aggregator

Organized crime is mining sand from rivers and coasts to feed demand worldwide, ruining ecosystems and communities. Can it be stopped? Scientific American reports: Very few people are looking closely at the illegal sand system or calling for changes, however, because sand is a mundane resource. Yet sand mining is the world's largest extraction industry because sand is a main ingredient in concrete, and the global construction industry has been soaring for decades. Every year the world uses up to 50 billion metric tons of sand, according to a United Nations Environment Program report. The only natural resource more widely consumed is water. A 2022 study by researchers at the University of Amsterdam concluded that we are dredging river sand at rates that far outstrip nature's ability to replace it, so much so that the world could run out of construction-grade sand by 2050. The U.N. report confirms that sand mining at current rates is unsustainable. The greatest demand comes from China, which used more cement in three years (6.6 gigatons from 2011 through 2013) than the U.S. used in the entire 20th century (4.5 gigatons), notes Vince Beiser, author of The World in a Grain. Most sand gets used in the country where it is mined, but with some national supplies dwindling, imports reached $1.9 billion in 2018, according to Harvard's Atlas of Economic Complexity. Companies large and small dredge up sand from waterways and the ocean floor and transport it to wholesalers, construction firms and retailers. Even the legal sand trade is hard to track. Two experts estimate the global market at about $100 billion a year, yet the U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries indicates the value could be as high as $785 billion. Sand in riverbeds, lake beds and shorelines is the best for construction, but scarcity opens the market to less suitable sand from beaches and dunes, much of it scraped illegally and cheaply. With a shortage looming and prices rising, sand from Moroccan beaches and dunes is sold inside the country and is also shipped abroad, using organized crime's extensive transport networks, Abderrahmane has found. More than half of Morocco's sand is illegally mined, he says.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Crime+Rings+Are+Trafficking+in+an+Unlikely+Treasure%3A+Sand%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F19%2F1055220%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F19%2F1055220%2Fcrime-rings-are-trafficking-in-an-unlikely-treasure-sand%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/19/1055220/crime-rings-are-trafficking-in-an-unlikely-treasure-sand?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Stablecoins, cryptocurrencies pegged to a stable value like the US dollar, were created with the promise of bringing the frictionless, border-crossing fluidity of Bitcoin to a form of digital money with far less volatility. That combination has proved to be wildly popular, rocketing the total value of stablecoin transactions since 2022 past even that of Bitcoin itself. It turns out, however, that as stablecoins have become popular among legitimate users over the past two years, they were even more popular among a different kind of user: those exploiting them for billions of dollars of international sanctions evasion and scams. As part of itsannual crime report, cryptocurrency-tracing firm Chainalysis today released new numbers on the disproportionate use of stablecoins for both of those massive categories of illicit crypto transactions over the last year. By analyzing blockchains, Chainalysis determined that stablecoins were used in fully 70 percent of crypto scam transactions in 2023, 83 percent of crypto payments to sanctioned countries like Iran and Russia, and 84 percent of crypto payments to specifically sanctioned individuals and companies. Those numbers far outstrip stablecoins' growing overall use -- including for legitimate purposes -- which accounted for 59 percent of all cryptocurrency transaction volume in 2023. In total, Chainalysis measured $40 billion in illicit stablecoin transactions in 2022 and 2023 combined. The largest single category of that stablecoin-enabled crime was sanctions evasion. In fact, across all cryptocurrencies, sanctions evasion accounted for more than half of the $24.2 billion in criminal transactions Chainalysis observed in 2023, with stablecoins representing the vast majority of those transactions. [...] Chainalysis concedes that the analysis in its report excludes some cryptocurrencies like Monero and Zcash that are designed to be harder or impossible to trace with blockchain analysis. It also says it based its numbers on the type of cryptocurrency sent directly to an illicit actor, which may leave out other currencies used in money laundering processes that repeatedly swap one type of cryptocurrency for another to make tracing more difficult. "Whether it's an individual located in Iran or a bad guy trying to launder money -- either way, there's a benefit to the stability of the US dollar that people are looking to obtain," says Andrew Fierman, Chainalysis' head of sanctions strategy. "If you're in a jurisdiction where you don't have access to the US dollar due to sanctions, stablecoins become an interesting play." Fierman points to Nobitex, the largest cryptocurrency exchange operating in the sanctioned country of Iran, as well as Garantex, a notorious exchange based in Russia that has been specifically sanctioned for its widespread criminal use. According to Chainalysis, "Stablecoin usage on Nobitex outstrips bitcoin by a 9:1 ratio, and on Garantex by a 5:1 ratio," reports Wired. "That's a stark difference from the roughly 1:1 ratio between stablecoins and bitcoins on a few nonsanctioned mainstream exchanges that Chainalysis checked for comparison."pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status='Stablecoins'+Enabled+%2440+Billion+In+Crypto+Crime+Since+2022%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F18%2F2112213%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F18%2F2112213%2Fstablecoins-enabled-40-billion-in-crypto-crime-since-2022%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/18/2112213/stablecoins-enabled-40-billion-in-crypto-crime-since-2022?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

