...and
so the hacking of the 2020 Election begins quietly.
https://www.databreaches.net/russian-state-hackers-suspected-in-targeting-biden-campaign-firm-sources/
Russian
state hackers suspected in targeting Biden campaign firm – sources
Joel
Schectman, Raphael Satter, Christopher Bing, and Joseph Menn report:
Microsoft
Corp recently alerted one of Democratic presidential candidate Joe
Biden’s main election campaign advisory firms that it had been
targeted by suspected Russian state-backed hackers, according to
three people briefed on the matter.
The
hacking attempts targeted staff at Washington-based SKDKnickerbocker,
a campaign strategy and communications firm working with Biden and
other prominent Democrats, over the past two months, the sources
said.
Read
more on Reuters.
(Related)
So quietly, the people who were supposed to notice missed it
entirely. Or perhaps their focus is too narrow?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-cyber/top-u-s-federal-election-protection-official-says-no-sign-of-infrastructure-hacks-idUSKBN26002B
Top
U.S. federal election protection official says no sign of
infrastructure hacks
The
official leading the effort to protect U.S. elections from foreign
hacking said on Tuesday he had seen no signs of infiltration on
computer systems used to record and tabulate votes.
“The
technical stuff on networks, we’re not seeing,” said Chris Krebs,
director of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA). “It gives me a little bit of confidence.”
For
my Computer Security students.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/09/the_third_editi.html
The
Third Edition of Ross Anderson’s Security
Engineering
Ross
Anderson’s fantastic textbook, Security
Engineering,
will have a third edition. The book won’t be published until
December, but Ross has been making drafts of the chapters available
online as
he finishes them. Now that the book is completed, I expect the
publisher to make him take the drafts off the Internet.
I
personally find both the electronic and paper versions to be
incredibly useful. Grab an electronic copy now while you still can.
This
law was probably passed by people with faces.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/tech/portland-facial-recognition-ban/index.html
Portland
passes broadest facial recognition ban in the US
The city of Portland, Oregon, on Wednesday banned
the use of facial-recognition technology by city departments —
including local police — as well as public-facing businesses such
as stores, restaurants and hotels.
… In
addition to halting city use of the surveillance technology, the new
rule prevents "private
entities in places of public accommodation" in
Portland from using it, too, referring to businesses that serve the
general public — a grocery store or a pizza place, for instance.
It does not prevent individuals from setting up facial-recognition
technology at home, such as a Google Nest camera that can spot
familiar faces, or gadgets that use facial-recognition software for
authenticating users, like Apple's Face ID feature for unlocking an
iPhone.
Should
we worry or simply forge ahead?
https://www.cyberscoop.com/chinese-cyber-power-united-states-harvard-belfer-research/
Chinese
cyber power is neck-and-neck with US, Harvard research finds
As
conventional wisdom goes, experts tend to rank the U.S ahead of
China, U.K.,
Iran,
North
Korea, Russia,
in terms of how strong it is when it comes to cyberspace. But a
new study from
Harvard University’s Belfer Center shows that China
has
closed the gap on the U.S. in three key categories: surveillance,
cyber defense, and its efforts to build up its commercial cyber
sector.
What’s
important?
https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-privacy/internet-societys-internet-impact-assessment-toolkit-aims-to-protect-the-future-of-the-internet/
Internet
Society’s “Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit” Aims to Protect
the Future of the Internet
The
Internet Society’s new “Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit” may
be primarily aimed at policymakers, but it’s a worthwhile read for
anyone who considers themselves a stakeholder in the future of the
internet.
The
paper centers on five critical properties of networking that have
made the internet successful and vital to human communication, and on
the threats that could potentially undermine these principles. The
primary threat that the paper identifies is a splintering of the
internet, with both authoritarian nations and private interests
gating things off into permission-based centralized networks.
[The
Toolkit:
https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/internet-way-of-networking/internet-impact-assessment-toolkit/#:~:text=The%20Internet%20Impact%20Assessment%20Toolkit,Internet%20that%20works%20for%20everyone.
The
availability of Internet search has changed the way lawyers must
operate. Is it true for all other professions?
https://www.bespacific.com/the-search-for-clarity-in-an-attorneys-duty-to-google/
The
Search for Clarity in an Attorney’s Duty to Google
Murphy,
Michael, The Search for Clarity in an Attorney’s Duty to Google
(August 23, 2020). U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper
No. 20-30, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3682235
or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3682235
“Attorneys
have a professional duty to investigate relevant facts about the
matters on which they work. There is no specific rule or statute
requiring that an attorney perform an internet search as part of this
investigation. Yet attorneys
have been found by judges to violate a “Duty to Google” when they
have failed to conduct an internet search for relevant information
about, for example, a claim, their own client, and even potential
jurors in a trial.
