Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. Adobe Exec: Early Termination Fees Are ‘Like Heroin’
  2. Boeing Starliner Astronauts Have Been In Space Six Weeks Longer Than Originally Planned
  3. NASA Fires Lasers At the ISS
  4. ‘Copyright Traps’ Could Tell Writers If an AI Has Scraped Their Work
  5. Crooks Bypassed Google’s Email Verification To Create Workspace Accounts, Access 3rd-Party Services
  6. Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone At the Border
  7. Nvidia’s Open-Source Linux Kernel Driver Performing At Parity To Proprietary Driver
  8. How a Cheap Barcode Scanner Helped Fix CrowdStrike’d Windows PCs In a Flash
  9. RFK Jr. Says He’d Direct the Government to Buy $615 Billion in Bitcoin or 4 Million Bitcoins
  10. White House Announces New AI Actions As Apple Signs On To Voluntary Commitments
  11. Data From Deleted GitHub Repos May Not Actually Be Deleted, Researchers Claim
  12. Automakers Sold Driver Data For Pennies, Senators Say
  13. ISPs Seeking Government Handouts Try To Avoid Offering Low-Cost Broadband
  14. 2U, Once a Giant in Online Education, Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
  15. Pixel 9 AI Will Add You To Group Photos Even When You’re Not There

Alterslash picks up to the best 5 comments from each of the day’s Slashdot stories, and presents them on a single page for easy reading.

Adobe Exec: Early Termination Fees Are ‘Like Heroin’

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Longtime Slashdot reader sandbagger shares a report from The Verge:
Early termination fees are "a bit like heroin for Adobe,” according to an Adobe executive quoted in the FTC’s newly unredacted complaint against the company for allegedly hiding fees and making it too hard to cancel Creative Cloud. “There is absolutely no way to kill off ETF or talk about it more obviously” in the order flow without “taking a big business hit,” this executive said. That’s the big reveal in the unredacted complaint, which also contains previously unseen allegations that Adobe was internally aware of studies showing its order and cancellation flows were too complicated and customers were unhappy with surprise early termination fees.
In response to the quote, Adobe’s general counsel and chief trust officer, Dana Rao, said that he was “disappointed in the way they’re continuing to take comments out of context from non-executive employees from years ago to make their case.”
Rao added that the person quoted was not on the leadership team that reports to CEO Shantanu Narayen and that whether to charge early termination fees would “not be their decision.” The early termination fees in the FTC case represent “less than half a percent of our annual revenue,” Rao told The Verge. “It doesn’t drive our business, it doesn’t drive our business decisions.”

Dupe

By alexhs • Score: 3 Thread

Dupe

dana rao

By phantomfive • Score: 3 Thread
If Dana Rao wants to believe that early termination fees are no big deal, then Adobe should stop charging them. It’s simple.

Boeing Starliner Astronauts Have Been In Space Six Weeks Longer Than Originally Planned

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Longtime Slashdot reader Randseed writes:
Boeing Starliner is apparently still stuck at the ISS, six weeks longer than planned due to engine troubles. The root cause seems to be overheating. NASA is still hopeful that they can bring the two astronauts back on the Starliner, but if not apparently there is a SpaceX Dragon craft docked at the station that can get them home. This is another in a long list of high profile failures by Boeing. This comes after a series of failures in their popular commercial aircraft including undocumented flight system modifications causing crashes of the 737 MAX, doors blowing out in mid-flight, and parts falling off the aircraft. The latter decimated a Toyota in a populated area.
“I think we’re starting to close in on those final pieces of flight rationale to make sure that we can come home safely, and that’s our primary focus right now,” said Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s commercial crew program.
“Our prime option is to complete the mission,” Stich said. “There are a lot of good reasons to complete this mission and bring Butch and Suni home on Starliner. Starliner was designed, as a spacecraft, to have the crew in the cockpit.”

Boing

By mrthoughtful • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
While it is always easy to throw evidence of mishaps around, I do not think that the commercial airline arm and the space arm cross over, except right at the top, which may indicate that there is a systemic issue with the company culture that any quick fix will not solve.

However, correlation is not causality.

While there is no doubt in my mind that the large government contractors such as Boeing consider NASA/DOD contracts to be a never-ending gravy train, there are quite a few very bright people and extremely able engineers working there.

Let us not be too hasty in our judgement.

Must feel like

By quonset • Score: 5, Funny Thread

Going on a three hour tour.