With NASA's Artemis moon program now targeting September 2025 for its Artemis 2 mission and September 2026 for Artemis 3, some members of Congress are concerned about the potential repercussions, particularly with China's growing ambitions in lunar exploration. "For the United States and its partners not to be on the moon when others are on the moon is unacceptable," said Mike Griffin, former NASA administrator. "We need a program that is consistent with that theme. Artemis is not that program. We need to restart it, not keep it on track." Space.com reports: The U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing about the new Artemis plan today (Jan. 17), and multiple members voiced concern about the slippage. "I remind my colleagues that we are not the only country interested in sending humans to the moon," Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) said in his opening remarks. "The Chinese Communist Party is actively soliciting international partners for a lunar mission -- a lunar research station -- and has stated its ambition to have human astronauts on the surface by 2030," he added. "The country that lands first will have the ability to set a precedent for whether future lunar activities are conducted with openness and transparency, or in a more restricted manner." The committee's ranking member, California Democrat Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), voiced similar sentiments. "Let me be clear: I support Artemis," she said in her opening remarks. "But I want it to be successful, especially with China at our heels. And we want to be helpful here in the committee in ensuring that Artemis is strong and staying on track as we look to lead the world, hand-in-hand with our partners, in the human exploration of the moon and beyond." Several other committee members stressed that the new moon race is part of a broader competition with China, and that coming in second could imperil U.S. national security. "It's no secret that China has a goal to surpass the United States by 2045 as global leaders in space. We can't allow this to happen," Rich McCormick (R-GA) said during the hearing. "I think the leading edge that we have in space technology will protect the United States -- not just the economy, but technologies that can benefit humankind." And Bill Posey (R-FL) referred to space as the "ultimate military high ground," saying that whoever leads in the final frontier "will control the destiny of this Earth."pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=US+Must+Beat+China+Back+To+the+Moon%2C+Congress+Tells+NASA%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fscience.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F18%2F022208%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fscience.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F18%2F022208%2Fus-must-beat-china-back-to-the-moon-congress-tells-nasa%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/01/18/022208/us-must-beat-china-back-to-the-moon-congress-tells-nasa?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: Have I Been Pwned has added almost 71 million email addresses associated with stolen accounts in the Naz.API dataset to its data breach notification service. The Naz.API dataset is a massive collection of 1 billion credentials compiled using credential stuffing lists and data stolen by information-stealing malware. Credential stuffing lists are collections of login name and password pairs stolen from previous data breaches that are used to breach accounts on other sites. Information-stealing malware attempts to steal a wide variety of data from an infected computer, including credentials saved in browsers, VPN clients, and FTP clients. This type of malware also attempts to steal SSH keys, credit cards, cookies, browsing history, and cryptocurrency wallets. The stolen data is collected in text files and images, which are stored in archives called "logs." These logs are then uploaded to a remote server to be collected later by the attacker. Regardless of how the credentials are stolen, they are then used to breach accounts owned by the victim, sold to other threat actors on cybercrime marketplaces, or released for free on hacker forums to gain reputation amongst the hacking community. The Naz.API is a dataset allegedly containing over 1 billion lines of stolen credentials compiled from credential stuffing lists and from information-stealing malware logs. It should be noted that while the Naz.API dataset name includes the word "Naz," it is not related to network attached storage (NAS) devices. This dataset has been floating around the data breach community for quite a while but rose to notoriety after it was used to fuel an open-source intelligence (OSINT) platform called illicit.services. This service allows visitors to search a database of stolen information, including names, phone numbers, email addresses, and other personal data. The service shut down in July 2023 out of concerns it was being used for Doxxing and SIM-swapping attacks. However, the operator enabled the service again in September. Illicit.services use data from various sources, but one of its largest sources of data came from the Naz.API dataset, which was shared privately among a small number of people. Each line in the Naz.API data consists of a login URL, its login name, and an associated password stolen from a person's device, as shown [here]. "Here's the back story: this week I was contacted by a well-known tech company that had received a bug bounty submission based on a credential stuffing list posted to a popular hacking forum," explained Troy Hunt, the creator of Have I Been Pwned, in blog post. "Whilst this post dates back almost 4 months, it hadn't come across my radar until now and inevitably, also hadn't been sent to the aforementioned tech company." "They took it seriously enough to take appropriate action against their (very sizeable) user base which gave me enough cause to investigate it further than your average cred stuffing list." To check if your credentials are in the Naz.API dataset, you can visit Have I Been Pwned.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Have+I+Been+Pwned+Adds+71+Million+Emails+From+Naz.API+Stolen+Account+List%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F18%2F011210%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F18%2F011210%2Fhave-i-been-pwned-adds-71-million-emails-from-nazapi-stolen-account-list%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/18/011210/have-i-been-pwned-adds-71-million-emails-from-nazapi-stolen-account-list?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

