Comment Re: Comet's Bold Strategy: Free AI Browser with Ma (Score 1) 27
(oops, by 'it', I mean some exploit you might encounter, not the browser itself.)
Comment Re: Comet's Bold Strategy: Free AI Browser with Ma (Score 1) 27
Am I mistaken or is this a bit of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped? Is there no valuable info on your system that it could have exfiltrated other than your
Comment Re:Comet's Bold Strategy: Free AI Browser with Mar (Score 1) 27
Yeah. Ignoring this giant red flag seems foolish in the extreme. Don't even know if they keep current with the underlying (here Chromium) security patches, which is a basic necessity new browsers often miss.
"Perplexity classified it as 'no security impact.' " mandates sandboxing it (or using it on a toy system) at a minimum, or just taking a wide berth.
Comment Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest! (Score 5, Informative) 53
Major undisclosed conflicts of interest! See https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubpeer.com%2Fpublicatio... (which you'd be aware of if you had the PubPeer plugin!) Lead author Giuseppe Battaglia is cofounder of a company commercializing underlying technology. So there's even greater risk this research, like all of that also based on the amyloid hypothesis, rests on fraudulent foundations. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statnews.com%2F2025%2F...
Submission + - How a Cheap Barcode Scanner Helped Fix CrowdStrike'd Windows PCs In a Flash (theregister.com)
An anonymous reader writes: 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.
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.
Submission + - FCC Closes 'Final Loopholes' That Keep Prison Phone Prices Exorbitantly High (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Federal Communications Commission today voted to lower price caps on prison phone calls and closed a loophole that allowed prison telecoms to charge high rates for intrastate calls. Today's vote will cut the price of interstate calls in half and set price caps on intrastate calls for the first time. The FCC said it "voted to end exorbitant phone and video call rates that have burdened incarcerated people and their families for decades. Under the new rules, the cost of a 15-minute phone call will drop to $0.90 from as much as $11.35 in large jails and, in small jails, to $1.35 from $12.10."
The new rules are expected to take effect in January 2025 for all prisons and for jails with at least 1,000 incarcerated people. The rate caps would take effect in smaller jails in April 2025. Worth Rises, a nonprofit group advocating for prison reform, said it "estimates that the new rules will impact 83 percent of incarcerated people (about 1.4 million) and save impacted families at least $500 million annually."
The new rules are expected to take effect in January 2025 for all prisons and for jails with at least 1,000 incarcerated people. The rate caps would take effect in smaller jails in April 2025. Worth Rises, a nonprofit group advocating for prison reform, said it "estimates that the new rules will impact 83 percent of incarcerated people (about 1.4 million) and save impacted families at least $500 million annually."
Comment Re: SRSLY? (Score 1) 37
BINGO!
Comment Re:Simple (Score 1) 225
I seriously think Asimov's laws are pretty damn good.
Implementable? We don't know how to...yet.
But I am feeling my way toward some reasonable regulations. A first draft:
Any general purpose AI (or class of AI) that appears to have the ability to kill a human directly or indirectly must
1)be registered in a public database and
2)restricted to a controlled lab environment
unless it has been imbued with the restrictions of Asimov's three laws in a non-removable, non-overridable way. All instances of any class of AI that had been deemed to be thus restricted must be immediately recalled if an instance avoidably violated one of the laws anyway. A judge may order such a recall in the same way that a judge may sign a warrant. or issue an injunction? (Or maybe make it more like a subpoena?)
Just because we aren't currently able to build an AI that can meet such requirements does NOT mean such regulations aren't appropriate.
Classes of AI would include:
For self-driving vehicles, all of a company's vehicles, and vehicles of other companies that used that companies AI, would be in the same class.
Comment If they don't do this, they owe you $3000... (Score 1) 180
...if they were willful, intentional, or reckless, and if they weren't, they still owe you $500 if you ask them to disclose to you any personal information disclosures and they don't. In either case, this only applies if you're Californian.
The relevant law is CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1798.80-1798.84 which you can find here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1798.80-1798.84
(1798.83 and 1798.84 are the most relevant.)
I'm currently (still!) suing TD Ameritrade for covering it up when they were hacked and the names, addresses, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, etc, of 6.4 MILLION customers were compromised. (See amtd.elvey.com.)
(b) Any customer injured by a violation of this title may
institute a civil action to recover damages.
(c) In addition, for a willful, intentional, or reckless violation
of Section 1798.83, a customer may recover a civil penalty not to
exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000) per violation; otherwise, the
customer may recover a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars
($500) per violation for a violation of Section 1798.83..
Slashdot Top Deals
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem. -- Peer