NASA Fires Lasers At the ISS

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
joshuark shares a report from The Verge:
NASA researchers have successfully tested laser communications in space by streaming 4K video footage originating from an airplane in the sky to the International Space Station and back. The feat demonstrates that the space agency could provide live coverage of a Moon landing during the Artemis missions and bodes well for the development of optical communications that could connect humans to Mars and beyond. NASA normally uses radio waves to send data and talk between the surface to space but says that laser communications using infrared light can transmit data 10 to 100 times faster than radios.
“ISS astronauts, cosmonauts, and unwelcomed commercial space-flight visitors can now watch their favorite porn in real-time, adding some life to a boring zero-G existence,” adds joshuark. “Ralph Kramden, when contacted by Ouiji board, simply spelled out ‘Bang, zoom, straight to the moon!’"

10 to 100 times faster than radios

By war4peace • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

I know they meant bandwidth, but this needs to be explicitly stated.
“10 to 100 times faster than radios” could also be interpreted as time elapsed between source and destination, which is simply not true.

‘Copyright Traps’ Could Tell Writers If an AI Has Scraped Their Work

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review:
Since the beginning of the generative AI boom, content creators have argued that their work has been scraped into AI models without their consent. But until now, it has been difficult to know whether specific text has actually been used in a training data set. Now they have a new way to prove it: "copyright traps" developed by a team at Imperial College London, pieces of hidden text that allow writers and publishers to subtly mark their work in order to later detect whether it has been used in AI models or not. The idea is similar to traps that have been used by copyright holders throughout history — strategies like including fake locations on a map or fake words in a dictionary. […] The code to generate and detect traps is currently available on GitHub, but the team also intends to build a tool that allows people to generate and insert copyright traps themselves.
“There is a complete lack of transparency in terms of which content is used to train models, and we think this is preventing finding the right balance [between AI companies and content creators],” says Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye, an associate professor of applied mathematics and computer science at Imperial College London, who led the research.
The traps aren’t foolproof and can be removed, but De Montjoye says that increasing the number of traps makes it significantly more challenging and resource-intensive to remove. “Whether they can remove all of them or not is an open question, and that’s likely to be a bit of a cat-and-mouse game,” he says.

Re:Traps work for me.

By Njovich • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

That’s a great way to ensure at least someone gets paid for that use of the work. And that someone of course being your lawyer.

“Digital traps” otherwise known as

By Rosco P. Coltrane • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Watermarks.

And they’re old as dirt. It’s hardly a new idea.

I use them all the time to figure out who sells my data to whom. Whenever I sign up to something - willingly or not - I give my name with different middle initials, like John T. H. Doe, then the next submission, I put John T. I. Doe, then John T. K. Doe and I keep track of who I gave which name to.

When a name comes back on a piece of junk mail or spam email, I know who sold my information. If it’s a company, I put them on my list of companies never to buy anything from again.

It works as long as whoever sold my information doesn’t strip the fake middle initials, just like the “digital traps” will work if AI doesn’t mangle the original works so much that the watermarks gets destroyed.

Re:Traps work for me.

By bjwest • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Nobody’s stealing anything from you, you still have the original file, there’s just a new copy that created when it was downloaded.

Perhaps the AI checked it out from a library to read, just like I would’ve had I needed it to learn something from it. Are you going to sue me because I used a free copy of it to learn, and retained that knowledge?

Sounds completely impractical for any human writer

By SubmergedInTech • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

From the paper:

- They need “sequences of 100 tokens repeated 1,000 times.”

- These need to be seeded into a huge dataset to resist deduplication. Not one document. Not a book. Duplicate sequences can easily be detected and removed from those. According to the paper, only “large datasets containing terabytes of text” are impractical (for now) to deduplicate. But that’s literally (ha) a dataset the size of a million Bibles (~4MB).

So this won’t protect Joe Writer. No writer is prolific enough to generate terabytes of text. Not even Steven King. The only ones who will benefit from this are big corporations trying to protect their own datasets from each other.

AI brings the worst of all IP worlds.

By Eunomion • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Individuals are constantly and falsely bombarded with automated copyright claims that sabotage and silence them, unable to keep up with the mass-produced nature of such attacks. Meanwhile if their work does get through and gain traction, it will be massively cannibalized and counterfeited by other automation that’s likewise too fast to take down. The catch-22 is the fundamental unit of dystopia.

Crooks Bypassed Google’s Email Verification To Create Workspace Accounts, Access 3rd-Party Services

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Brian Krebs writes via KrebsOnSecurity:
Google says it recently fixed an authentication weakness that allowed crooks to circumvent the email verification required to create a Google Workspace account, and leverage that to impersonate a domain holder at third-party services that allow logins through Google’s “Sign in with Google” feature. […] Google Workspace offers a free trial that people can use to access services like Google Docs, but other services such as Gmail are only available to Workspace users who can validate control over the domain name associated with their email address. The weakness Google fixed allowed attackers to bypass this validation process. Google emphasized that none of the affected domains had previously been associated with Workspace accounts or services.

