Daily Deal: Cybersecurity Projects Bundle

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Cybersecurity Projects Bundle offers a hands-on program featuring five real-world cybersecurity projects, totaling 35 tasks. Participants start with an introductory video for each project, detailing objectives and requirements, followed by task completion that mirrors real cybersecurity challenges. Support from industry professionals ensures personalized feedback and guidance. Upon completing the program, participants gain practical experience, a solid understanding of cybersecurity practices, and a certificate recognizing their achievements. Ideal for both beginners and experienced professionals. It’s on sale for $30.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Aussie Gov’t: Age Verification Went From ‘Privacy Nightmare’ To Mandatory In A Year

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the topsy-turvy-down-under dept

Over the last few years, it’s felt like the age verification debate has gotten progressively stupider. People keep insisting that it must be necessary, and when others point out that there are serious privacy and security concerns that will likely make things worse, not better, we’re told that we have to do it anyway.

Let’s head down under for just one example. Almost exactly a year ago, the Australian government released a report on age verification, noting that the technology was simply a privacy and security nightmare. At the time, the government felt that mandating such a technology was too dangerous:

“It is clear from the roadmap at present, each type of age verification or age assurance technology comes with its own privacy, security, effectiveness or implementation issues,” the government’s response to the roadmap said.

The technology must work effectively without circumvention, must be able to be applied to pornography hosted outside Australia, and not introduce the risk to personal information for adults who choose to access legal pornography, the government stated.

“The roadmap makes clear that a decision to mandate age assurance is not yet ready to be taken.”

That’s why we were a bit surprised earlier this year when the government announced a plan to run a pilot program for age verification. However, as we pointed out at the time, just hours after the announcement of that pilot program, it was revealed that a mandated verification database used for bars and clubs in Australia was breached, revealing sensitive data on over 1 million people.

You would think that might make the government pause and think more deeply about this. But apparently that’s not the way they work down under. The government is now exploring plans to officially age-gate social media.

The federal government could soon have the power to ban children from social media platforms, promising legislation to impose an age limit before the next election.

But the government will not reveal any age limit for social media until a trial of age-verification technology is complete.

The article is full of extremely silly quotes:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said social media was taking children away from real-life experiences with friends and family.

“Parents are worried sick about this,” he said.

“We know they’re working without a map. No generation has faced this challenge before.

“The safety and mental and physical health of our young people is paramount. 

“Parents want their kids off their phones and on the footy field. So do I.”

This is ridiculous on all sorts of levels. Many families stay in touch via social media, so taking kids away from it may actually cut off their ability to connect with “friends and families.”

Yes, there are cases where some kids cannot put down phones and where obvious issues must be dealt with, as we’ve discussed before. But the idea that this is a universal, across-the-board problem is nonsense.

Hell, a recent study found that more people appeared to be going into the great outdoors because of seeing it glorified on social media. Some are worried that people are too focused on the great outdoors because it’s being overly glorified on social media.

Again, there’s a lot of nuance in the research that suggests this is not a simple issue of “if we cut kids off of social media, they’ll spend more time outside.” Some kids use social media to build up their social life which can lead to more outdoor activity, while some don’t. It’s not nearly as simple as saying that they’ll magically go outdoors and play sports if they don’t have social media.

Then you combine that with the fact that the Australian government knows that age verification is inherently unsafe, and this whole plan seems especially dangerous.

But, of course, politicians love to play into the latest moral panic.

South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said getting kids off social media required urgent leadership.

“The evidence shows early access to addictive social media is causing our kids harm,” he said.

“This is no different to cigarettes or alcohol. When a product or service hurts children, governments must act.”

Except, it’s extremely different than cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are actually consumed by the body and insert literal toxins into the bloodstream. Social media is speech. Speech can influence, but you can’t call it inherently a toxin or inherently good or bad.

The statement that “addictive social media is causing our kids harm” is literally false. The evidence is way more nuanced, and there remain no studies showing an actual causal relationship here. As we’ve discussed at length (backed up by multiple studies), if anything the relationship may go the other way, with kids who are already dealing with mental health problems resorting to spending more time on social media because of failures by the government to provide resources to help.

In other words, this rush to ban social media for kids is, in effect, an attempt by government officials to cover up their own failures.

