Tagged: fight Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • jkabtech 12:17 pm on May 8, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , fight, ,   

    Intel’s Fight Against EU Antitrust Fine Set to Drag on After Court Ruling 

    US chipmaker Intel’s decade-long fight against a EUR 1.06 billion ($1.3 billion or roughly Rs. 6,796 crores) EU antitrust fine is set to drag on after Europe’s top judges told a lower court to re-examine the case.

    In what could be seen as an encouraging sign for the company, the judges said the lower court, known as the General Court, should focus on Intel’s arguments that its rebates to customers were not anti-competitive.

    The ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) may force the European Commission to re-examine its tough line and economic approach in other antitrust cases such as against Qualcomm and Alphabet unit Google.

    The General Court in its 2014 ruling upheld the European Commission’s 2009 decision but last year an court adviser recommended backing Intel’s arguments.

    “The Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court, which had upheld the fine of 1.06 billion euros imposed on Intel by the Commission for abuse of a dominant position,” the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice (ECJ) said.

    “The case is referred back to the General Court in order for it to examine the arguments put forward by Intel concerning the capacity of the rebates at issue to restrict competition,” the ECJ said.

    The Commission charged Intel in 2007 and then in 2009 handed down the fine, a record at the time, reasoning that Intel had tried to block rival Advanced Micro Devices by giving rebates to PC makers Dell, Hewlett-Packard, NEC and Lenovo for buying most of their computer chips from Intel.

    View the Original article

    Advertisements
     
  • jkabtech 4:17 am on February 14, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , fight, Mildew   

    Fight Mold and Mildew with an IoT Bathroom Fan 

    Delicious sheets of wallboard coated with yummy latex paints, all kept warm and moist by a daily deluge of showers and habitually forgetting to turn on the bathroom exhaust fan. You want mildew? Because that’s how you get mildew.

    Fed up with the fuzzy little black spots on the ceiling, 

    View the Original article

     
  • jkabtech 8:17 pm on September 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: commitment, , fight, , terror,   

    An update on our commitment to fight terror content online 

    Tuesday, August 1, 2017A little over a month ago, we told you about the four new steps we’re taking to combat terrorist content on YouTube: better detection and faster removal driven by machine learning, more experts to alert us to content that needs review, tougher standards for videos that are controversial but do not violate our policies, and more work in the counter-terrorism space.

    We wanted to give you an update on these commitments:

    Better detection and faster removal driven by machine learning: We’ve always used a mix of technology and human review to address the ever-changing challenges around controversial content on YouTube. We recently began developing and implementing cutting-edge machine learning technology designed to help us identify and remove violent extremism and terrorism-related content in a scalable way. We have started rolling out these tools and we are already seeing some positive progress:
    Speed and efficiency: Our machine learning systems are faster and more effective than ever before. Over 75 percent of the videos we’ve removed for violent extremism over the past month were taken down before receiving a single human flag.Accuracy: The accuracy of our systems has improved dramatically due to our machine learning technology. While these tools aren’t perfect, and aren’t right for every setting, in many cases our systems have proven more accurate than humans at flagging videos that need to be removed.Scale: With over 400 hours of content uploaded to YouTube every minute, finding and taking action on violent extremist content poses a significant challenge. But over the past month, our initial use of machine learning has more than doubled both the number of videos we’ve removed for violent extremism, as well as the rate at which we’ve taken this kind of content down.We are encouraged by these improvements, and will continue to develop our technology in order to make even more progress. We are also hiring more people to help review and enforce our policies, and will continue to invest in technical resources to keep pace with these issues and address them responsibly.

    More experts: Of course, our systems are only as good as the the data they’re based on. Over the past weeks, we have begun working with more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. These organizations bring expert knowledge of complex issues like hate speech, radicalization, and terrorism that will help us better identify content that is being used to radicalize and recruit extremists. We will also regularly consult these experts as we update our policies to reflect new trends. And we’ll continue to add more organizations to our network of advisors over time.

    Tougher standards: We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes. We’ll begin to roll this new treatment out to videos on desktop versions of YouTube in the coming weeks, and will bring it to mobile experiences soon thereafter. These new approaches entail significant new internal tools and processes, and will take time to fully implement.