“The tactic here was to create a specifically-constructed request by a bad actor to circumvent email verification during the signup process,” [said Anu Yamunan, director of abuse and safety protections at Google Workspace]. “The vector here is they would use one email address to try to sign in, and a completely different email address to verify a token. Once they were email verified, in some cases we have seen them access third party services using Google single sign-on.” Yamunan said none of the potentially malicious workspace accounts were used to abuse Google services, but rather the attackers sought to impersonate the domain holder to other services online.

Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone At the Border

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
On Wednesday, Judge Nina Morrison ruled that cellphone searches at the border are “nonroutine” and require probable cause and a warrant, likening them to more invasive searches due to their heavy privacy impact. As reported by Reason, this decision closes the loophole in the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents have exploited. Courts have previously ruled that the government has the right to conduct routine warrantless searches for contraband at the border. From the report:
Although the interests of stopping contraband are “undoubtedly served when the government searches the luggage or pockets of a person crossing the border carrying objects that can only be introduced to this country by being physically moved across its borders, the extent to which those interests are served when the government searches data stored on a person’s cell phone is far less clear,” the judge declared. Morrison noted that “reviewing the information in a person’s cell phone is the best approximation government officials have for mindreading,” so searching through cellphone data has an even heavier privacy impact than rummaging through physical possessions. Therefore, the court ruled, a cellphone search at the border requires both probable cause and a warrant. Morrison did not distinguish between scanning a phone’s contents with special software and manually flipping through it.

And in a victory for journalists, the judge specifically acknowledged the First Amendment implications of cellphone searches too. She cited reporting by The Intercept and VICE about CPB searching journalists’ cellphones “based on these journalists’ ongoing coverage of politically sensitive issues” and warned that those phone searches could put confidential sources at risk. Wednesday’s ruling adds to a stream of cases restricting the feds’ ability to search travelers’ electronics. The 4th and 9th Circuits, which cover the mid-Atlantic and Western states, have ruled that border police need at least "reasonable suspicion" of a crime to search cellphones. Last year, a judge in the Southern District of New York also ruled (PDF) that the government “may not copy and search an American citizen’s cell phone at the border without a warrant absent exigent circumstances.”

Needs to have more case law

By ugen • Score: 4, Informative Thread

This is a good decision, but being a single district court, it is not yet generally applicable.
The only way this would become a common rule is if this case, or similar, makes its way to the circuit court and then to the Supreme Court, and all decide likewise.

I suspect that the government agencies are not interested in taking this case further up (on an off chance it make be decided not in their favor, though with the current composition of the Supreme Court I think it’s a very low risk). So, the case will remain a local oddity, though it likely applies now in principle to anyone entering the US through JFK (or anywhere within that court’s jurisdiction, but that’s probably only JFK atm).

Re:Needs to have more case law

By markdavis • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

>“the current Supreme Court has shown repeatedly it doesn’t let precedent get in the way of a political decision.”

A precedent doesn’t settle interpretation forever. If that were the case, we would still have some really, really bad interpretations from a long time ago persisting to this day. Precedent is a convenient default starting point and a shortcut to not have to re-examine the same thing over and over again. Without it, courts would be gridlocked beyond imagination. That doesn’t mean bad decisions shouldn’t be re-examined, which is what has happened.

>“More case law wouldn’t help there.”

Actually, it probably would. Having different courts examining and hearing different but similar cases, with different evidence, arguments, situations, examples, and presentations helps to flesh-out and fine-tune the overall picture. The SCOTUS regularly refuses to hear things or kicks stuff back down with only partial direction to see how things evolve.

Nvidia’s Open-Source Linux Kernel Driver Performing At Parity To Proprietary Driver

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Nvidia’s new R555 Linux driver series has significantly improved their open-source GPU kernel driver modules, achieving near parity with their proprietary drivers. Phoronix’s Michael Larabel reports:
The NVIDIA open-source kernel driver modules shipped by their driver installer and also available via their GitHub repository are in great shape. With the R555 series the support and performance is basically at parity of their open-source kernel modules compared to their proprietary kernel drivers. […] Across a range of different GPU-accelerated creator workloads, the performance of the open-source NVIDIA kernel modules matched that of the proprietary driver. No loss in performance going the open-source kernel driver route. Across various professional graphics workloads, both the NVIDIA RTX A2000 and A4000 graphics cards were also achieving the same performance whether on the open-source MIT/GPLv2 driver or using NVIDIA’s classic proprietary driver.

