If you steal cash, it’s gone after one use. IP is a gift that keeps on giving.
China's cyber espionage focus: intellectual property theft
The recently uncovered Operation CuckooBees campaign shows how serious China is about using IP theft as a competitive advantage. Protect IP now or chase it later.
Why do they assume no one is ready to do this? If all it takes is cash, think China, Russia, etc.
https://www.protocol.com/enterprise/ai-ml-ransomware-cyberattacks-automation
Ransomware is already out of control. AI-powered ransomware could be 'terrifying.'
Hiring AI experts to automate ransomware could be the next step for well-endowed ransomware groups that are seeking to scale up their attacks.
In the perpetual battle between cybercriminals and defenders, the latter have always had one largely unchallenged advantage: The use of AI and machine learning allows them to automate a lot of what they do, especially around detecting and responding to attacks. This leg-up hasn't been nearly enough to keep ransomware at bay, but it has still been far more than what cybercriminals have ever been able to muster in terms of AI and automation.
That’s because deploying AI-powered ransomware would require AI expertise. And the ransomware gangs don’t have it. At least not yet.
But given the wealth accumulated by a number of ransomware gangs in recent years, it may not be long before attackers do bring aboard AI experts of their own, prominent cybersecurity authority Mikko Hyppönen said.
Some of these groups have so much cash — or bitcoin, rather — that they could now potentially compete with legit security firms for talent in AI and machine learning, according to Hyppönen, the chief research officer at cybersecurity firm WithSecure.
For those facing this for the first time.
A Tale of Two Functions: Business and Legal Considerations after a Data Breach
ABA Litigation Group – “Analyzing how best to preserve attorney-client privilege and work product protections over data breach investigatory reports in light of changing trends. In-house counsel faced with a data breach encounter a difficult balancing act. On one hand, it is critical to determine the cause of the breach and generate a plan to bolster security systems to reduce the likelihood of similar occurrences in the future. On the other hand, these same reports, usually performed by third-party consulting companies, can generate damning evidence for affected parties in ensuing litigation. Whether such reports are subject to production in litigation often turns on a handful of minutiae, such as the primary purpose of the report’s creation and whether the company maintains a clear line between business and legal functions. As a matter of practicality and necessity, that line often becomes blurred quite quickly, and several recent case decisions demonstrate the pitfalls that can result in inadvertent production of these reports in litigation. One of the earlier reported decisions involved Target’s successful objection to production of a data breach report on the basis of privilege in class-action litigation. See In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. MDL142522PAMJJK, 2015 WL 6777384 (D. Minn. Oct. 23, 2015). Unlike many of the cases that followed, Target succeeded in protecting its data breach investigatory report from production in litigation. Following the Target decision, the tide has turned significantly regarding the production of data breach reports in litigation. These cases all tend to have similar threads: whether, and to what extent, these reports are generated for the purpose of providing legal advice or in anticipation of litigation and, most importantly, whether the company can prove either of those prongs…”
Ensuring free speech or training the next shooter?
Did Twitch Violate Texas’ Social Media Law By Removing Mass Murderer’s Live Stream Of His Killing Spree?
As you’ve no doubt heard, on Saturday there was yet another horrific shooting, this one in Buffalo, killing 10 people and wounding more. From all current evidence, the shooter, a teenager, was a brainwashed white nationalist, spewing nonsense and hate in a long manifesto that repeated bigoted propaganda found in darker corners of the internet… and on Fox News’ evening shows. He also streamed the shooting rampage live on Twitch, and apparently communicated some of his plans via Discord and 4chan.
Twitch quickly took down the stream and Discord is apparently investigating. All of this is horrible, of course. But, it seems worth noting that it’s quite possible Twitch’s removal could violate Texas’ ridiculously fucked up social media law.
I did not consult my AI before deciding to include this article.
FPF REPORT: AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING UNDER THE GDPR – A COMPREHENSIVE CASE-LAW ANALYSIS
Today, the Future of Privacy Forum launched a comprehensive Report analyzing case-law under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applied to real-life cases involving Automated Decision Making (ADM). The Report is informed by extensive research covering more than 70 Court judgments, decisions from Data Protection Authorities (DPAs), specific Guidance and other policy documents issued by regulators.
How effective could a small lobbying effort be?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/17/american-edge-facebook-regulation/
Facebook quietly bankrolled small, grassroots groups to fight its battles in Washington
Records show Facebook-funded American Edge backed minority interest groups, conservative think tanks and small business groups to create the appearance of grassroots opposition to antitrust regulation
(Related) Perhaps the effort wasn’t even needed?
Support for more regulation of tech companies has declined in U.S., especially among Republicans
A declining share of Americans favor more government regulation of major technology companies, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Still, a plurality of U.S. adults favor greater regulation of these companies, and a large majority believe it is at least somewhat likely that social media sites censor political viewpoints they find objectionable.
Overall, 44% of Americans think major technology companies should be regulated more than they are now, down from 56% in April 2021. Conversely, the share of Americans who say they want less government regulation of major technology companies has roughly doubled, from about one-in-ten (9%) in previous years to one-in-five today.
No comments:
Post a Comment