So
much information is now available to attorneys so easily in
electronic search results, it is time to wonder where, when, and how
much attorneys should be searching. This Article examines the
following questions: is the “Duty to Google” merely yet another
example of how attorneys must become proficient in technology to meet
their professional ethical obligations? Or is it something more?
Where should this duty be codified, if anywhere? At what point does
technology like a search engine become so “mainstream” that
attorneys have a duty to use it or face allegations of malpractice?
How will attorneys know how much Googling is enough?
This
article explores an attorney’s duty of investigation and notes that
this duty has been, like the rest of legal practice, forever changed
(and ever changing) by technology. It examines the potential sources
of a Duty to Google and argues that this responsibility is poorly
defined. Accordingly, this article argues for a better-defined duty
of investigation, codified in a rule of professional conduct. The
article concludes by looking to the future and suggesting
industry-wide changes to better prepare attorneys to meet their
(better defined) obligations of technological competency.”
...because
you know they’re going to monkey with it!
https://www.bespacific.com/report-regulating-social-media/
Report
– Regulating Social Media
The
Fight Over Section 230 and Beyond by
Paul M. Barrett is the deputy director of the New York University
Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “Recently, Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has come under sharp attack
from members of both political parties, including presidential
candidates Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The foundational law of the
commercial internet, Section 230 does two things: It protects
platforms and websites from most lawsuits related to content posted
by third parties. And it guarantees this shield from liability even
if the platforms and sites actively police the content they host.
This protection has encouraged internet companies to innovate and
grow, even as it has raised serious questions about whether social
media platforms adequately self-regulate harmful content. In
addition to the assaults by Trump and Biden, members of Congress have
introduced a number of bills designed to limit the reach of Section
230. Some critics have asserted unrealistically that repealing or
curbing Section 230 would solve a wide range of problems relating to
internet governance. These critics also have played down the
potentialy dire consequences that repeal would have for smaller
internet companies. Academics, think tank researchers, and others
outside of government have made a variety of more nuanced proposals
for revising the law. We assess these ideas with an eye toward
recommending and integrating the most promising ones. Our conclusion
is that Section 230 ought to be preserved—but that it can be
improved. It should be used as a means to push platforms to accept
greater responsibility for the content they host…”
Future
justice?
https://www.bespacific.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-the-courts-and-online-hearings-maintaining-open-justice-procedural-fairness-and-impartiality/
The
COVID-19 Pandemic, the Courts and Online Hearings: Maintaining Open
Justice, Procedural Fairness and Impartiality
Legg,
Michael, The COVID-19 Pandemic, the Courts and Online Hearings:
Maintaining Open Justice, Procedural Fairness and Impartiality
(2021). Forthcoming (2021) Federal Law Review, UNSW Law Research No.
20-46, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3681165
“The
COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing mandated health protections saw
courts turn to communications technology as a means to be able to
continue to function. However, courts are unique institutions that
exercise judicial power in accordance with the rule of law. Even in
a pandemic courts need to function in a manner consistent with their
institutional role and its essential characteristics. This article
uses the unique circumstances brought about by the pandemic to
consider how courts can
embrace technology but maintain the core or essential requirements of
a court. This article identifies three essential features
of courts – open justice, procedural fairness and impartiality –
and examines how this recent adoption of technology has maintained or
challenged those essential features. This examination allows for
both an assessment of how the courts operated during the pandemic,
but also provides guidance
for making design decisions about a technology-enabled future court.”
Is
this as big a change as I think it might be?
https://fortune.com/2020/09/09/mastercard-launches-digital-currency-kit-for-central-banks/
Mastercard
launches digital currency kit for central banks
In
the 10 years since Bitcoin came on the financial scene, central banks
have quietly been dabbling in digital currencies of their own. Now,
Mastercard
has
unveiled a tool designed to simulate how those currencies would work
in the real world.
The
payments giant announced the project on Wednesday morning, calling it
the Central Bank Digital Currencies Testing Platform—a bland title
to be sure, but one likely to find favor with cautious central
bankers.
A
classroom flipping tool.
https://www.freetech4teachers.com/2020/09/video-puppet-is-now-narakeet-still.html
Video
Puppet is Now Narakeet - Still Turns Slides Into Narrated Videos
Back
in
April I featured a neat service called Video Puppet that
turns PowerPoint presentations into narrated videos. This morning I
got an email notifying me that Video Puppet has been re-branded as
Narakeet
(why?
I don't know).
Narakeet
does
all of the same things as Video Puppet. The only change is the name
and a few new additional features. Those new features include
greater control over the voice-over. You can now have multiple
voice-over voices in your video and you can now control pauses in the
narration.
Here's
the video I
made about Video Puppet last spring. The functions in Narakeet are
exactly the same.
Dilbert’s
answer to Artificial Intelligence.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-09-10