Across all of the tests I carried out using the NVIDIA 555 stable series Linux driver, the open-source NVIDIA kernel modules were able to achieve the same performance as the classic proprietary driver. Also important is that there was no increased power use or other difference in power management when switching over to the open-source NVIDIA kernel modules.

It’s great seeing how far the NVIDIA open-source kernel modules have evolved and that with the upcoming NVIDIA 560 Linux driver series they will be defaulting to them on supported GPUs. And moving forward with Blackwell and beyond, NVIDIA is just enabling the GPU support along their open-source kernel drivers with leaving the proprietary kernel drivers to older hardware. Tests I have done using NVIDIA GeForce RTX 40 graphics cards with Linux gaming workloads between the MIT/GPL and proprietary kernel drivers have yielded similar (boring but good) results: the same performance being achieved with no loss going the open-source route.
You can view Phoronix’s performance results in charts here, here, and here.

Not fully open source

By tlhIngan • Score: 4, Informative Thread

The driver is yes, open source, but it’s basically a thin shim to the GPU. All the proprietary bits were just moved from the kernel into userspace (where they belong). So just using the “open source bits” alone will not do much beyond the basics the kernel needs for a display driver.

Everything else is done through a proprietary interface the driver has so the binary blobs (now in userspace) can talk to the card directly.

Graphics drivers consist of three layers. The upper layer is the interface HAL layer that interfaces the graphics API to the driver. The middle layer is the composition engine that takes those graphics API calls and turns them into GPU instruction lists. The last layer is the interface with hardware where those instruction lists are potentially rewritten by the GPU instruction scheduler, then passed to the GPU through an interface the open source driver exposes to do the work.

The only thing open source here is a thin basic graphics driver to drive an nVidia card. The heavy lifting has been moved to userspace and the two use a proprietary interface to talk to the card directly.

Use the driver alone and you’ll get basic unaccellerated graphics. You can’t go and play any 3D games or use CUDA appliations without the proprietary blobs which were moved to userspace.

How a Cheap Barcode Scanner Helped Fix CrowdStrike’d Windows PCs In a Flash

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register:
Not long after Windows PCs and servers at the Australian limb of audit and tax advisory Grant Thornton started BSODing last Friday, senior systems engineer Rob Woltz remembered a small but important fact: When PCs boot, they consider barcode scanners no differently to keyboards. That knowledge nugget became important as the firm tried to figure out how to respond to the mess CrowdStrike created, which at Grant Thornton Australia threw hundreds of PCs and no fewer than 100 servers into the doomloop that CrowdStrike’s shoddy testing software made possible. […] The firm had the BitLocker keys for all its PCs, so Woltz and colleagues wrote a script that turned them into barcodes that were displayed on a locked-down management server’s desktop. The script would be given a hostname and generate the necessary barcode and LAPS password to restore the machine.

Woltz went to an office supplies store and acquired an off-the-shelf barcode scanner for AU$55 ($36). At the point when rebooting PCs asked for a BitLocker key, pointing the scanner at the barcode on the server’s screen made the machines treat the input exactly as if the key was being typed. That’s a lot easier than typing it out every time, and the server’s desktop could be accessed via a laptop for convenience. Woltz, Watson, and the team scaled the solution — which meant buying more scanners at more office supplies stores around Australia. On Monday, remote staff were told to come to the office with their PCs and visit IT to connect to a barcode scanner. All PCs in the firm’s Australian fleet were fixed by lunchtime — taking only three to five minutes for each machine. Watson told us manually fixing servers needed about 20 minutes per machine.

There’s something about a clever hack…

By shoor • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

It cheers me up when I hear about a gnarly problem solved by somebody thinking out of the box a bit, and coming up with a clever solution.

Re:There’s something about a clever hack…

By gweihir • Score: 5, Informative Thread

It does make you feel that? Then here is something more for you: You can program the Arduinos with native USB to emulate a keyboard as well, and they can present _any_ USB vendor and device ID you like. Not even hard to do. And with that, a PC _cannot_ tell whether this is a real keyboard or that Arduino pretending to be the exact same keyboard.

Re:There’s something about a clever hack…

By Local ID10T • Score: 5, Informative Thread

I agree it’s a very clever hack. However the fact that this works at all makes me uneasy… it sets off alarm bells. It feels like there’s a horrible exploit just waiting to be found here.

it’s just a USB barcode scanner -a USB HID KEYBOARD device at the hardware level. I have a Symbol LS2208 that I have used for years to enter strings of alphanumeric data accurately.

The horrible exploit for this has been around for years: a USB device configured to present itself as whatever it is and as a keyboard …and then execute a series of commands on the console (just as if you had typed the commands) a little while after being connected. You can buy these things on various websites.

BadUSB

By aaarrrgggh • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Couldn’t the whole process be automated via a BadUSB device?

Barcode

By markdavis • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

I had that exact idea on the day I read people were having to hand-keying long/complex codes. I use a cheap barcode reader to enter serial numbers and MAC addresses and other things routinely.

Take your LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet of the codes and create a new column with the barcode equivalents of them. https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/… then print it out for people to use.

Or you can use a code 39 barcode font, which is even easier because it just needs a "*" for start and stop. I believe it is the only full alpha-numeric 1D barcode that doesn’t require computation of check digits. But it won’t work if you need lowercase letters or certain symbols unless you use “extended” code 39, which I haven’t tried before. Good reference on that here: https://www.barcoderesource.co…

RFK Jr. Says He’d Direct the Government to Buy $615 Billion in Bitcoin or 4 Million Bitcoins

Posted by Slashdot Staff View on SlashDot Skip
US presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced during his keynote Friday at the Bitcoin Conference that he would direct the US government to buy Bitcoin until the size of its Bitcoin reserves matched its gold reserves. At current prices, that equates to $615 billion worth of gold.
RFK Jr. said: “I will sign an executive order directing the US Treasury to purchase 550 Bitcoin daily until the US has built a reserve of at least 4,000,000 Bitcoins and a position of dominance that no other country will be able to usurp.”
4 million Bitcoin is 19% of all Bitcoin that will ever exist.

Is that before

By quonset • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Or after he assaults more women?\

No wonder the convicted felon was considering him. They’re both gropers!

Re:Boring villain stuff

By fahrbot-bot • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Why are real life lunatics so boring? I want the old school James Bond kind of villains that threaten to sink places with earthquakes and build giant death rays. Instead we get crypto nuts, Hollywood depicts unrealistic expectations of power mad villains!

We have Elon for that. He just needs a monocle and white cat, and to move the SpaceX headquarters into a volcano …

Re:Why is this garbage “news”?

By geekmux • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

A presidential candidate announcing he would direct the government to buy bitcoin is news, even if it offends your delicate idealogy

Exactly this. Forget the tulip-bulb insanity of suggesting a government stockpile overpriced $hitcoin for a minute and ask the actual relevant question; the fuck makes a presidential candidate THAT worried about the current government solution for currency?

We didn’t exactly leave the Gold Standard at noon yesterday, and are suddenly in need of a solution..or are we?

Re:Why is this garbage “news”?

By ceoyoyo • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

He’s a candidate, speaking at a bitcoin conference.

A dude in the world’s biggest popularity conference, talking to a bunch of bitcoin zealots, said he’s going to make the US government buy bitcoin. And you think its because he’s worried, or has any genuine feelings at all on the matter?

Re:Why is this garbage “news”?

By arglebargle_xiv • Score: 4, Funny Thread
They forgot to mention that he also said he’d direct the government to take another $615 billion in cash and set fire to it, then dance around the flames singing “Ding-dong, the brain worm is dead”.

White House Announces New AI Actions As Apple Signs On To Voluntary Commitments

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
The White House announced that Apple has "signed onto the voluntary commitments" in line with the administration’s previous AI executive order. “In addition, federal agencies reported that they completed all of the 270-day actions in the Executive Order on schedule, following their on-time completion of every other task required to date.” From a report:
The executive order “built on voluntary commitments” was supported by 15 leading AI companies last year. The White House said the agencies have taken steps “to mitigate AI’s safety and security risks, protect Americans’ privacy, advance equity and civil rights, stand up for consumers and workers, promote innovation and competition, advance American leadership around the world, and more.” It’s a White House effort to mobilize government “to ensure that America leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks of artificial intelligence,” according to the White House.

Data From Deleted GitHub Repos May Not Actually Be Deleted, Researchers Claim

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Thomas Claburn reports via The Register:
Researchers at Truffle Security have found, or arguably rediscovered, that data from deleted GitHub repositories (public or private) and from deleted copies (forks) of repositories isn’t necessarily deleted. Joe Leon, a security researcher with the outfit, said in an advisory on Wednesday that being able to access deleted repo data — such as APIs keys — represents a security risk. And he proposed a new term to describe the alleged vulnerability: Cross Fork Object Reference (CFOR). “A CFOR vulnerability occurs when one repository fork can access sensitive data from another fork (including data from private and deleted forks),” Leon explained.