"The ambient light sensors present in most mobile devices can be accessed by software without any special permissions, unlike permissions required for accessing the microphone or the cameras," writes longtime Slashdot reader BishopBerkeley. "When properly interrogated, the data from the light sensor can reveal much about the user." IEEE Spectrum reports: While that may not seem to provide much detailed information, researchers have already shown these sensors can detect light intensity changes that can be used to infer what kind of TV programs someone is watching, what websites they are browsing or even keypad entries on a touchscreen. Now, [Yang Liu, a PhD student at MIT] and colleagues have shown in a paper in Science Advances that by cross-referencing data from the ambient light sensor on a tablet with specially tailored videos displayed on the tablet's screen, it's possible to generate images of a user's hands as they interact with the tablet. While the images are low-resolution and currently take impractically long to capture, he says this kind of approach could allow a determined attacker to infer how someone is using the touchscreen on their device. [...] "The acquisition time in minutes is too cumbersome to launch simple and general privacy attacks on a mass scale," says Lukasz Olejnik, an independent security researcher and consultant who has previously highlighted the security risks posed by ambient light sensors. "However, I would not rule out the significance of targeted collections for tailored operations against chosen targets." But he also points out that, following his earlier research, the World Wide Web Consortium issued a new standard that limited access to the light sensor API, which has already been adopted by browser vendors. Liu notes, however, that there are still no blanket restrictions for Android apps. In addition, the researchers discovered that some devices directly log data from the light sensor in a system file that is easily accessible, bypassing the need to go through an API. The team also found that lowering the resolution of the images could bring the acquisition times within practical limits while still maintaining enough detail for basic recognition tasks. Nonetheless, Liu agrees that the approach is too complicated for widespread attacks. And one saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever work on a smartphone as the displays are simply too small. But Liu says their results demonstrate how seemingly harmless combinations of components in mobile devices can lead to surprising security risks.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Mobile+Device+Ambient+Light+Sensors+Can+Be+Used+To+Spy+On+Users%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F18%2F0037240%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F18%2F0037240%2Fmobile-device-ambient-light-sensors-can-be-used-to-spy-on-users%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/18/0037240/mobile-device-ambient-light-sensors-can-be-used-to-spy-on-users?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: OpenAI may finally have to answer for ChatGPT's "hallucinations" in court after a Georgia judge recently ruled against the tech company's motion to dismiss a radio host's defamation suit (PDF). OpenAI had argued that ChatGPT's output cannot be considered libel, partly because the chatbot output cannot be considered a "publication," which is a key element of a defamation claim. In its motion to dismiss, OpenAI also argued that Georgia radio host Mark Walters could not prove that the company acted with actual malice or that anyone believed the allegedly libelous statements were true or that he was harmed by the alleged publication. It's too early to say whether Judge Tracie Cason found OpenAI's arguments persuasive. In her order denying OpenAI's motion to dismiss, which MediaPost shared here, Cason did not specify how she arrived at her decision, saying only that she had "carefully" considered arguments and applicable laws. There may be some clues as to how Cason reached her decision in a court filing (PDF) from John Monroe, attorney for Walters, when opposing the motion to dismiss last year. Monroe had argued that OpenAI improperly moved to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing facts that have yet to be proven in court. If OpenAI intended the court to rule on those arguments, Monroe suggested that a motion for summary judgment would have been the proper step at this stage in the proceedings, not a motion to dismiss. Had OpenAI gone that route, though, Walters would have had an opportunity to present additional evidence. To survive a motion to dismiss, all Walters had to do was show that his complaint was reasonably supported by facts, Monroe argued. Failing to convince the court that Walters had no case, OpenAI's legal theories regarding its liability for ChatGPT's "hallucinations" will now likely face their first test in court. "We are pleased the court denied the motion to dismiss so that the parties will have an opportunity to explore, and obtain a decision on, the merits of the case," Monroe told Ars. "Walters sued OpenAI after a journalist, Fred Riehl, warned him that in response to a query, ChatGPT had fabricated an entire lawsuit," notes Ars. "Generating an entire complaint with an erroneous case number, ChatGPT falsely claimed that Walters had been accused of defrauding and embezzling funds from the Second Amendment Foundation." "With the lawsuit moving forward, curious chatbot users everywhere may finally get the answer to a question that has been unclear since ChatGPT quickly became the fastest-growing consumer application of all time after its launch in November 2022: Will ChatGPT's hallucinations be allowed to ruin lives?"pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=OpenAI+Must+Defend+ChatGPT+Fabrications+After+Failing+To+Defeat+Libel+Suit%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F17%2F2136221%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F17%2F2136221%2Fopenai-must-defend-chatgpt-fabrications-after-failing-to-defeat-libel-suit%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/17/2136221/openai-must-defend-chatgpt-fabrications-after-failing-to-defeat-libel-suit?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Google is updating the warning on Chrome's Incognito mode to make it clear that Google and websites run by other companies can still collect your data in the web browser's semi-private mode. The change is being made as Google prepares to settle a class-action lawsuit that accuses the firm of privacy violations related to Chrome's Incognito mode. The expanded warning was recently added to Chrome Canary, a nightly build for developers. The warning appears to directly address one of the lawsuit's complaints, that the Incognito mode's warning doesn't make it clear that Google collects data from users of the private mode. Many tech-savvy people already know that while private modes in web browsers prevent some data from being stored on your device, they don't prevent tracking by websites or Internet service providers. But many other people may not understand exactly what Incognito mode does, so the more specific warning could help educate users. The new warning seen in Chrome Canary when you open an incognito window says: "You've gone Incognito. Others who use this device won't see your activity, so you can browse more privately. This won't change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google." The wording could be interpreted to refer to Google websites and third-party websites, including third-party websites that rely on Google ad services. The new warning was not yet in the developer, beta, and stable branches of Chrome as of today. It also wasn't in Chromium. The change to Canary was previously reported by MSPowerUser. Incognito mode in the stable version of Chrome still says: "You've gone Incognito. Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity." Among other changes, the Canary warning replaces "browse privately" with "browse more privately." The stable and Canary warnings both say that your browsing activity might still be visible to "websites you visit," "your employer or school," or "your Internet service provider." But only the Canary warning currently includes the caveat that Incognito mode "won't change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google." The old and new warnings both say that Incognito mode prevents Chrome from saving your browsing history, cookies and site data, and information entered in forms, but that "downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved." Both warnings link to this page, which provides more detail on Incognito mode.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Chrome+Updates+Incognito+Warning+To+Admit+Google+Tracks+Users+In+'Private'+Mode%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F16%2F2110250%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F16%2F2110250%2Fchrome-updates-incognito-warning-to-admit-google-tracks-users-in-private-mode%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/16/2110250/chrome-updates-incognito-warning-to-admit-google-tracks-users-in-private-mode?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a challenge by Apple to a lower court's decision requiring changes to certain rules in its lucrative App Store, as the justices shunned the lengthy legal battle between the iPhone maker and Epic Games, maker of the popular video game "Fortnite." Reuters: The justices also turned away Epic's appeal of the lower court's ruling that Apple's App Store policies limiting how software is distributed and paid for do not violate federal antitrust laws. The justices gave no reasons for their decision to deny the appeals. In a series of posts on X, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney wrote: The Supreme Court denied both sides' appeals of the Epic v. Apple antitrust case. The court battle to open iOS to competing stores and payments is lost in the United States. A sad outcome for all developers. Now the District Court's injunction against Apple's anti-steering rule is in effect, and developers can include in their apps "buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP." As of today, developers can begin exercising their court-established right to tell US customers about better prices on the web. These awful Apple-mandated confusion screens are over and done forever. The fight goes on. Regulators are taking action and policymakers around the world are passing new laws to end Apple's illegal and anticompetitive app store practices. The European Union's Digital Markets Act goes into effect March 7.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Supreme+Court+Rejects+Apple-Epic+Games+Legal+Battle%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fapple.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F16%2F1548200%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fapple.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F16%2F1548200%2Fsupreme-court-rejects-apple-epic-games-legal-battle%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://apple.slashdot.org/story/24/01/16/1548200/supreme-court-rejects-apple-epic-games-legal-battle?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

