique?
https://telecoms.com/501725/the-internet-could-be-set-for-a-fresh-gdpr-nightmare/
The internet could be set for a fresh GDPR nightmare

A new academic study into online consent management platforms has concluded many of them could be flouting GDPR rules.

The study was conducted by a consortium of universities and its findings published under the header: ‘Dark Patterns after the GDPR: Scraping Consent Pop-ups and Demonstrating their Influence’. We’re all aware of the pop-ups that have, well, popped up since GDPR came into force, requiring us to click ‘I agree’ to cookies and that sort of thing when we first visit a website, and often continually afterwards. But what are we actually agreeing to?
The issue this study seems to have been conducted to address concerns how much information people are supplied with when asked for their consent, as well as the matter of presumed consent – i.e. opt-out as opposed to opt-in. In many cases this process is managed by third party consent management platforms (CMP), and that’s what the study focused on.
[The study: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02479



(Related) A most interesting way to get your approval.
https://www.albawaba.com/
Al Bawaba
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience
By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.






A freebie worth grabbing?
https://www.bespacific.com/book-review-blockchain-and-the-law-the-rule-of-code/
Book review: Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code
Joseph Savirimuthu, “Book review: Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code”, (2019) 16:1 SCRIPTed 95 https://script-ed.org/?p=3748 DOI: 10.2966/scrip.160119.95. Download PDF
“Blockchains, distributed ledger technologies, bitcoins and peer-to-peer networks have reignited old debates and arguments about the implications of decentralisation for social, economic and political ordering. Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code sets out to map the landscape of this technology that enables its readers to assess the opportunities and regulatory challenges. The coverage is impressive, well-researched and key issues are examined and analysed with rigor and clarity. This book will appeal to technology and innovation scholars, policymakers and lawyers. It is also likely to be suitable for academic and policy programmes at undergraduate and postgraduate level. The book is well-structured with an overriding goal – to define and explain the rationale and goals of the law in seeking to regulate the technology. As observers of the innovation opportunities and challenges will attest, the quest to formulate optimal strategies is complex and far from straightforward. It is a point that needs to be kept in mind that Blockchain and the Law will not resolve ongoing arguments about the mismatch between technological innovation and the ability of law to keep pace. The book is structured with five Parts, beginning with an account of the characteristics of blockchain technology (Part 1) before proceeding to examine financial and contractual instruments (Part 2), security standards and protocols (Part 3), the institutional and organizational infrastructure (Part 4) and governance (Part 5). Whether the regulatory responses to blockchains will culminate in a lex cryptographica is merely a springboard for an examination of how the problems of associated with the automated and decentralised architecture are to be mitigated. For those with long memories of peer-to-peer file sharing services in the 1990s and 2000, one may need to be more circumspect about whether the distinctive decentralised software infrastructure upon which blockchain applications sit, will succeed in creating “order without law” (p. 5).






Face it, this technology is questionable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/technology/facial-recognition-police.html
How the Police Use Facial Recognition, and Where It Falls Short
After a high-speed chase north of Orlando, Fla., sheriff’s deputies punctured the tires of a stolen Dodge Magnum and brought it to a stop. They arrested the driver, but couldn’t determine who he was. The man had no identification card. He passed out after stuffing something into his mouth. And his fingerprints, the deputies reported, appeared to have been chewed off.
So investigators turned to one of the oldest and largest facial recognition systems in the country: a statewide program based in Pinellas County, Fla., that began almost 20 years ago, when law enforcement agencies were just starting to use the technology. Officers ran a photo of the man through a huge database, found a likely match and marked the 2017 case as one of the system’s more than 400 successful “outcomes ” since 2014.
… Officials in Florida say that they query the system 4,600 times a month. But the technology is no magic bullet: Only a small percentage of the queries break open investigations of unknown suspects, the documents indicate. The tool has been effective with clear images — identifying recalcitrant detainees, people using fake IDs and photos from anonymous social media accounts — but when investigators have tried to put a name to a suspect glimpsed in grainy surveillance footage, it has produced significantly fewer results.
The Florida program also underscores concerns about new technologies’ potential to violate due process. The system operates with little oversight, and its role in legal cases is not always disclosed to defendants, records show. Although officials said investigators could not rely on facial recognition results to make an arrest, documents suggested that on occasion officers gathered no other evidence.
… Only one American court is known to have ruled on the use of facial recognition by law enforcement, and it gave credence to the idea that a defendant’s right to the information was limited.
Willie Allen Lynch was accused in 2015 of selling $50 worth of crack cocaine, after the Pinellas facial recognition system suggested him as a likely match. Mr. Lynch, who claimed he had been misidentified, sought the images of the other possible matches; a Florida appeals court ruled against it. He is serving an eight-year prison sentence.
Any technological findings presented as evidence are subject to analysis through special hearings, but facial recognition results have never been deemed reliable enough to stand up to such questioning.






All you need is a large format printer and you’re ready to frame!
https://www.bespacific.com/100000-artworks-images-from-paris-museum-collections-now-freely-available/
100,000 Artworks Images From Paris Museum Collections Now Freely Available
Hyperallergic: “Paris Musées announced yesterday that it is now offering 100,000 digital reproductions of artworks in the city’s museums as Open Access — free of charge and without restrictions — via its Collections portal. Paris Musées is a public entity that oversees the 14 municipal museums of Paris, including the Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Petit Palais, and the Catacombs. Users can download a file that contains a high definition (300 DPI) image, a document with details about the selected work, and a guide of best practices for using and citing the sources of the image…”






For my fellow tax payers.
https://www.bespacific.com/how-to-file-your-state-and-federal-taxes-for-free-in-2020/
How to File Your State and Federal Taxes for Free in 2020
ProPublica – “TurboTax and other tax prep services advertised themselves as “free,” but we found several ways that they tricked people into paying. Here’s our guide to preparing and filing your taxes without falling into a trap.”