For example, the firm showed how one can fork a repository, commit data to it, delete the fork, and then access the supposedly deleted commit data via the original repository. The researchers also created a repo, forked it, and showed how data not synced with the fork continues to be accessible through the fork after the original repo is deleted. You can watch that particular demo [here].

According to Leon, this scenario came up last week with the submission of a critical vulnerability report to a major technology company involving a private key for an employee GitHub account that had broad access across the organization. The key had been publicly committed to a GitHub repository. Upon learning of the blunder, the tech biz nuked the repo thinking that would take care of the leak. “They immediately deleted the repository, but since it had been forked, I could still access the commit containing the sensitive data via a fork, despite the fork never syncing with the original ‘upstream’ repository,” Leon explained. Leon added that after reviewing three widely forked public repos from large AI companies, Truffle Security researchers found 40 valid API keys from deleted forks.
GitHub said it considers this situation a feature, not a bug: “GitHub is committed to investigating reported security issues. We are aware of this report and have validated that this is expected and documented behavior inherent to how fork networks work. You can read more about how deleting or changing visibility affects repository forks in our [documentation].”

Truffle Security argues that they should reconsider their position “because the average user expects there to be a distinction between public and private repos in terms of data security, which isn’t always true,” reports The Register. “And there’s also the expectation that the act of deletion should remove commit data, which again has been shown to not always be the case.”

Security “researcher” discovers how git works…

By gweihir • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Seriously. Yes, this may cause problems, but the very idea of git and any version control system, really, is that you can always access every earlier commit unless you nuke everything. In the case of Git, which is a _distributed_ version control system, unless you delete _all_ copies of the repository, you cannot reliably delete anything. This is indeed working as expected and is no surprise at all.

Now, what about API keys? Simple: Same as secret keys, passwords, etc. they have _zero_ business getting checked into a version control system. They belong into a key management system and nowhere else. So what do you do when you have committed a cryptographic secret to a version control system? Also simple: You must invalidate and change it, no exceptions.

Uh, Github isn’t wrong

By Yoda’s Mum • Score: 3 Thread

I hate to agree with Github, but the entire point of a fork is that it’s a fully separate copy. Commits in the parent repository messing with forks breaks most of the reasons for them in the first place.

What ever you put in the hands of others!

By oldgraybeard • Score: 3 Thread
Is theirs to to do what ever they want with!

Re:Security “researcher” discovers how git works..

By test321 • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

From the summary (and from the video), one of their experiment is to first create a fork of a repo, commit something, then delete the fork. There was never a pull request, the data in the deleted fork was never merged into the original repo. It should not be accessible. But if you know the commit ID, it is somehow still accessible. This is not a feature of git. It is a feature of GitHub website owners not implementing deletion as “rm -rf” on the fork folder, but as hiding the holder from the view, but still letting the data leak if you know an exact path (through the commit ID).

Automakers Sold Driver Data For Pennies, Senators Say

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times:
If you drive a car made by General Motors and it has an internet connection, your car’s movements and exact location are being collected and shared anonymously with a data broker. This practice, disclosed in a letter (PDF) sent by Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts to the Federal Trade Commission on Friday, is yet another way in which automakers are tracking drivers (source may be paywalled; alternative source), often without their knowledge. Previous reporting in The New York Times which the letter cited, revealed how automakers including G.M., Honda and Hyundai collected information about drivers’ behavior, such as how often they slammed on the brakes, accelerated rapidly and exceeded the speed limit. It was then sold to the insurance industry, which used it to help gauge individual drivers’ riskiness.

The two Democratic senators, both known for privacy advocacy, zeroed in on G.M., Honda and Hyundai because all three had made deals, The Times reported, with Verisk, an analytics company that sold the data to insurers. In the letter, the senators urged the F.T.C.‘s chairwoman, Lina Khan, to investigate how the auto industry collects and shares customers’ data. One of the surprising findings of an investigation by Mr. Wyden’s office was just how little the automakers made from selling driving data. According to the letter, Verisk paid Honda $25,920 over four years for information about 97,000 cars, or 26 cents per car. Hyundai was paid just over $1 million, or 61 cents per car, over six years. G.M. would not reveal how much it had been paid, Mr. Wyden’s office said. People familiar with G.M.‘s program previously told The Times that driving behavior data had been shared from more than eight million cars, with the company making an amount in the low millions of dollars from the sale. G.M. also previously shared data with LexisNexis Risk Solutions.
“Companies should not be selling Americans’ data without their consent, period,” the letter from Senators Wyden and Markey stated. “But it is particularly insulting for automakers that are selling cars for tens of thousands of dollars to then squeeze out a few additional pennies of profit with consumers’ private data.”