For the third time in under a year, film studios are pressing Reddit to reveal users allegedly discussing piracy, despite two prior failed attempts. Studios including Voltage Holdings and Screen Media have filed fresh motions to compel Reddit to comply with a subpoena seeking IP addresses and logs of six Redditors, claiming the information is needed for copyright suits against internet provider Frontier Communications. The same federal judge previously denied the studios' bid to unmask Reddit users, citing First Amendment protections. However, the studios now argue IP addresses fall outside privacy rights. Reddit maintains the new subpoena fails to meet the bar for identifying anonymous online speakers.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Reddit+Must+Share+IP+Addresses+of+Piracy-Discussing+Users%2C+Film+Studios+Say%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F15%2F1452217%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F15%2F1452217%2Freddit-must-share-ip-addresses-of-piracy-discussing-users-film-studios-say%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/15/1452217/reddit-must-share-ip-addresses-of-piracy-discussing-users-film-studios-say?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

Last April the Python Software Foundation warned that Europe's proposed Cyber Resilience Act jeopardized their organization and "the health of the open-source software community" with overly broad policies that "will unintentionally harm the users they are intended to protect." They'd worried that the Python Software Foundation could incur financial liabilities just for hosting Python and its PyPI package repository due to the proposed law's attempts to penalize cybersecurity lapses all the way upstream. But a new blog post this week cites some improvements: We asked for increased clarity, specifically: "Language that specifically exempts public software repositories that are offered as a public good for the purpose of facilitating collaboration would make things much clearer. We'd also like to see our community, especially the hobbyists, individuals and other under-resourced entities who host packages on free public repositories like PyPI be exempt." The good news is that CRA text changed a lot between the time the open source community mdash; including the PSF mdash; started expressing our concerns and the Act's final text which was cemented on December 1st. That text introduces the idea of an "open source steward." "'open-source software steward' means any legal person, other than a manufacturer, which has the purpose or objective to systematically provide support on a sustained basis for the development of specific products with digital elements qualifying as free and open-source software that are intended for commercial activities, and ensures the viability of those products;" (p. 76) [...] So are we totally done paying attention to European legislation? Ah, while it would be nice for the Python community to be able to cross a few things off our to-do list, that's not quite how it works. Firstly, the concept of an "open source steward" is a brand new idea in European law. So, we will be monitoring the conversation as this new concept is implemented or interacts with other bits of European law to make sure that the understanding continues to reflect the intent and the realities of open source development. Secondly, there are some other pieces of legislation in the works that may also impact the Python ecosystem so we will be watching the Product Liability Directive and keeping up with the discussion around standard-essential patents to make sure that the effects on Python and open source development are intentional (and hopefully benevolent, or at least benign.) pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Python+Software+Foundation+Says+EU's+'Cyber+Resilience+Act'+Includes+Wins+for+Open+Source+%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F14%2F2018257%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F14%2F2018257%2Fpython-software-foundation-says-eus-cyber-resilience-act-includes-wins-for-open-source%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/14/2018257/python-software-foundation-says-eus-cyber-resilience-act-includes-wins-for-open-source?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