The government could be doing all sorts of things to actually help kids. It could invest in better digital literacy, training kids how to use the technology more appropriately. It could provide better mental health resources for people of all ages. It could provide more space and opportunities for kids to freely spend time outdoors. These are all good uses of the government’s powers that tackle the issues they claim matter here.

Surveilling kids and collecting private data on them which everyone knows will eventually leak, and then banning them from spaces that many, many kids have said make their lives and mental health better, seems unlikely to help.

Of course, it’s only at the very end of the article linked above that the reporters include a few quotes from academics pointing out that age verification could create privacy and security problems, and that such laws could backfire. But the article never even mentions that the claims made by politicians are also full of shit.

Filed Under: age verification, anthony albanese, australia, kids, mental health, moral panic, peter malinauskas, privacy, security, social media

NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ Ex-Cop City Hall Buddies Spent Most Of Last Week Getting Raided By The FBI

Legal Issues

from the ex-cop-distances-himself-from-ex-cops-he-employed dept

The most powerful entity in New York City isn’t the Mayor. Or City Hall. It has always been the NYPD, which has never been overseen by anyone who could remotely be considered capable, much less willing, to hold the department accountable, at least not in my lifetime. The chain of succession at City Hall over the past 40 years runs from Ed Koch to Rudy Giuliani to Michael Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio, with a brief stop for David Dinkins, who was quickly kicked to the curb by open bigotry and powerful police unions when it became clear he might actually try to introduce stronger accountability measures.

Bill de Blasio was the only mayor to be roundly rejected by the NYPD, and even that rejection was only temporary. Everyone in this chain of commanders has done everything they can to protect the NYPD. The present mayor may be the worst so far — a company man whose years of service as an NYPD officer have made him more deferential than most.

New York City hasn’t quite reached the levels of corruption that has made Chicago (in)famous, but it’s going to keep trying! With each passing year and election of an NYPD-worshiping mayor, the level of corruption increases. Believing otherwise is pure denialism.

And now, the mayor whose buddies in the cop shop (some current, some former) led him to deploy a gun-detection system the system’s developer has admitted won’t actually work where it’s being deployed (NYC’s subway system) is now at the center of another classic NYC clusterfuck. Here’s ABC News with more details:

The FBI conducted searches at the homes of two of New York City Mayor Eric Adams‘ closest aides on Thursday, sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News.

The Hamilton Heights home of First Deputy Mayor Sheena Wright, who is engaged to Schools Chancellor David Banks, and the Hollis, Queens, home of Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Phil Banks, were searched as part of an ongoing investigation, the sources said.

That early reporting might make it seem as though these raids were tied to a couple of outliers, albeit ones working very closely with Mayor Eric Adams. Later reporting makes it clear the problem isn’t limited to Sheena Wright and Phil Banks.

On Wednesday, in coordinated early morning raids, FBI agents seized phones and/or searched the homes of more than half a dozen senior city officials, including Sheena Wright, first deputy mayor; David Banks, schools chancellor, and his brother Philip Banks III, deputy mayor for public safety; Edward Caban, NYPD commissioner; and Timothy Pearson, mayoral adviser.

That’s multiple raids in one day, all targeting City Hall employees with close ties to Eric Adams. You’ll also note that one of the raid targets was the NYPD commissioner himself, Edward Caban — someone who has his own antagonism towards notions of law enforcement accountability.

But there’s a larger law enforcement nexus here. Eric Adams is a former NYPD officer. Philip Banks is a former NYPD department chief — one who resigned suddenly a decade ago when news surfaced he was involved in the bribing of several city officials. Adams liked Banks enough to give him a job, despite his immediately obvious ethical concerns.

Mayor Adams’ adviser, Timothy Pearson has his own issues. He held down a job at Resorts World Casino while simultaneously working for the mayor’s office. Pearson only exited his casino job after this double-dipping was exposed by the press. He’s also been sued four times for sexual harassment.

As for Commissioner Caban, he’s his own bag of trouble:

Commissioner Caban came under a cloud when it turned out his brother, Richard, was operating a Bronx bar and restaurant called Con Sofrito — a place where Adams celebrated his birthday and NYPD brass liked to party — in violation of multiple building and fire-safety codes and a judge’s order to shut down an outdoor terrace.

