Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Criticizes Companies That Oppose His Efforts To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules (recode.net) 349

Tony Romm, writing for Recode: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai thinks everyone from Cher to Twitter has it wrong when they say that his efforts to roll back the U.S. government's existing net neutrality rules will spell the death of the web. Instead, Pai said during an event in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday that tech giants could pose the greatest threat by discriminating against viewpoints on the internet. "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest," he said, "but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy." The surprising rebuke came as Pai forged ahead with his plan to end the net neutrality protections adopted by the Federal Communications Commission under former President Barack Obama. Those rules subject broadband providers like AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon to utility-style regulation, all in a bid to stop them from blocking access to web pages, slowing down connections or prioritizing some content over others. [...] He didn't spare tech companies from that criticism, either. Companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter -- speaking through their main Washington, D.C.-based trade group, the Internet Association -- have urged Pai to stand down. In response, Pai sought to make an example of Twitter. He specifically raised the fact that the company at one point prevented a Republican congresswoman from promoting a tweet about abortion, only to change its mind amid a public backlash. "Now look: I love Twitter," Pai began. "But let's not kid ourselves; when it comes to a free and open Internet, Twitter is a part of the problem. The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate."

Submission + - Delivering actionable insights in real time by moving to stream processing (griddynamics.com)

An anonymous reader writes: In early 2016 one of our online media customers came to us with a problem. Our customer, a media giant, hosts articles from its newspapers and magazines on its websites. Each of the articles’ web pages has three ad blocks, and the customer buys paid redirects to the article pages. They then analyze how much is spent on the redirects and how much it will earned from the ads. If an ad campaign proves to be profitable, the company may spend more money on it in order to earn more. It also uses analytics to determine its most popular journalists, most popular articles, and trends in what people are reading.

Comment Re:Not enough (Score 1) 39

The good news is that all of this is voluntary. If you don't like the program or the rewards, there is no obligation to participate.

It should be noted that the reward from Google is on top of whatever the company in question may pay. Companies that develop Android apps can start their own programs with their own bounties. Google's program comes on top of that.

As a hacker, the more you submit valid vulnerability reports on HackerOne, the more skilled you will become and the higher your reputations score will go. This in turn will allow you to make money on many other programs.

It's not easy to become a top whitehat hacker, but if you do, the rewards are significant.

Here is how HackerOne celebrated the $500,000 milestone for a hacker: https://www.hackerone.com/blog/mlitchfield-Earned-500000-on-HackerOne

(Sorry for first posting this as Anonymous Coward. I had forgotten to sign in.)

Comment Stop. (Score 1) 40

Just Stop.

We didn't want disney to do it's own network, we barely tolerate hulu which is consumer-antagonistic in its practices.

There's a reason a lot of us have deleted our facebook accounts, and that's because facebook does a piss poor job of managing its feed as-is. If you think this sort of gimmick will bring us back, you're wrong.

Crime

UK Wants To Criminalize Re-Identification of Anonymized User Data (bleepingcomputer.com) 120

An anonymous reader writes: European countries are currently implementing new data protection laws. Recently, despite leaving the European Union, the United Kingdom has expressed intent to implement the law called General Data Protection Regulation. As an extension, the UK wants to to ban re-identification (with a penalty of unlimited fines), the method of reversing anonymization, or pointing out the weakness of the used anonymisation process. One famous example was research re-identifying Netflix users from published datasets. By banning re-identification, UK follows the lead of Australia which is considering enacting similarly controversial law that can lead to making privacy research difficult or impossible. Privacy researchers express concerns about the effectiveness of the law that could even complicate security, a view shared by privacy advocates.
Businesses

Monsanto Leaks Suggest It Tried To Kill Cancer Research On Roundup Weed Killer (rt.com) 242

Danny Hakim reports via The New York Times (Warning: article may be paywalled; alternate source): Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto raised new questions about the company's efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup. The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is the most common weed killer in the world and is used by farmers on row crops and by home gardeners. While Roundup's relative safety has been upheld by most regulators, a case in federal court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company's practices and the product itself.

