Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Separate from the rebranding of covid.gov... (Score 5, Insightful) 213

...an article worth considering from Princeton University's Zeynep Tufekci:

We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives

Since scientists began playing around with dangerous pathogens in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling feathers.

Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology â" research that, if conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world â" no fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the organization.

So the Wuhan research was totally safe, and the pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission â" it certainly seemed like consensus.

We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratoryâ(TM)s research, the details that have since emerged show that safety precautions might have been terrifyingly lax.

Full article

Comment Several benefits (Score 2) 140

Exactly!

My standing desk* takes 1–2 seconds to shift between different heights, so it's very easy to switch between standing and sitting. I've been standing for 1½–2 hours each day (not always consecutively) — which by an amazing coincidence seems about the optimum according to that survey.

There are other benefits, though. I first got it after hurting my back, and found that standing really helps with that. (Disclaimer: back problems vary, this is not medical advice, etc.) And standing encourages you to move more, which also seems beneficial.

(* Actually, a ‘standing desk converter’, an adjustable spring-loaded platform that sits atop my existing desk — much cheaper and less disruptive than a full desk replacement.)

Comment You need that anyway (Score 1) 293

You do understand that a CA may need to revoke a certificate with very short notice in case of something wrong (like a misissued overly permissive certificate) on their side, or a compromise that is "nobody's fault", anyway? This has always been the case; the CAs themselves are bound by contracts to revoke misissued certificates promptly.

The only sensible way if you have a service that needs to minimize downtime is automation. We may have got off pretending it's not for some time.

Comment Re: You don't understand. I'll explain (Score 2) 68

I for one actually think their proffered reason is the real one, kind of. You can request videos which they have in a readily available format, and they will redact and provide those. Not always without some persistence, though.

In this case, they don't have in place a regular means (discovered by the employees via minimum effort) to view those tapes. I don't expect it to be a huge hurdle for the NSA, but it's a legally sufficient hurdle. And yes, that sucks.

I would point out that they actually volunteered somewhat more information for the second request than merely giving simplest possible responses to the questions. I guess they calculated that being friendly doesn't hurt in this case. Granted, their first response was not quite as helpful before some correspondence.

I actually would bet they have too few employees working on FOIA, and those employees just don't want to make it more likely that people will challenge them. That's why a terse "no responsive documents" response may seem preferable when they consider it legally sufficient.

But they're not going to be strangers to redacting videos. In this case they just have a sufficient reason why they don't need to. They also cannot give out the tapes without checking what's on them. That would be reckless.

Comment Re: Meta should leave the EU (Score 1) 66

Well, yes... and no. What Meta can do is offer only a paid service. DMA and GDPR are not attempts to get something for free. But they definitely *are* attempts to make it illegal to use personal information as a valuable commodity.

So, I would say, they do target Meta's chosen business model and were very much a reaction to it. Now it is up to Meta to find a less objectionable business model that does not use personal information as payment for a service, or to leave. Forcing this was very much the intention.

Submission + - A Framework for AI Legislation (mindmatters.ai)

johnnyb writes: There has been a lot of ink spilled about the "need" for AI Legislation, but few details about what that would look like. Here are proposals for a 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.

Comment Re: Good luck (Score 1) 119

Yet as a society, we can definitely legitimately make that determination. And there's no way this Meta's idea will fly unless the EU seriously back off from the core ideas behind GDPR, which has been in force since 2016.

Arguably the biggest point of GDPR is to decommoditize personal data. It does this by mandating that all processing of personal data must have one of four lawful bases. The two relevant ones are:

1. Required directly for the performance of a service. This would mean, for example, that you are buying a medical service, and it is impossible to perform that service without that personal data. In this case, you do not need to ask for consent (as long as there is an agreement for you to perform that service). Many companies request your consent in any case to cover their bases.

2. Consent. Processing of personal information can happen with the consent of the person. The tricky thing here is that the consent needs to be voluntary and freely given. For that to be case under the GDPR, a declination must not disadvantage the person in any way that does not directly and immediately follow from not processing the data.

So it is permissible to show the same amount of less relevant ads without a consent, because that is a direct and necessary result of not profiling the user. It is not permissible to otherwise, for business reasons, to disadvantage the person who doesn't consent. Otherwise it would treat personal information as a commodity, something of value given in exchange for something else, and EU has just decided that is not in its view compatible with the right to privacy. (You must also allow consent to be withdrawn at any time without negative consequences.)

So what Meta could legally do is only sell ad-free subscriptions in Europe for $14/month, and not provide any free tier.

Or it can provide a free tier. But if it provides a free tier, it cannot require consent to use personal information as part of that. It can opt to show generic ads to those who do not consent to the processing of their personal information. Yes, that is less profitable. Europeans are crying crocodile tears. Meta loses the ability to do that which it should never have been able to do, use people's personal information without their consent. It's on Meta to find a business model that both respects human rights and is profitable for them. Or stop doing business if it can't.

Comment Re: Sample looks promising (Score 1) 51

This gives me a weird idea.

Many programmers have moved away from QWERTY. Now of course QWERTY is also pretty arbitraryâ"as is the mapping between glyph and sound or letter. Yet obviously to the world non-qwerty solutions seem weird.

Would it make sense to develop a font that is optimized for programming (and/or a specific vision deficiency) and that has nothing to do with how the glyphs normally look like, but is instead optimized to be as unambigous as possible in the context used? I.e. forget that 't' looks like a vertical line crossed by a horizontal one; just try to develop that works best.

Comment Re: Job applicants willingly gave them their data? (Score 4, Informative) 24

No. You cannot require consent as a condition for a service. That's a very major point of GDPR. Consent must be freely given. This means that the person whose information is being processed must not be disadvantaged by declining. (You don't need consent to do the processing genuinely required by the service requested by the person whose information is being processed. Consent is only one or the four legal justifications for processing personal data.)

Comment Question is Good but Misdirected (Score 1) 209

The question isn't whether we should replace filesystems, but rather if we should move core file system services *into* the filesystem. That is, should we embed all of the things that locate does into the filesystem? My answer would be "no" (I prefer single-task entities where possible), but making a filesystem "hook" wouldn't be bad (i.e., trigger X when a file is updated, where X might be an indexing operation). Perhaps we should standardize more metadata, where it is stored, and how it is accessed. There's nothing wrong with storing that *somewhere*. Whether it is the filesystem or elsewhere is a bit of an implementation detail.

Comment The Web3 Fraud (Score 4, Insightful) 65

What is .xyz?

Hype.

"So why this hype? Because the cryptocurrency space, at heart, is simply a giant ponzi scheme where the only way early participants make money is if there are further suckers entering the space. The only âoeutilityâ for a cryptocurrency (outside criminal transactions and financial frauds) is what someone else will pay for it and anything to pretend a possible real-word utility exists to help find new suckers."

https://www.usenix.org/publica...

Comment Nice job slipping pro-CCP propaganda into the summ (Score 5, Insightful) 156

These abuses are not âoeallegedâ; they are happening, and they are not based on dubious âoeresearchesâ [sic]:

https://www.propublica.org/art...

There is a genocide happening in Xinjiang; one that is erasing an entire culture, language, religion, and history of a people.

https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Slashdot Top Deals

You do not have mail.

Working...