    Early intervention and expanding counter-extremism work: We’ve started rolling out features from Jigsaw’s Redirect Method to YouTube. When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages. We also continue to amplify YouTube voices speaking out against hate and radicalization through our YouTube Creators for Change program. Just last week, the U.K. chapter of Creators for Change, Internet Citizens, hosted a two-day workshop for 13-18 year-olds to help them find a positive sense of belonging online and learn skills on how to participate safely and responsibly on the internet. We also pledged to expand the program’s reach to 20,000 more teens across the U.K.

    And over the weekend, we hosted our latest Creators for Change workshop in Bandung, Indonesia, where creators teamed up with Indonesia’s Maarif Institute to teach young people about the importance of diversity, pluralism, and tolerance.

    Altogether, we have taken significant steps over the last month in our fight against online terrorism. But this is not the end. We know there is always more work to be done. With the help of new machine learning technology, deep partnerships, ongoing collaborations with other companies through the Global Internet Forum, and our vigilant community we are confident we can continue to make progress against this ever-changing threat. We look forward to sharing more with you in the months ahead.

    The YouTube Team

    View the Original article

     
  • jkabtech 1:51 am on July 22, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: fight, Legislation, Lifespans, , , , ,   

    EU Prepares “Right to Repair” Legislation to Fight Short Product Lifespans 

    Security

    Forums More Startup Database Uninstall Database File Database Glossary Chat on IRC Welcome Guide HomeNewsGovernmentEU Prepares “Right to Repair” Legislation to Fight Short Product Lifespans   EU Prepares “Right to Repair” Legislation to Fight Short Product Lifespans By Catalin Cimpanu July 8, 2017 06:32 PM 6

    View the Original article

     
  • jkabtech 9:51 am on July 18, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: fight, , ,   

    This App Helps You Fight Traffic Tickets From Home 

    Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images

    You’re driving five miles over the speed limit when you notice blue flashing lights coming up from behind. A police officer pulls you over and gives you a speeding ticket. You can either suck it up and pay the ticket, like most people do, or go to court and contest it. Luckily, there’s an app that lets you contest your ticket without ever having to leave your home.

    Off the Record is an iPhone and web app with an average success rate of 97%, according to GeekWire. To use the app, users take a photo of their ticket, answer a few short questions, and pay a fee. The fee ranges from $59 to $599, depending on your state and county. The app then assigns the case to a lawyer nearby to contest it for the user. The attorneys are vetted to be on the app based on their success rates in courts. Users can message and receive updates from their lawyers through the app without having to meet their attorney in person or show up to court.

    View the Original article

     
  • jkabtech 7:06 am on April 29, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , fight, , , spiked   

    This firm’s shares spiked 20% on Apple vs FBI fight 

    Apple-FBI fight caused a 20% spike in this firm’s shares .top-news-item, .top-news .filmstrip .headline a, .downArrowTabs .tabContents li:first-child,.big-stories h4

    View the Original article

     
  • jkabtech 11:37 am on March 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , fight, , ,   

    Apple and FBI Take Their iPhone Hacking Fight to Congress 

    Caption: FBI Director James Comey is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington prior to testifying before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on ‘The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,’ March 1, 2016. Jose Luis Magana/AP

    Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article. FBI Director James Comey is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington prior to testifying before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on 'The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans' Security and Privacy,' March 1, 2016. FBI Director James Comey is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington prior to testifying before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on ‘The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,’ March 1, 2016. Jose Luis Magana/AP
     
  • jkabtech 2:29 am on March 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , backers, fight,   

    Apple is getting backers for fight against FBI 

    Nick Wingfield and Katie Benner 10 Hours AgoThe New York Times

    Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and a parade of other technology companies filed a barrage of court briefs on Thursday, aiming to puncture the United States government’s legal arguments against Apple in a case that will test the limits of the authorities’ access to personal data.

    The extraordinary show of support for Apple from the tech companies, including many rivals, underscores how high the stakes are for the industry with the case, in which the authorities are demanding Apple’s help to break into an iPhone used by a gunman in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., last year.

    Apple logo

    In all, around 40 companies and organizations, along with several dozen individuals, submitted more than a dozen briefs this week to the Federal District Court for the District of Central California, challenging every legal facet of the government’s case, like its free speech implications, the importance of encryption and concerns about government overreach.