The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes's website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical." Mr. Miller's 2015 article on Forbes's website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, "I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft." The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that "opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.

Comment Developers message to google: (Score 4, Insightful) 65

stop "other search engines" nonsense automatically adding every website search form I use to your collection of things you try to do on my behalf. Til you stop doing stupid shit in your apps, you have no business telling anyone else what to do.

Government

Intelligence Chairman Accuses Obama Aids of Hundreds of Unmasking Requests (thehill.com) 330

mi writes: When American spies capture our communications with foreigners, the identities of Americans on the other side of the conversation are generally protected -- if not by bona-fide laws, then certainly by rules and regulations. A transcript of the conversation should have their name replaced with labels like "U.S. person 1". The citizen involved can only be "unmasked" with a good reason. In 2011, Obama relaxed these rules, making it much simpler even for officials without any intelligence role to obtain the identities. Predictably, certain top officials of the Obama Administration abused their access to get this information: "The [House Intelligence] committee has learned that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration," [Intelligence Chairman Devin] Nunes wrote. "Of those requests, only one offered a justification that was not boilerplate."

Comment Re:Excellent news. (Score 1) 362

This is one of the reasons I've stopped using google for a lot of things lately. I should have seen the writing on the wall when they forced us all to have google+ accounts, for a site I haven't looked at in I can't even tell you how long. I wish they'd split youtube off into its own separate entity again so I could kill all my google usage.

Comment Re:Payouts are garbage, though (Score 1) 58

This is an interesting question. We don't really know what will happen long term. One possibility, as you point out, is that black markets will always outpay any other market. Another possibility is that the ethical hacker community will become so large and strong that they will find all those same vulnerabilities and deliver them to the system owners before the black market gets to build exploits and use them for nefarious purposes. It takes just one ethical hacker who finds a critical 0day to deliver it to a service like HackerOne, and the market for that vuln is over. Although asymmetry is usually in the favor of the criminal actor, in this case it is in the favor of ethical behavior. One ethical hacker can put an end to the sale of a 0day on the black market.

Comment Re:Utter Bullshit (Score 1) 660

See, that implies that we don't have lower end engineers learning these skills that we've hired also, which is false, because we most certainly do. But the competition for these candidates is fierce, so we can't get people to do the work right now that needs to be done while we train them. Your ability to not grasp the obvious is astounding.

Comment Re:Utter Bullshit (Score 1) 660

as someone who has a mix of both H1B and american workers under his care, I can tell you this: if you want high end technical labor, we simply DO NOT have enough qualified candidates here in the united states. We eat up EVERY SINGLE ONE that we can get our hands on that is an american citizen or has permanent resident status that is qualified when we have an opening, because going through the process of hiring high end candidates is time consuming and a drain on your resources. If you think we're paying the people with these visas garbage salaries either, you're wrong. We have rigorous interview processes and after 1 year of employment we work to make sure we keep that talent inside the country with an EB-2 green card application which we pay extra for to fast track. If you think you're qualified for one of these jobs that we have an open req for, please by all means apply.

And I'm sorry, doing tech support at best buy does not qualify you for a 200k/yr data scientist role. Unless you have a masters degree or are amazing enough to not require higher education (or have equiv job experience, that's fine too) then go ahead. I'm sorry but our universities just aren't putting out enough talent at this level that isn't already snatched up. It's a competitive market and even paying well we often have to go outside of the country to find qualified candidates (or to those already in the country who have H1-B visas and are authorized to work).

LET ME BE VERY CLEAR HERE: We are not talking about entry level positions. we are not talking about outsourcing your job to india. we're talking about someone with the background and knowledge to actually do the work that we need to do without spending years training them. This is what your google, facebook, microsoft, and yes, godaddy too, are trying to make sure is getting across to folks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...