johnnyb (Slashdot reader #4,816) is a senior software Ramp;D engineer who shares his proposed framework for "what AI legislation should cover, what policy goals it should aim to achieve, and what we should be wary of along the way." Some excerpts? Protect Content Consumers from AI The government should legislate technical and visual markers for AI-generated content, and the FTC should ensure that consumers always know whether or not there is a human taking responsibility for the content. This could be done by creating special content markings which communicate to users that content is AI-generated... This will enable Google to do things such as allow users to not include AI content when searching. It will enable users to detect which parts of their content are AI-generated and apply the appropriate level of skepticism. And future AI language models can also use these tags to know not to consume AI-generated content... Ensure Companies are Clear on Who's Taking Responsibility It's fine for a software product to produce a result that the software company views as advisory only, but it has to be clearly marked as such. Additionally, if one company includes the software built by another company, all companies need to be clear as to which outputs are derived from identifiable algorithms and which outputs are the result of AI. If the company supplying the component is not willing to stand behind the AI results that are produced, then that needs to be made clear. Clarify Copyright Rules on Content Used in Models Note that nothing here limits the technological development of Artificial Intelligence... The goal of these proposals is to give clarity to all involved what the expectations and responsibilities of each party are. OpenAI's Sam Altman has also been pondering this, but on a much larger scale. In a (pre-ouster) interview with Bill Gates, Altman pondered what happens at the next level. That is, what happens "If we are right, and this technology goes as far as we think it's going to go, it will impact society, geopolitical balance of power, so many things..." [F]or these, still hypothetical, but future extraordinarily powerful systems mdash; not like GPT- 4, but something with 100,000 or a million times the compute power of that, we have been socialized in the idea of a global regulatory body that looks at those super-powerful systems, because they do have such global impact. One model we talk about is something like the IAEA. For nuclear energy, we decided the same thing. This needs a global agency of some sort, because of the potential for global impact. I think that could make sense... I think if it comes across as asking for a slowdown, that will be really hard. If it instead says, "Do what you want, but any compute cluster above a certain extremely high-power threshold" mdash; and given the cost here, we're talking maybe five in the world, something like that mdash; any cluster like that has to submit to the equivalent of international weapons inspectors. The model there has to be made available for safety audit, pass some tests during training, and before deployment. That feels possible to me. I wasn't that sure before, but I did a big trip around the world this year, and talked to heads of state in many of the countries that would need to participate in this, and there was almost universal support for it.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=What+Laws+Will+We+Need+to+Regulate+AI%3F%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F13%2F2310209%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F13%2F2310209%2Fwhat-laws-will-we-need-to-regulate-ai%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/13/2310209/what-laws-will-we-need-to-regulate-ai?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

Long-time Slashdot reader Geoffrey.landis writes: Hundreds of British postal workers wrongly convicted of theft due to faulty accounting software could have their convictions reversed, according to a story from the BBC. Between 1999 and 2015, the Post Office prosecuted 700 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses mdash; an average of one a week mdash; based on information from a computer system called Horizon, after faulty software wrongly made it look like money was missing. Some 283 more cases were brought by other bodies including the Crown Prosecution Service. 2024 began with a four-part dramatization of the scandal airing on British television, and the BBC reporting today that its reporters originally investigating the story confronted "lobbying, misinformation and outright lies." Yet the Guardian notes that to this day in English and Welsh law, computers are still assumed to be "reliable" unless and until proven otherwise. But critics of this approach say this reverses the burden of proof normally applied in criminal cases. Stephen Mason, a barrister and expert on electronic evidence, said: "It says, for the person who's saying 'there's something wrong with this computer', that they have to prove it. Even if it's the person accusing them who has the information...." He and colleagues had been expressing alarm about the presumption as far back as 2009. "My view is that the Post Office would never have got anywhere near as far as it did if this presumption wasn't in place," Mason said... [W]hen post office operators were accused of having stolen money, the hallucinatory evidence of the Horizon system was deemed sufficient proof. Without any evidence to the contrary, the defendants could not force the system to be tested in court and their loss was all but guaranteed. The influence of English common law internationally means that the presumption of reliability is widespread. Mason cites cases from New Zealand, Singapore and the U.S. that upheld the standard and just one notable case where the opposite happened... The rise of AI systems made it even more pressing to reassess the law, said Noah Waisberg, the co-founder and CEO of the legal AI platform Zuva. Thanks to Slashdot reader Bruce66423 for sharing the article.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Despite+16-Year+Glitch%2C+UK+Law+Still+Considers+Computers+'Reliable'+By+Default%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F13%2F2047227%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F13%2F2047227%2Fdespite-16-year-glitch-uk-law-still-considers-computers-reliable-by-default%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/13/2047227/despite-16-year-glitch-uk-law-still-considers-computers-reliable-by-default?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

Friday America's Environmental Protection Agency "proposed steep new fees on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities," reports the Washington Post, "escalating a crackdown on the fossil fuel industry's planet-warming pollution." Methane does not linger in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, but it is far more effective at trapping heat mdash; roughly 80 times more potent in its first decade. It is responsible for roughly a third of global warming today, and the oil and gas industry accounts for about 14 percent of the world's annual methane emissions, according to estimates from the International Energy Agency. Other large methane sources include livestock, landfills and coal mines. So America's new Methane Emissions Reduction Program "levies a fee on wasteful methane emissions from large oil and gas facilities," according to the article: The fee starts at $900 per metric ton of emissions in 2024, increasing to $1,200 in 2025 and $1,500 in 2026 and thereafter. The EPA proposal lays out how the fee will be implemented, including how the charge will be calculated... At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Dubai in December, EPA Administrator Michael Regan announced final standards to limit methane emissions from U.S. oil and gas operations. Fossil fuel companies that comply with these standards will be exempt from the new fee... Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said the fee will encourage fossil fuel firms to deploy innovative technologies that detect methane leaks. Such cutting-edge technologies range from ground-based sensors to satellites in space. "Proven solutions to cut oil and gas methane and to avoid the fee are being used by leading companies in states across the country," Krupp said in a statement... In addition to methane, the EPA proposal could slash emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including smog-forming volatile organic compounds and cancer-causing benzene [according to an EPA official]. The federal government also gave America's fossil fuel companies nearly $1 billion to help them comply with the methane regulation, according to the article. The article also includes this statement from an executive at the American Petroleum Institute, the top lobbying arm of the U.S. oil and gas industry, complaining that the fines create a "regime" that would "stifle innovation," and urging Congress to repeal it.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=America+Cracks+Down+on+Methane+Emissions+from+Oil+and+Gas+Facilities%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F13%2F0333204%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F13%2F0333204%2Famerica-cracks-down-on-methane-emissions-from-oil-and-gas-facilities%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/01/13/0333204/america-cracks-down-on-methane-emissions-from-oil-and-gas-facilities?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The trailer for "Annapoorani: The Goddess of Food" promised a sunny if melodramatic story of uplift in a south Indian temple town. A priest's daughter enters a cooking tournament, but social obstacles complicate her inevitable rise to the top. Annapoorani's father, a Brahmin sitting at the top of Hindu society's caste ladder, doesn't want her to cook meat, a taboo in their lineage. There is even the hint of a Hindu-Muslim romantic subplot. On Thursday, two weeks after the movie premiered, Netflix abruptly pulled it from its platform. An activist, Ramesh Solanki, a self-described "very proud Hindu Indian nationalist," had filed a police complaint arguing that the film was "intentionally released to hurt Hindu sentiments." He said it mocked Hinduism by "depicting our gods consuming nonvegetarian food." The production studio quickly responded with an abject letter to a right-wing group linked to the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, apologizing for having "hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindus and Brahmins community." The movie was soon removed from Netflix both in India and around the world, demonstrating the newfound power of Hindu nationalists to affect how Indian society is depicted on the screen. Nilesh Krishnaa, the movie's writer and director, tried to anticipate the possibility of offending some of his fellow Indians. Food, Brahminical customs and especially Hindu-Muslim relations are all part of a third rail that has grown more powerfully electrified during Mr. Modi's decade in power. But, Mr. Krishnaa told an Indian newspaper in November, "if there was something disturbing communal harmony in the film, the censor board would not have allowed it." With "Annapoorani," Netflix appears to have in effect done the censoring itself even when the censor board did not. In other cases, Netflix now seems to be working with the board unofficially, though streaming services in India do not fall under the regulations that govern traditional Indian cinema. For years, Netflix ran unredacted versions of Indian films that had sensitive parts removed for their theatrical releases -- including political messages that contradicted the government's line. Since last year, though, the streaming versions of movies from India match the versions that were censored locally, no matter where in the world they are viewed. [...] Nikhil Pahwa, a co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, thinks the streaming companies are ready to capitulate: "They're unlikely to push back against any kind of bullying or censorship, even though there is no law in India" to force them.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Removal+of+Netflix+Film+Shows+Advancing+Power+of+India's+Hindu+Right+Wing%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F12%2F2029237%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F12%2F2029237%2Fremoval-of-netflix-film-shows-advancing-power-of-indias-hindu-right-wing%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/12/2029237/removal-of-netflix-film-shows-advancing-power-of-indias-hindu-right-wing?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

Security researchers warned Apple as early as 2019 about vulnerabilities in its AirDrop wireless sharing function that Chinese authorities claim they recently used to track down users of the feature, the researchers told CNN, in a case that experts say has sweeping implications for global privacy. From a report: The Chinese government's actions targeting a tool that Apple customers around the world use to share photos and documents -- and Apple's apparent inaction to address the flaws -- revive longstanding concerns by US lawmakers and privacy advocates about Apple's relationship with China and about authoritarian regimes' ability to twist US tech products to their own ends. AirDrop lets Apple users who are near each other share files using a proprietary mix of Bluetooth and other wireless connectivity without having to connect to the internet. The sharing feature has been used by pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong and the Chinese government has cracked down on the feature in response. A Chinese tech firm, Beijing-based Wangshendongjian Technology, was able to compromise AirDrop to identify users on the Beijing subway accused of sharing "inappropriate information," judicial authorities in Beijing said this week. Although Chinese officials portrayed the exploit as an effective law enforcement technique, internet freedom advocates are urging Apple to address the issue quickly and publicly.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Apple+Knew+AirDrop+Users+Could+Be+Identified+and+Tracked+as+Early+as+2019%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fapple.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F12%2F165230%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fapple.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F12%2F165230%2Fapple-knew-airdrop-users-could-be-identified-and-tracked-as-early-as-2019%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://apple.slashdot.org/story/24/01/12/165230/apple-knew-airdrop-users-could-be-identified-and-tracked-as-early-as-2019?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Joe Biden's administration has unveiled $623 million in funding to boost the number of electric vehicle charging points in the U.S., amid concerns that the transition to zero-carbon transportation isn't keeping pace with goals to tackle the climate crisis. The funding will be distributed in grants for dozens of programs across 22 states, such as EV chargers for apartment blocks in New Jersey, rapid chargers in Oregon and hydrogen fuel chargers for freight trucks in Texas. In all, it's expected the money, drawn from the bipartisan infrastructure law, will add 7,500 chargers to the US total. There are about 170,000 electric vehicle chargers in the U.S., a huge leap from a network that was barely visible prior to Biden taking office, and the White House has set a goal for 500,000 chargers to help support the shift away from gasoline and diesel cars. "The U.S. is taking the lead globally on electric vehicles," said Ali Zaidi, a climate adviser to Biden who said the US is on a trajectory to "meet and exceed" the administration's charger goal. "We will continue to see this buildout over the coming years and decades until we've achieved a fully net zero transportation sector," he added. On Thursday, the House approved legislation to undo a Biden administration rule meant to facilitate the proliferation of EV charging stations. "S. J. Res. 38 from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), would scrap a Federal Highway Administration waiver from domestic sourcing requirements for EV chargers funded by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. It already passed the Senate 50-48," reports Politico. "A waiver undercuts domestic investments and risks empowering foreign nations," said Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, during House debate Thursday. "If the administration is going to continue to push for a massive transition to EVs, it should ensure and comply with Buy America requirements." The White House promised to veto it and said it would backfire, saying it was so poorly worded it would actually result in fewer new American-made charging stations.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=White+House+Unveils+%24623+Million+In+Funding+To+Boost+EV+Charging+Points%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fhardware.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F12%2F0520229%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fhardware.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F12%2F0520229%2Fwhite-house-unveils-623-million-in-funding-to-boost-ev-charging-points%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/01/12/0520229/white-house-unveils-623-million-in-funding-to-boost-ev-charging-points?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

E-commerce giant eBay agreed to pay a $3 million penalty for the harassment and stalking of a Massachusetts couple by several of its employees. "The couple, Ina and David Steiner, had been subjected to threats and bizarre deliveries, including live spiders, cockroaches, a funeral wreath and a bloody pig mask in August 2019," reports CBS News. From the report: Thursday's fine comes after several eBay employees ran a harassment and intimidation campaign against the Steiners, who publish a news website focusing on players in the e-commerce industry. "eBay engaged in absolutely horrific, criminal conduct. The company's employees and contractors involved in this campaign put the victims through pure hell, in a petrifying campaign aimed at silencing their reporting and protecting the eBay brand," Levy said. "We left no stone unturned in our mission to hold accountable every individual who turned the victims' world upside-down through a never-ending nightmare of menacing and criminal acts." The Justice Department criminally charged eBay with two counts of stalking through interstate travel, two counts of stalking through electronic communications services, one count of witness tampering and one count of obstruction of justice. The company agreed to pay $3 million as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. Under the agreement, eBay will be required to retain an independent corporate compliance monitor for three years, officials said, to "ensure that eBay's senior leadership sets a tone that makes compliance with the law paramount, implements safeguards to prevent future criminal activity, and makes clear to every eBay employee that the idea of terrorizing innocent people and obstructing investigations will not be tolerated," Levy said. Former U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said the plan to target the Steiners, which he described as a "campaign of terror," was hatched in April 2019 at eBay. Devin Wenig, eBay's CEO at the time, shared a link to a post Ina Steiner had written about his annual pay. The company's chief communications officer, Steve Wymer, responded: "We are going to crush this lady." About a month later, Wenig texted: "Take her down." Prosecutors said Wymer later texted eBay security director Jim Baugh. "I want to see ashes. As long as it takes. Whatever it takes," Wymer wrote. Investigators said Baugh set up a meeting with security staff and dispatched a team to Boston, about 20 miles from where the Steiners live. "Senior executives at eBay were frustrated with the newsletter's tone and content, and with the comments posted beneath the newsletter's articles," the Department of Justice wrote in its Thursday announcement. Two former eBay security executives were sentenced to prison over the incident.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=eBay+To+Pay+%243+Million+Penalty+For+Employees+Sending+Live+Cockroaches%2C+Fetal+Pig+To+Bloggers%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F11%2F230244%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F11%2F230244%2Febay-to-pay-3-million-penalty-for-employees-sending-live-cockroaches-fetal-pig-to-bloggers%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/11/230244/ebay-to-pay-3-million-penalty-for-employees-sending-live-cockroaches-fetal-pig-to-bloggers?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

Google formally endorsed the concept of right to repair Thursday and is set to testify in favor of a strong right to repair bill in Oregon later Thursday, a massive step forward for the right to repair movement. 404 Media: "Google believes that users should have more control over repair -- including access to the same documentation, parts and tools that original equipment manufacturer (OEM) repair channels have -- which is often referred to as 'Right to Repair,'" Google's Steven Nickel wrote in a white paper published Thursday. Crucially, Google specifically says that regulators should ban "parts pairing," which is a tactic used by Apple, John Deere, and other major manufacturers to artificially restrict which repair parts can be used with a given device: "Policies should constrain OEMs from imposing unfair anti-repair practices. For example, parts-pairing, the practice of using software barriers to obstruct consumers and independent repair shops from replacing components, or other restrictive impediments to repair should be discouraged," the white paper says.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Google+Formally+Endorses+Right+To+Repair%2C+Will+Lobby+To+Pass+Repair+Laws%3A+https%3A%2F%2Ftech.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F11%2F1913214%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftech.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F11%2F1913214%2Fgoogle-formally-endorses-right-to-repair-will-lobby-to-pass-repair-laws%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/01/11/1913214/google-formally-endorses-right-to-repair-will-lobby-to-pass-repair-laws?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