And yet, he’s still somehow the NYPD commissioner. And all of this comes on top of preexisting scandals, including multiple convictions tied to illegal fundraising for Adams’ 2021 mayoral campaign.

Eric Adams — a.k.a. Mr. Law Enforcement — doesn’t seem to be all that concerned about enforcing laws. His staff and political appointees are allegedly engaged in an unknown amount of lawbreaking. And that only covers the recent raids, which, at minimum, imply unlawful activity. There’s also plenty of confirmed lawlessness on the record.

All of that adds up to this spectacularly terrible response from the mayor’s office in response to the raids:

“Investigators have not indicated to us the mayor or his staff are targets of any investigation,” the mayor’s chief counsel, Lisa Zornberg, said in a statement. “As a former member of law enforcement, the mayor has repeatedly made clear that all members of the team need to follow the law.”

First, the feds don’t need to “indicate” anything about the mayor’s staff. It’s already clear at least one member of his staff (adviser Timothy Pearson) is the “target” of an “investigation.” Second, what the fuck does this even mean: “the mayor has repeatedly made it clear that all members of the team need to follow the law.”

I have worked a number of jobs over the past 30 years, both as a subordinate and a supervisor. I have been told (or have told others) to “follow the law” exactly zero times over that period. This is not a normal thing for people to say. If it’s something you have to say “repeatedly,” it’s because you or the people you employ are “repeatedly” trying to violate the law or, as the case would seem to be here, actually violating the law.

Not that the NYPD is handling this any better following the raid of Commissioner Caban’s house. Its response to these events was to eject anyone asking questions or reporting on the raids.

When the Post tried to reach chief of patrol John Chell for comment about the raids and subpoenas,” the paper reports, “NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Public Information Tarik Sheppard got on the phone and called the reporter a ‘f- – – ing scumbag.’” Minutes later, the department reportedly kicked Tina Moore, the Post’s police bureau chief, out of the press room at NYPD headquarters.

Not a great look for anyone involved or anyone close to those involved. This is going to get extremely interesting extremely quickly. Friends, cohorts, and actual employees of the mayor and his office have already been on the receiving end of FBI raids. It’s only a matter of time before the bell tolls for the mayor himself. Even if Adams was smart enough to generate some plausible deniability, someone under investigation is going to roll over and offer up enough evidence to pierce this façade. Mayor Adams may ultimately survive this, but it’s going to leave permanent scars.

The overarching theme, however, is something we’ve seen several times before: the people who talk the loudest about law and order are the people who most frequently decide laws don’t apply to them. Power corrupts, and those with the most of it are almost always the first to succumb to this inevitability. As for the city itself, I guess it’s time to try again when the next election rolls around. But history suggests Adams will just be replaced by someone equally terrible and equally subservient to the whims and demands of the city’s law enforcers.

Filed Under: corruption, eric adams, fbi, new york city, nypd

Fifth Circuit Rejects Dog-Killing Cop’s Pleas For Qualified Immunity

Legal Issues

from the restoring-a-bit-of-faith-in-the-5th's-judicial-process dept

Well, well, well. Is the Fifth Circuit finally going to start redeeming itself?

Just recently, the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court bucked the appellate trend (well, what there was of it…) by declaring geofence warrants unconstitutional. That ran counter to the expectations of this court, which has often chosen to treat the Constitution as a set of suggestions, especially when it likes the arguments any government in its jurisdiction is making.

And here it is bucking its own trend by denying qualified immunity to Deputy James Killian, who went on a (dog-)killing spree while responding to a domestic disturbance report. On December 2016 (welcome to the extremely slow roll of justice, folks) the deputy was dispatched to handle a call about a “big fight going on” between Rubicela Ramirez and her boyfriend, Francisco Gonzales. What followed Killian’s arrival on the scene was both a literal and Constitutional bloodbath.

The Fifth Circuit’s opinion [PDF] details what came next:

The next thirty-eight seconds of video show what happened from there. From the living room, Killian entered the kitchen, where he encountered Ramirez entering from another door. Killian ordered her to “come here, get over here, get over here and face that wall.” Ramirez approached Killian. Killian then ordered: “get over there and face that g— d—n wall, b—h,” simultaneously pepper spraying Ramirez’s face. While this was happening, Gonzales entered the kitchen from the same door as had Ramirez. At the same time, a pit bull entered the kitchen from another door and walked up to Gonzales, wagging his tail. Killian ordered Gonzales to “get over here” and said “I’ll shoot your dog.” The dog—Bruno—began to walk towards Killian, and Killian shot him three times.

We’ll get to more of this horror show in a moment, but let’s walk through a few of these selected moments in Killian’s law enforcing effort. First, he gave Rubicela Ramirez conflicting instructions. He told her to both “get over here” and “face that wall.” Killian was not standing against a wall presumably, so it would have been difficult for Ramirez to both move towards the deputy and the wall simultaneously.

Furthermore, as in any domestic dispute, the woman is usually considered to be the victim. (I realize this is not always the case, but that’s the presumption… and usually a solid one.) The deputy chose to greet the presumptive victim with this: “Get over there and face the goddamn wall, bitch.” Not only was this an abhorrent way to treat a potential victim, but it was completely uncalled for. (Calling her a “bitch” was never excusable, btw.) Ramirez had done nothing more than enter her own kitchen. And for that simple action, she was treated like a perp who had deliberately aggravated the responding officers.

Then there’s the dog, which did nothing more than exist. At least Killian was right about one thing: he promised to shoot the dog and he did, despite the dog apparently no more of a threat to him than the “bitch” he had ordered to face the wall, as well as the boyfriend, who was even less prepared for the presence of a law enforcement officer in his kitchen.

What was already terrible got even worse because Deputy James Killian has no business being a law enforcement officer.

Killian then ordered Ramirez and Gonzales to get onto the ground and continued to pepper spray them. Neither Ramirez nor Gonzales immediately complied, but Gonzales put his hands onto his head. Then, a German Shepherd appeared in the kitchen and walked toward Killian, who immediately shot it four times as he backed into the living room. Killian briefly exited the house from the door that he had entered and radioed for help. He then returned to the living room and continued to order Ramirez and Gonzales to get onto the ground. Ramirez and Gonzales went to their knees. Killian continued to pepper spray them. For the next few minutes, the three shouted profanities at each other as Killian unsuccessfully tried to get Ramirez and Gonzales to lie down on the ground.

Enter the third contradictory instruction: get on the ground. Come over here. Get up against the wall. Lay down on the floor. Even if one might make the argument it’s possible to both get up against the wall and lay down on the floor, there’s a really good reason neither Ramirez or Gonzales complied with this instruction. And that reason has everything to do with confirmed dog killer, Deputy James Killian.

The video makes it disturbingly clear that the kitchen floor, onto which Killian was ordering Ramirez and Gonzales to lie down, was covered by this point in their dogs’ blood.

Having pumped seven bullets into two dogs and an untold amount of pepper spray into the faces of the couple, Killian handcuffed the pair and sat them on the living room couch. Shortly after that, Sheriff Kent Riley arrived at the home. Ramirez recognized Sheriff Riley and figured he might be there to actually help, rather than harm. And he might have been there to do that. But when Ramirez stood up and called for the sheriff by his first name, this happened:

Killian immediately grabbed her by the hair and wrestled her to the ground. As he did so, his body camera fell off briefly and went black.

The couple’s allegations say this isn’t exactly what happened. It wasn’t “wrestling” so much as it was a brief, extremely violent attack by the deputy.

Ramirez and Gonzales maintain that immediately after Killian took Ramirez to the ground, he slammed her head against the floor, though the video was still black at this point and does not show it.

Undeniably awful. Awful enough the lower court denied immunity to Killian and put the whole thing in front of a jury. While the jury did find in favor of the deputy on some of the allegations, one of them stuck:

The unreasonable-seizure claim proceeded to trial. Before beginning his case-in-chief, Killian moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Ramirez and Gonzales had failed to present evidence sufficient to overcome Killian’s qualified immunity defense. The district court denied the motion. The case then went to the jury, which was charged consistent with Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 10.3. The jury found that Killian had “acted in an objectively unreasonable manner” and that “no reasonable officer could have believed that shooting the dog was lawful,” awarding Ramirez and Gonzales $100,300 in compensatory and punitive damages.