    “These companies, which are often fierce competitors, have joined together to voice concern about the attempted government overreach in this case, which threatens the integrity and security of their products and privacy rights of consumers in general,” said Neal Katyal, a lawyer at Hogan Lovells for the tech companies and a former acting solicitor general of the United States.

    Edward J. McAndrew, a lawyer at Ballard Spahr who is not involved in the Apple matter, said it was highly unusual to see a flood of briefs by so many parties this early in a case. He called the outpouring “Supreme Court-level advocacy” and said the campaign was intended to have influence beyond the court with legislators and others.

    “This is a show of force,” said Mr. McAndrew, a former federal prosecutor who focused on online crimes. “This is a battle for public opinion.”

    Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel, said on Wednesday that the company was “humbled by the outpouring of support.”

    The case between Apple and the government became public last month, when a federal magistrate judge in California ordered the company to bypass the security functions on the iPhone. Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, opposed the order, arguing the case could have far-reaching implications for other devices and software, with governments everywhere able to demand more access to tech companies’ data.

    Several tech companies were initially careful and subdued in their support of Apple, with some privately debating whether the San Bernardino attack was the right case for challenging the government. Last week, some tech companies including Microsoft began to back Apple more forcefully, saying they planned to file briefs supporting it in court.

    In the brief on Thursday from Amazon, Microsoft and others, the tech companies said they shared the public’s outrage over the “heinous act of terrorism” in San Bernardino, but said they were united in the view that the government’s case exceeded the boundaries of existing law and would hurt Americans’ security.

    A collection of 17 Internet companies, including Twitter, Airbnb and LinkedIn, filed a separate brief objecting to the government’s use of the All Writs Act, a statute from 1789 that underlies many law enforcement requests for tech companies’ data, in the San Bernardino case. AT&T and Intel also submitted independent briefs backing Apple.

    In the filing from the group that includes Twitter and LinkedIn, the companies said the government “seeks unbounded authority to compel Apple to design software that does not currently exist and that will circumvent and undermine security measures intended to protect its users’ data.”

    “We’re facing a very big question as a country, industry and a world about what privacy will look like in the digital era,” said Aaron Levie, the chief executive of the data storage company Box, which signed on to the brief with Amazon, Google and others. “There is a global impact for these tech companies if we don’t land on the right side of having a strong framework for how companies deal with security and these kinds of requests in the digital age.”

    Apart from the tech companies, seven prominent security experts and 32 law professors signed on to joint briefs on Thursday. Several industry trade organizations and digital rights groups submitted their own filings this week.

    Some echoed Apple’s slippery slope argument that opening up one iPhone would lead to a domino effect from governments worldwide. The Media Institute, a nonprofit research foundation that focuses on communications policy, warned in its filing that the court’s order could be “be applied against media companies as government authorities seek to acquire access to confidential information stored on mobile devices used by journalists.”

    The support for Apple was a torrent compared with the stream of filings backing the Justice Department in the case. Among the staunchest supporters on the side of government were six people whose family members were killed in the California attack.

    “Broader questions about the fate of smartphone encryption and data privacy can be saved for another day and another forum,” the families wrote in a brief. “This case certainly presents the conditions — a mass murder by terrorists implicating national security interest — where requiring Apple’s technical assistance is at its apex.”

    Stephen G. Larson, the lawyer representing the victims’ families, said he was frustrated that Apple was drawing a line in the sand “over a phone that didn’t even belong to the terrorist and that they have permission to unlock.” The iPhone of the San Bernardino attacker, Syed Rizwan Farook, was issued by his employer.

    “So many of Apple’s arguments are red herrings because this is not about privacy more than any other search in a criminal investigation is about privacy,” Mr. Larson said. “That is scaremongering and that is false.”

    A handful of law enforcement groups also filed briefs supporting the government’s position, including a joint one from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the National Sheriffs’ Association.

    More from The New York Times:
    Giving an Android app permission to play
    Step-by-step fitness history on an iPhone
    An industry lines up behind Apple

    Those groups listed several instances when iPhone data was an essential piece of a criminal case, including child pornography and sex trafficking cases. They argued that criminals were moving to iPhones because of Apple’s refusal to help the government and that the company was making data extraction from its products impossible.