Stephen Harrison, an Englishman living in Thailand who posed as chief executive Steven Reece Lewis for the launch of the HyperVerse crypto scheme, told the Guardian Australia that he was paid to play the role of chief executive but denies having 'pocketed' any of the money lost. He says he received 180,000 Thai baht (about $7,500) over nine months and a free suit, adding that he was "shocked" to learn the company had presented him as having fake credentials to promote the scheme. From the report: He said he felt sorry for those who had lost money in relation to the scheme -- which he said he had no role in -- an amount Chainalysis estimates at US$1.3 billion in 2022 alone. "I am sorry for these people," he said. "Because they believed some idea with me at the forefront and believed in what I said, and God knows what these people have lost. And I do feel bad about this. "I do feel deeply sorry for these people, I really do. You know, it's horrible for them. I just hope that there is some resolution. I know it's hard to get the money back off these people or whatever, but I just hope there can be some justice served in all of this where they can get to the bottom of this." He said he wanted to make clear he had "certainly not pocketed" any of the money lost by investors. Harrison, who at the time was a freelance television presenter engaged in unpaid football commentary, said he had been approached and offered the HyperVerse work by a friend of a friend. He said he was new to the industry and had been open to picking up more work and experience as a corporate "presenter." "I was told I was acting out a role to represent the business and many people do this," Harrison said. He said he trusted his agent and accepted that. After reading through the scripts he said he was initially suspicious about the company he was hired to represent because he was unfamiliar with the crypto industry, but said he had been reassured by his agent that the company was legitimate. He said he had also done some of his own online research into the organization and found articles about the Australian blockchain entrepreneur and HyperTech chairman Sam Lee. "I went away and I actually looked at the company because I was concerned that it could be a scam," Harrison said. "So I looked online a bit and everything seemed OK, so I rolled with it." The HyperVerse crypto scheme was promoted by Lee and his business partner Ryan Xu, both of which were founders of the collapsed Australian bitcoin company Blockchain Global. "Blockchain Global owes creditors $58 million and its liquidator has referred Xu and Lee to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for alleged possible breaches of the Corporations Act," reports The Guardian. "Asic has said it does not intend to take action at this time." Rodney Burton, known as "Bitcoin Rodney," was arrested and charged in the U.S on Monday for his alleged role in promoting the HyperVerse crypto scheme. The IRS alleges Burton was "part of a network that made 'fraudulent' presentations claiming high returns for investors based on crypto-mining operations that did not exist," reports The Guardian.pdiv class="share_submission" style="position:relative;" a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Englishman+Who+Posed+As+HyperVerse+CEO+Says+Sorry+To+Investors+Who+Lost+Millions%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F10%2F2316231%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"/a a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F01%2F10%2F2316231%2Fenglishman-who-posed-as-hyperverse-ceo-says-sorry-to-investors-who-lost-millions%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"/a /div/ppa href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/01/10/2316231/englishman-who-posed-as-hyperverse-ceo-says-sorry-to-investors-who-lost-millions?utm_source=rss1.0moreanonamp;utm_medium=feed"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p

San Francisco, California—Face recognition—fast becoming law enforcement’s surveillance tool of choice—is being implemented with little oversight or privacy protections, leading to faulty systems that will disproportionately impact people of color and may implicate innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit, says an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) report released today.

Face recognition is rapidly creeping into modern life, and face recognition systems will one day be capable of capturing the faces of people, often without their knowledge, walking down the street, entering stores, standing in line at the airport, attending sporting events, driving their cars, and utilizing public spaces. Researchers at the Georgetown Law School estimated that one in every two American adults—117 million people—are already in law enforcement face recognition systems.

This kind of surveillance will have a chilling effect on Americans’ willingness to exercise their rights to speak out and be politically engaged, the report says. Law enforcement has already used face recognition at political protests, and may soon use face recognition with body-worn cameras, to identify people in the dark, and to project what someone might look like from a police sketch or even a small sample of DNA.

Face recognition employs computer algorithms to pick out details about a person’s face from a photo or video to form a template. As the report explains, police use face recognition to identify unknown suspects by comparing their photos to images stored in databases and to scan public spaces to try to find specific pre-identified targets.

But no face recognition system is 100 percent accurate, and false positives—when a person’s face is incorrectly matched to a template image—are common. Research shows that face recognition misidentifies African Americans and ethnic minorities, young people, and women at higher rates than whites, older people, and men, respectively. And because of well-documented racially biased police practices, all criminal databases—including mugshot databases—include a disproportionate number of African-Americans, Latinos, and immigrants.

For both reasons, inaccuracies in face recognition systems will disproportionately affect people of color.

“The FBI, which has access to at least 400 million images and is the central source for facial recognition identification for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, has failed to address the problem of false positives and inaccurate results,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch, author of the report. “It has conducted few tests to ensure accuracy and has done nothing to ensure its external partners—federal and state agencies—are not using face recognition in ways that allow innocent people to be identified as criminal suspects.”

Lawmakers, regulators, and policy makers should take steps now to limit face recognition collection and subject it to independent oversight, the report says. Legislation is needed to place meaningful checks on government use of face recognition, including rules limiting retention and sharing, requiring notification when face prints are collected, ensuring robust security procedures to prevent data breaches, and establishing legal processes governing when law enforcement may collect face images from the public without their knowledge, the report concludes.

“People should not have to worry that they may be falsely accused of a crime because an algorithm mistakenly matched their photo to a suspect. They shouldn’t have to worry that their data will end up in the hands of identity thieves because face recognition databases were breached. They shouldn’t have to fear that their every move will be tracked if face recognition is linked to the networks of surveillance cameras that blanket many cities,” said Lynch. “Without meaningful legal protections, this is where we may be headed.”

For the report:

Online version: https://www.eff.org/wp/law-enforcement-use-face-recognition

PDF version: https://www.eff.org/files/2018/02/15/face-off-report-1b.pdf

One pager on facial recognition: https://www.eff.org/document/facial-recognition-one-pager

Contact: Jennifer Lynch