Having failed with the first judgment as a matter of law attempt, Killian immediately fired off another one after the jury had rendered its verdict. Somehow, that one worked and the lower court reversed its own conclusions (and the jury verdict), claiming the suing couple had not presented enough evidence to overcome Killian’s invocation of qualified immunity.

The Fifth Circuit, however, is not as welcoming of Killian’s repeated pleas that he should be allowed to escape judgment. While the court agrees Killian had the right to enter the house without a warrant in response to the domestic altercation call, nothing about what followed his entry is covered by Constitutional exceptions. And that means some of stuff that was written off earlier (like the excessive force claim) gets reinstated, along with the “unreasonable seizure” that was Killian’s killing of the couple’s two dogs.

While it is true that Killian was investigating a possible assault—a serious crime —Ramirez and Gonzales were not actively resisting arrest. Killian’s contention that his first orders were not contradictory, and that Ramirez and Gonzales did not comply, are flatly refuted by the video evidence. Killian’s order to “come here” was the exact opposite of his order to “get over there.” Nor were there any indications that either Ramirez or Gonzales posed a threat to Killian.

[…]

Moving now to Ramirez’s and Gonzales’s head-banging claim, we likewise find that they have satisfied both steps of the qualified immunity inquiry at the summary judgment stage. This is an even easier determination. Ramirez and Gonzales allege that, after Killian took Ramirez to the ground and was firmly on top of her, he slammed her head against the floor. There was summary judgment evidence that Ramirez suffered injury in the form of a black eye. And evaluating the evidence in Ramirez’s and Gonzales’s favor, Ramirez gave no indication that she was attempting to escape when she stood from the couch, as she was simply begging Sheriff Riley for help. Nor is it particularly plausible, especially once another officer arrived on-scene, that a handcuffed, pepper-sprayed subject could have posed much of a threat to Killian, either when she was standing or after Killian took her to the ground.

Established. Established. As to the dogs, it’s similarly well-established.

We are not even the first court to hold that a robust consensus of persuasive authority clearly establishes this exact legal proposition. The First Circuit in Maldonado “reject[ed]” the defendant state official’s argument that the “law was not clearly established because this court had not earlier addressed” whether killing a pet dog could constitute an unreasonable seizure. Rather, because four other circuits had already held as much, “the law was sufficiently recognized by courts to be clearly established.”

Furthermore, the lower court screwed up when it gave Deputy Killian a second swing at the “judgment as a matter of law” pinata. In doing that, it shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiffs, demanding they satisfy a completely non-existent third prong of the qualified immunity argument: “reasonable officer evidence.” That’s just not a thing, says the Appeals Court. The other two factors have already been satisfied, something that probably should have been gleaned from the jury finding in favor of the plaintiffs on the unlawful seizure claim.

Three errors is three errors too many. Back it goes to the lower court with the excessive force claims reinstated and the dog-killing judgment put back into place. Deputy Killian heads back to court as well, guaranteed that, if nothing else, he’s cost taxpayers a little more than $100,000. If the government is smart, it will offer a settlement before things get any worse or any more costly.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, 5th circuit, cops killing dogs, excessive force, james killian, police misconduct, texas

D&D, Once The Subject Of Moral Panic, Found Therapeutic In Autism Cases In Study

Culture

from the therapy-dragon dept

Regular readers here will know we are no strangers to talking about Dungeons & Dragons or moral panics. Those two topics are often interrelated, given the moral panic history of the tabletop game itself, as well as how it should inform us in our reaction to more modern moral panics. After all, where once some of the public believed that allowing their children to play D&D would turn them into violent, Satan-worshipping death-zombies, that is precisely what the view of video games has been more recently. With D&D, the moral panic wave crested long ago, receding away to the modern acceptance, nay rising popularity of the game. Along with that have come studies showing that playing games like D&D are good for young writers, or have applications in therapy for children. And just like with D&D, we’re now finally starting to see the same view taken with video games, serving as treatment for conditions like ADHD, or to treat PTSD.

We should expect those new positive applications for video games to continue to be developed, as evidenced by how studies for how to use D&D in therapy are still coming out. In this specific case, a small study was done with those living with autism, who played through a weeks long campaign together and were interviewed about their experiences afterwards.

Over the last decade or so, researchers have turned their focus more heavily to the ways in which D&D and other TRPGs can help people with autism form healthy social connections, in part because the gaming environment offers clear rules around social interactions. According to the authors of a new paper published in the journal Autism, D&D helped boost players’ confidence with autism, giving them a strong sense of kinship or belonging, among other benefits.

“There are many myths and misconceptions about autism, with some of the biggest suggesting that those with it aren’t socially motivated, or don’t have any imagination,” said co-author Gray Atherton, a psychologist at the University of Plymouth. “Dungeons & Dragons goes against all that, centering around working together in a team, all of which takes place in a completely imaginary environment. Those taking part in our study saw the game as a breath of fresh air, a chance to take on a different persona and share experiences outside of an often challenging reality. That sense of escapism made them feel incredibly comfortable, and many of them said they were now trying to apply aspects of it in their daily lives.”

Once you get past the concern about children turning into goat-worshipping hell-beings, this is almost so obvious as to be silly. Conditions like autism, which can often carry with it social anxiety or social confusion, are just about perfectly suited therapeutically with a game like D&D. Why? Because the interactions within the game, social in nature though they may be, are far more prescriptive than in everyday life. There are expectations within the game as to how those interactions ought to go, which are helpfully often defined on paper. That way we’re not relying on unwritten social norms that some people with some conditions find confusing or difficult to act upon. And, because this is all one giant game of make believe, social interactions that don’t go well are in some ways disassociated from the player, with the consequences for them instead falling on the player’s fictional character.

TPRGs like D&D can serve as a social lubricant for autistic players, according to a year-long study published earlier this year co-authored by Atherton, because there is less uncertainty around how to behave in-game—unlike the plethora of unwritten social rules that make navigating social settings so anxiety-inducing. Such games immerse players in a fantastical world where they create their characters with unique backstories, strengths, and weaknesses and cooperate with others to complete campaigns. 

Participants spoke repeatedly about the positive benefits they received from playing D&D, providing a friendly environment that helped them relax about social pressures. “When you’re interacting with people over D&D, you’re more likely to understand what’s going on,” one participant said in their study interview. “That’s because the method you’ll use to interact is written out. You can see what you’re meant to do. There’s an actual sort of reference sheet for some social interactions.” That, in turn, helped foster a sense of belonging and kinship with their fellow players.

And don’t doubt for a moment that some of what is learned and practiced in these game sessions can either be brought into real world interactions or, at least, create a more comfortable posture for those with autism to give those interactions a try.

But the real lesson here is that when the moral panic begins, we ought to cast very narrow eyes at it. On the other side of that panic might just be something very beneficial.

Filed Under: autism, dungeons & dragons, moral panic, therapy, tprg

How ‘Analog Privilege’ Spares Elites From The Downsides Of Flawed AI Decision-Making Systems

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the that’s-not-fair dept

We live in a world where there are often both analog and digital versions of a product. For example, we can buy books or ebooks, and choose to listen to music on vinyl or via streaming services. The fact that digital goods can be copied endlessly and perfectly, while analog ones can’t, has led some people to prefer the latter for what often amounts to little more than snobbery. But a fascinating Tech Policy Press article by Maroussia Lévesque points out that in the face of increased AI decision-making, there are very real advantages to going analog:

The idea of “analog privilege” describes how people at the apex of the social order secure manual overrides from ill-fitting, mass-produced AI products and services. Instead of dealing with one-size-fits-all AI systems, they mobilize their economic or social capital to get special personalized treatment. In the register of tailor-made clothes and ordering off menu, analog privilege spares elites from the reductive, deterministic and simplistic downsides of AI systems.

One example given by Lévesque concerns the use of AI by businesses to choose new employees, monitor them as they work, and pass judgement on their performance. As she points out:

Analog privilege begins before high-ranking employees even start working, at the hiring stage. Recruitment likely occurs through headhunting and personalized contacts, as opposed to applicant tracking systems automatically sorting out through resumes. The vast majority of people have to jump automated one-size-fits all hoops just to get into the door, whereas candidates for positions at the highest echelons are ushered through a discretionary and flexible process.

Another example in the article involves the whitelisting of material on social networks when it is posted by high-profile users. Masnick’s Impossibility Theorem pointed out five years ago that moderation at scale is impossible to do well. One response to that problem has been the increasing use of AI to make quick but often questionable judgements about what is and isn’t acceptable online. This, in its turn, has led to another kind of analog privilege:

In light of AI’s limitations, platforms give prominent users special analog treatment to avoid the mistakes of crude automated content moderation. Meta’s cross-check program adds up to four layers of human review for content violation detection to shield high-profile users from inadvertent enforcement. For a fraction of one percent of users, the platform dedicates special human reviewers to tailor moderation decisions to each individual context. Moreover, the content stays up pending review.

In terms of addressing analog privilege, wherever it may be found, Lévesque suggests that creating a “right to be an exception” might be a good start. But she also notes that implementing such a right in AI laws won’t be enough, and that the creators of AI systems need to improve “intelligibility so people subject to AI systems can actually understand and contest decisions.” More generally:

looking at analog privilege and the detrimental effects of AI systems side by side fosters a better understanding of AI’s social impacts. Zooming out from AI harms and contrasting them with corresponding analog privileges makes legible a subtle permutation of longstanding patterns of exceptionalism. More importantly, putting the spotlight on privilege provides a valuable opportunity to interrupt unearned advantages and replace them with equitable, reasoned approaches to determining who should be subject to or exempt from AI systems.

Well, we can dream, can’t we?

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky.

Filed Under: ai, analog, decision making, digital, elites, exceptions, masnick's impossibility theorem, moderation, privilege, recruitment, social media
Companies: meta

Google’s California Hush Money Won’t Fix Journalism’s Woes

Policy

from the not-how-these-things-should-work dept

Link taxes are bad, m’kay? They harm the public. They harm the open internet. And they harm the news orgs themselves. There is no reason to support them at all. But, many (thankfully not all!) media organizations and politicians love them. Media orgs like them because they think it will bring them free money (though, often enough, it just brings them less traffic and no money).

This year, California brought back an old proposal for a link tax from state Rep. Buffy Wicks, along with a separate proposal from state Senator Steve Glazer to just tax the digital advertising business, claiming that it’s a form of pollution, and proposed using that tax to fund journalism.

While getting more funding for journalism is obviously a good idea, the plan to tax internet companies is tremendously problematic for all the reasons we discussed above. On top of everything else, it also takes away the incentive for media orgs to come up with sustainable, working business models for themselves, encouraging them, instead, to wait until the legislature deigns to force tech companies to funnel money in their direction.

As almost always happens whenever these kinds of bills get close to passing, Meta promises to stop links to news (and mostly seems to follow through). Meanwhile, Google says it will do so, but then blinks and cuts a deal to pay off everyone, such that even if the law passes, they have already paid the vig. Google did it in Australia, and it did it in Canada. Both times it agreed to cough up a bunch of money. And even though in both countries a link tax came into effect, both payments were made outside of the link tax, and basically acted as a “here, take this money, don’t try to enforce the link tax on us” move.

This time, it looks like Google made the payoff earlier, to stop the law in California. A few weeks back, Wicks announced that her office and Google had come to an agreement to fund a bunch of journalism orgs with money from both Google and the state, and that she wouldn’t continue pushing her link tax bill.

Today, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks announced the establishment of a first-in-the-nation partnership with the State, news publishers, major tech companies and philanthropy, unveiling a pair of multi-year initiatives to provide ongoing financial support to newsrooms across California and launch a National AI Accelerator.

Together, these new partnerships will provide nearly $250 million in public and private funding over the next five years, with the majority of funding going to newsrooms. The goal is to front-load $100 million in the first year to kick-start the efforts. The total investment could increase over the next several years if additional funding from private or state sources becomes available.

That link has a lot of people coming out in support of the deal, including some smaller publishers, claiming that this is “a win” for everyone. However, I doubt that very much.

But, more to the point, the whole appearance of this is ridiculous. It looks like Google paying the state of California to not pass the link tax law, with a bunch of that money then being handed off to some journalists. It’s very unclear at this point how the money will be distributed, but I’m going to take a wild guess and suggest that sites like Techdirt will likely be ineligible, because we always are.

