So they really are asking Apple (et al) for backdoors only because it is cheaper?
The Police Can Probably Break Into Your iPhone
Jack Nicas reports that while law enforcement stokes fears of “going dark” because of inability to access encrypted iPhones, in reality, many law enforcement agencies can break into your smartphone:
That is because at least 2,000 law enforcement agencies in all 50 states now have tools to get into locked, encrypted phones and extract their data, according to years of public records collected in a report by Upturn, a Washington nonprofit that investigates how the police use technology.
At least 49 of the 50 largest U.S. police departments have the tools, according to the records, as do the police and sheriffs in small towns and counties across the country, including Buckeye, Ariz.; Shaker Heights, Ohio; and Walla Walla, Wash.
Read more on The New York Times.
Tighten down...
French Supervisory Authority Releases Strict Guidance on the Use of Facial Recognition Technology at Airports
On October 9, 2020, the French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) issued guidance on the use of facial recognition technology for identity checks at airports (available here, in French). The CNIL indicates that it has issued this guidance in response to a request from several operators and service providers of airports in France who are planning to deploy this technology on an experimental basis. In this blog post, we summarize the main principles that the CNIL says airports should observe when deploying biometric technology.
(Related) ...loosen up?
French Court of Cassation Decides That an Employer Can Use a Facebook Post to Dismiss an Employee
On September 30, 2020, the French Court of Cassation (“Court”) ruled in favor of an employer that dismissed an employee because of the contents of a Facebook post (the decision is available here, in French). In particular, the employee in this case posted a photograph of a new clothing collection of the employer on a personal Facebook account. This post could be seen by the employee’s “friends”, including those who worked for competing firms. As a result, a co-worker who was a “friend” of that employee sent the post to the employer. Posting the photograph was in breach of the employee’s confidentiality obligations under the employment contract. Thus, the employer asked a bailiff to access the employee’s Facebook account in order to obtain proof of the employee’s actions. The employer subsequently dismissed the employee for gross misconduct.
Did we see something similar in the EU or California? Did anyone try to calculate the numbers required?
New IAPP Report: Brazil’s Newly Activated LGPD Will Likely Create a Need for At Least 50,000 DPOs
Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (LGPD), better known to the English-speaking world as Brazil’s new General Data Protection Law, has been active for a month now and if nothing else is going to be a major job creator for Latin America’s biggest nation. A new report from the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) found that approximately 50,000 new data protection officers (DPOs) will be needed in the country to ensure that all of the organizations that it applies to are in compliance.
… The IAPP study is one of the first comprehensive look at the new law as its terms become active. The key takeaway is that since any organization that processes personal data in Brazil (pending company size requirements) must appoint DPOs even if it is not headquartered in the country, some 50,000 DPOs are expected to be needed in the very near future.
Worth a read…
https://enterprisersproject.com/article/2020/10/artificial-intelligence-ai-9-realities-cio
Artificial Intelligence (AI): 9 things IT pros wish the CIO knew
CIOs and IT leaders need to know AI in reasonable depth to understand its pragmatic adoption. Otherwise, you may either overestimate or underestimate AI’s impact.
No surprise.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/20/1010891/doj-google-antitrust-lawsuit-monopoly/
The DOJ says Google monopolizes search. Here’s how.
The US Department of Justice and attorneys general from 11 Republican-led states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google on Tuesday, alleging that the company maintains an illegal monopoly on online search and advertising.
The lawsuit follows a 16-month investigation, and repeated promises from President Trump to hold Big Tech to account amid unproven allegations of anti-conservative bias. But reports suggest the department was put under pressure by Attorney General William Barr to file the charges before the presidential election in two weeks’ time.
… The case centers on Google’s tactics and market dominance in search. It currently receives 80% of all search queries in the United States, and the DOJ says it uses the tens of billions of dollars of annual profits from search advertising to unfairly suppress its competition.
… Despite these allegations, the Department of Justice is not explicitly looking to break up Google or impose specific fines. Rather, it is asking for “structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm.”
… Several hours after the lawsuit was filed, the company called the lawsuit “deeply flawed” in a statement posted to its blog.
(Related) Another perspective.
Bill Barr's Google 'Antitrust Inquiry' Is A Weaponized Farce
Last month we noted how Bill Barr was rushing DOJ staffers (much to their chagrin) to launch his "antitrust inquiry" into Google. Why? Three reasons. One, it helps Trump allies and Google adversaries like "big telecom," Oracle, and Rupert Murdoch. Two, it helps put the utterly false narrative of "social media unfairly censors Conservatives" into headlines during an election. And three, it creates leverage over companies that have finally just begun to take online hate speech and disinformation (a cornerstone of Trumpism) seriously. Genuine concerns about "monopoly power" are the last thing on these folks' minds.
Right on cue, Bill Barr this morning announced that the Department of Justice is suing Google, claiming that the company's anticompetitive practices in arenas such as search "have had harmful effects on competition and consumers." The initial press release compares Google's dominance to historical natural monopolies of note, such as 80's era AT&T:
Entertaining Python students.
Bored at home? Here’s 10 handy tools you can build with Python
No comments:
Post a Comment