Re:Anti-consumer behaviour

By jacks smirking reven • Score: 4, Informative Thread

It’s a little gain but it’s also almost 0 work for the automaker, just send the data files or database over and collect a check. Easy dollars are better than zero dollars and screwing over the customer plays no part in that decision.

Re:Anti-consumer behaviour

By Lobachevsky • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Most likely fake revenue. I have a friend in a related industry. If company A wants to sell a piece of junk for $1 to company B, then B will most likely refuse. But, if company A offers that piece of junk for $1 plus an exchange of $20,000,000 in both directions (no real cash is moved because it nets out to zero), then company B will love it. Both company A and company B can post that $20,000,000 as “revenue”. Revenue is among the easiest things to fake. They say money doesn’t grow on trees, and that’s true for profits because profits is real money. But revenue is fake money. Revenue and fake money /do/ grow on trees. And companies get into deals with other companies for just sloshing fake money around between each other to drive up their revenue. It’s a big scam since the 1980s when the issue of “transfer-asset-pricing” came on the radar. But no one knows how to fix it. So companies routinely get into such deals. That’s why Warren Buffet ignores revenue and just looks at profits when assessing companies. But many other investors care about revenue, which means companies love to get into shenanigans to print insane revenue.

The alternative, which is also possible, is bribery. If the insurance company knows it’s worth millions, rather than paying millions, they can just find a paper pushing VP at the car company, throw him a $300,000 of “gifts” on the down-low, plus a token $26,000 to the car company, and get a contract signed and save themselves from having to spend millions! So long as it’s relatively hush-hush and not many in the car company know they got jipped with a $26,000 contract that should be worth millions, it’ll fly under the radar.

Both are terrible. But the former is legal and widespread, while the latter is illegal but unfortunately all too common.

Re:Why isn’t this illegal?

By Local ID10T • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

This would obviously be illegal in Europe due to GDPR, so why isn’t it in the US?

Why don’t US politicians make it illegal to violate their constituent’s privacy so brazenly and so deeply?

Because if they simply pass a law against it, it is DONE. It has to remain an open issue in order to campaign on it.

There is no political value in solving problems, only in fighting them.

Re:Anti-consumer behaviour

By thegarbz • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

That’s not likely to be the case here. The whole fake revenue scam works on start-ups and scaleup activities. Long established companies are rarely judged on revenue and shareholders quickly start questioning why no good costs start increasing (remember to make a significant difference on revenue they also have to make the same difference in underlying expenses).

The reality is simple: Data isn’t worth much wholesale. It’s single point information from which you can’t derive much. There’s a reason the likes of Facebook are valued incredibly high but data brokers are effectively worthless, the value ultimately is derived from what analytics you can provide in your data. From some anonymous vehicle information you can do fuck all. But if you manage to collate someone’s entire life and then also create a platform to target them with advertising, *that* is where the real money is. That is why data companies like Facebook, LinkedIn and Google are worth a shitton, while companies which have sets of data sell them for basically nothing. The value is not in dealing data, the value is in derive a revenue stream from it through advertisement.

Data is cheap. It’s cheap from GM. It’s cheap from your ISP.

Then the other question is what is the data and of whom. Your data and mine may not be priced equally. The price of data is higher for a younger population (you know, people who didn’t just buy a brand new car) than for old as there is more value in locking them in on a product through advertising. 26 cents per car is actually quite high, almost on par with the personal data of someone under the age of 25. Your personal data is worth close to 5-10 cents by the time you hit 50, and let’s face it 25 year olds aren’t represented in this dataset.

“anonmously”

By markdavis • Score: 3 Thread

>“If you drive a car made by General Motors and it has an internet connection, your car’s movements and exact location are being collected and shared anonymously with a data broker.”

Except they are not being collected OR stored anonymously.

>“It was then sold to the insurance industry, which used it to help gauge individual drivers’ riskiness. "

Exactly my point. Thank you. And that data will float around forever, get sold again, snarfed by 3 letter agencies, hacked and released, whatever.

>“Companies should not be selling Americans’ data without their consent, period,” the letter from Senators Wyden and Markey stated”

No, they shouldn’t be COLLECTING THE DATA AT ALL without full disclosure, and opt-in consent (and without any coercion either), period.

ISPs Seeking Government Handouts Try To Avoid Offering Low-Cost Broadband

Posted by msmash View on SlashDot Skip
Internet service providers are pushing back against the Biden administration’s requirement for low-cost options even as they are attempting to secure funds from a $42.45 billion government broadband initiative. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program, established by law to expand internet access, mandates that recipients offer affordable plans to eligible low-income subscribers, a stipulation the providers argue infringes on legal prohibitions against rate regulation. ISPs claim that the proposed $30 monthly rate for low-cost plans is economically unfeasible, especially in hard-to-reach rural areas, potentially undermining the program’s goals by discouraging provider participation.

Easy solution

By smooth wombat • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Stop leeching off the government and don’t take the money.

You can’t have it both ways. If you want the money so your quarterly numbers look good you have to provide low-cost broadband to those who qualify. If you’re not going to do that you don’t get the money.

Re:Make the next quarter look good

By Revek • Score: 5, Informative Thread
“We want your money handout that comes with stipulations, but could you please remove the stipulations?”

Its what they have been getting. They get money and don’t build a single mile of phyical plant with the money.
There is no oversight of how its used and no rules to enforce it. Other than some easily dismissed guidelines.
I’ve seen it more than once working for a ISP. Its no surprise they keep pushing to not keep their word.
They never have kept it once. Its always just one big cash grab that leave smaller ISP’s out.
When you finally lock out the big guys and only give it to ISP’s with fewer than 30,000 subs you will see a change.
Alternatively you could put people on the ground with a thumb on the pay.
If they got paid after 100% completing and only after 100% completing the builds you might see the money being used for something other than padding the bottom line.
Even from AT&Fee but so far they just throw money at them and watch them do nothing.
All the while pretending they did.

What happened to the 400 million broadband scandal

By witherstaff • Score: 3 Thread

This has been written about multiple times yet I’ve never seen any comment about government actually looking into it. The claim, with mountains of evidence, that taxpayers have paid 400 million+ to get free fiber to the door. Universal coverage open to any instead of the surviving large ISPs.
https://newnetworks.com/ShortS…

2U, Once a Giant in Online Education, Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Posted by msmash View on SlashDot Skip
Online education company 2U filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and is being taken private in a deal that will wipe out more than half of its $945 million debt [non-paywalled link]. From a report:
2U was a pioneer in the online education space, joining with schools including the University of Southern California, Georgetown University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to design and operate online courses in fields including nursing and social work. But it struggled in recent years amid new competition and changing regulations. It also had a highly leveraged balance sheet with looming loan-repayment deadlines. 2U closed Wednesday with a market value of about $11.5 million, down from more than $5 billion in 2018.
In 2021, 2U bought edX, an online platform for classes that was founded by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The debt from that $800 million deal for edX proved debilitating to 2U, WSJ reports.

they get Chapter 11 but students can’t use that to

By Joe_Dragon • Score: 3 Thread

they get Chapter 11 but students can’t use that to get our of there loans!

MIT/Harvard sold edX for how much?

By 1s44c • Score: 3 Thread

These universities sold edX, a non-profit, for $800 million. MIT and Harvard screwed the on-line students of their non-profit and probably the content producers too.

These universities are working for money, they literally care about nothing else. They pretend to be about education for the tax breaks, That’s why on-line freely available education is so important.

Pixel 9 AI Will Add You To Group Photos Even When You’re Not There

Posted by msmash View on SlashDot
Google’s upcoming Pixel 9 smartphones are set to introduce new AI-powered features, including “Add Me,” a tool that will allow users to insert themselves into group photos after those pictures have been taken, according to leaked promotional video obtained by Android Headlines. This feature builds on the Pixel 8’s “Best Take” function, which allowed face swapping in group shots.

More stoopid crap

By MpVpRb • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

It’s interesting that AI companies can’t seem to think up any useful ideas and continue to release increasingly stoopid crap
It’s almost like they’re going for gold in the olympics of stoopid

Re:I’m too old

By Linux Torvalds • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Watch ‘Black Mirror’ on Netflix. Then watch it again, only instead of enjoying it as a dystopian sci-fi show, consider it as a series of proposed business plans.

Then, this story and others like it will make perfect sense.

Re: More stoopid crap

By Impy the Impiuos Imp • Score: 4, Funny Thread

Pushing a button, and removing or adding something to a picture is a complicated problem. This is a dancing bear that literal genuises hqve accomplished. There must be some mass use for it, right?

I thought that auto sharpen based on AI would be another one. Where did that go?

Seeing isn’t believing any more

By Big Bipper • Score: 3 Thread
It’s getting so you can’t believe anything you didn’t see or touch for yourself, with nothing in between. No cameras, no augmented or virtual reality, no mainstream media. And magicians have been fooling us live for ages ( thanks Penn and Teller ;-) ). Even Descartes starting point, Cognito Ergo Sum could be wrong if it turns out that we really do live in a simulation. We may as well enjoy the Cool Aid while we can.

You can’t spell alibi…

By yababom • Score: 3 Thread

without AI..

—Google