More importantly, though, these kinds of deals never last. A few years back, you may recall that a very rich real estate developer with no understanding of privacy law pushed a very bad privacy law as a referendum across California. The companies cut a deal with him, rushing a very poorly drafted privacy bill through the California legislature in exchange for him dropping the ballot initiative. And it worked. For two years. Then he put another terrible referendum back on the ballot because he didn’t like how things were working out.

Already, Glazer (the author of the “tax all digital advertising” bill) is complaining about the deal, suggesting he’s not likely to stop pushing his additional tax bill.

Glazer in a media call said he wasn’t satisfied with the deal and faulted the agreement as too small to help independent news organizations, as well as lacking involvement from Meta or Amazon.com Inc. Meta declined to comment on the announcement, according to a spokesperson.

“These platforms, along with Google, have captured the intimate data from Californians without paying for it,” he said. “The use of that data in advertising is the harm to news outlets that this agreement should mitigate and which it does not.”

So even if Google thought it was buying off the legislature here to drop these bills, it seems highly likely that something like this will return either way, because it’s never going to be “enough.”

Again, I’m strongly in favor of figuring out more and better ways to fund journalism. But this one comes across as a cynical attempt to stop a bad law by investing in a fund with few details on how or where that fund will be deployed. It seems ripe for corruption, and even journalists who are in favor of link taxes are calling it out as an unfair backroom deal.

The problem in all of this is that people are rushing to see where they can extract money from to transfer it around, rather than figuring out ways to build actual long-term, sustainable business models that aren’t reliant on politicians pointing to this or that company and saying “you, hand over some money to these journalists I like.”

Filed Under: buffy wicks, california, journalism, link taxes, steve glazer
Companies: google

Daily Deal: Headway Premium

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Headway Premium is the revolutionary app designed to help you turn personal growth into a habit. With a lifetime subscription, you get unlimited access to a huge number of non-fiction bestsellers, summarized into 15-minute reads. Be it personal development, business strategies, or health insights, Headway has you covered. It’s on sale for $60.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

FTC Pushed To Crack Down On Companies That Ruin Hardware Via Software Updates Or Annoying Paywalls

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the you-don't-own-what-you-buy dept

We’ve noted for years how you no longer really own the things you buy. Whether it’s smart home hardware that becomes useless paperweights when the manufacturer implodes, or post-purchase firmware updates that actively make your device less useful, you simply never know if the product you bought yesterday will be the same product tomorrow.

Now a coalition of consumer groups, activists, and lawmakers are pushing the FTC to crack down on “smart” device manufacturers that suddenly pull support for products or make them less useful — either by simply removing features or hiding them behind annoying new subscription paywalls.

In a letter sent last week to key FTC officials, a coalition of seventeen different groups (including Consumer Reports, iFixit, and US PIRG) requested that the agency take aim at several commonplace anti-consumer practices, including “software tethering” (making hardware useless or less useful later via firmware update), or the act of suddenly locking key functionality behind subscriptions:

Both practices are examples of how companies are using software tethers in their devices to infringe on a consumer’s right to own the products they buy. While the FTC has taken some limited actions with regard to this issue, a lack of clarity and enforcement has led to an
ecosystem where consumers cannot reliably count on the connected products they buy to last.

The letter cites numerous instances of consumer harms Techdirt has covered at length, ranging from Peloton’s recent decision to charge used bike owners a $95 fee for no coherent reason, to the “smart” baby bassinet maker that recently decided to paywall most of the device’s most popular features.

The letter correctly points out that this environment, where consumers are constantly shelling out significant money for devices that can be killed or rendered less useful (often without clear communications to end users), is resulting in a “death by a thousand cuts” for consumer rights. And, the groups note, it’s likely to only get worse without clear guidance and enforcement by the FTC.

The FTC has occasionally made inquiries in this space, but often only superficially. For example the FTC launched an investigation into Google’s decision to turn Revolv smart home hardware into useless crap but then took no substantive action and implemented no meaningful consumer reforms.

But the (intentionally) underfunded, understaffed, and endlessly embattled agency only has so many resources, and struggles to tackle even far more pressing issues like widespread monopolization or privacy violations. Still, some federal guidance and a few warnings would probably go a long way in a “smart” hardware sector that’s become a hot mess in the cloud computing age.

Filed Under: bricked, consumers, ftc, hardware, ownership, smart home, software, subscriptions