    “If Apple can refuse lawful court orders to reasonably assist law enforcement, public safety will suffer,” the trade groups wrote.

    Not all family members of San Bernardino victims sided with the government. This week, Salihin Kondoker, whose wife, Anies, was shot three times but survived the attack, wrote a letter to the court saying he thought there was little valuable information on the iPhone used by the gunman. Mr. Kondoker said Apple’s fight was about something bigger than one phone.

    “They are worried that this software the government wants them to use will be used against millions of other innocent people,” he wrote. “I share their fear.”

    SHOW COMMENTS Please add a username to view or add commentsPublic Username for Commenting

    View the original article here

     
  • jkabtech 1:31 am on February 28, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , exApple, fight, ,   

    Why Apple is right to fight FBI: ex-Apple security 

    Rick Orloff, former Apple security chief Monday, 22 Feb 2016 | 12:00 PM ETCNBC.com

    The U.S. Department of Justice’s motion issued last week to compel Apple to create a bypass of its iPhone data self-destruct feature is understandable. The FBI wants to access data stored on an encrypted iPhone owned by Syed Farook, who, with his wife, killed 14 people in San Bernardino last December.

    Apple’s CEO Tim Cook wrote a public letter to customers, calling the order a dangerous precedent.

    However, when we examine the implications of having Apple and other companies build “backdoors” into their products that enable law enforcement authorities to access encrypted data on endpoint devices, we soon find that building such backdoors actually creates more problems than it solves.

    Apple CEO Tim Cook.

    It could lead to putting these backdoors into everyone’s smart phone, PC or other computing device, creating a whole new attack vector for hackers to exploit. Hackers and hostile foreign countries will see this as an opportunity to use this vulnerability to their benefit.

    If these backdoors are built, it will be a question of when, not if, a hacker will create his own exploit and use it to get his hands on an enterprise’s, person’s or government agency’s data.

    In addition, if we start down the slippery slope of including backdoors in our computing devices, then sophisticated terrorists and other criminals will pursue alternative security solutions. Rather than depend on an endpoint’s built-in encryption and other security features, they will add off-the-shelf security tools to protect their data.

    The Department of Justice will end up finding itself playing a game of “whack-a-mole,” working to compel every third-party encryption vendor within its jurisdiction to build backdoors into its products. Yet even if the government finds a way to win this game it will still lose.

    Sooner or later, companies located in countries beyond the U.S. Department of Justice’s legal jurisdiction will develop and sell their own encryption tools – companies that the U.S. Department of Justice will be unable to compel to install backdoors.

    Meanwhile, the negative impact of creating these backdoors in hardware and software products is significant. Corporations and individuals will no longer trust that the data they save on their smart phones, PCs and other computing devices is safe – unless they add complex and expensive third-party encryption tools to these devices themselves.

    Also, computing device manufacturers would likely need to create whole new teams to manage the hundreds to thousands of unlock requests they are likely to get from not just the federal government, but state, local, and foreign governments as well.

    Moreover, creating backdoors to access encrypted data on endpoint devices is not a silver bullet that will win the war on terrorism. If law enforcement agencies have a suspect in their sights, there are many tools, processes and capabilities they can leverage to gather data that will further their investigations. Trying to decrypt data on an endpoint, while very valuable, isn’t the only option.

    In the end, if we force companies to build backdoors that the government can use to access encrypted data we wind up making our security problem worse, not better. Terrorists and criminals will continue to use other tools to secure or encrypt their data.

    Corporations, governments, and individuals will need to add yet another piece of software to their technology stack to mitigate a known backdoor. If they don’t, and they are compromised, government leaders and executives will ask the security team, “If you knew about the vulnerability, why didn’t you protect us from it?”

    I believe we all want to prevent terrorism. But in doing so, we should not weaken the security posture of the internet, and only make ourselves less safe, not more.

    Commentary by Rick Orloff, Chief Security Officer, software company Code42. Previously he was Apple’s senior director of security.

    For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.

    SHOW COMMENTS Please add a username to view or add commentsPublic Username for Commenting

    View the original article here

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: