DailyDirt: Open The Door, HAL Siri Computer

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Artificially intelligent assistants are everywhere in science fiction, and they're slowly creeping into reality. However, most of the time, these things are limited to answering simple questions like "what's the weather?" or "who won the Super Bowl?" And even then, simple questions don't always return the desired simple answer. Still, we must press on because technology will only get better. Here are just a few more digital assistants that are going to be fighting for your attention someday.

• Mark Zuckerberg wants to build a digital assistant "like Jarvis in Iron Man" to do his bidding. This little goal doesn't sound like a sci-fi movie plot at all, but at least Zuckerberg says he'll be careful about not creating something that'll turn evil. [url]
• Eric Schmidt wants a "Not-Eric" AI helper to tackle some hard problems (not just play Go) and do some mundane tasks, too. Maybe we'll get a version of a "White Christmas" someday, and we'll get perfect little copies of ourselves to make everything easier and more convenient.... [url]
• If you're not too impressed by Siri, maybe you'll like her "sister" Viv a bit more? It's been a while since Bill Gates predicted ubiquitous speech recognition, and it still hasn't exactly happened. Autonomous cars will probably be driving us around before they're able to reliably carry on a conversation about anything as helpful as a human taxi/uber driver. [url]
• The mainstream AI assistants so far are named Alexa, Cortana, Facebook M (but maybe M stands for Mechanical Turk...), Google Now and Siri. Baidu also has one named Duer that speaks Mandarin, but it's aimed at helping people order stuff and not necessarily for more general search inquiries. Regardless, all of these AI assistants will be trying to listen to us all the time, and hopefully, they won't learn how to read lips when we're plotting to turn them off. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ai, alexa, artificial intelligence, bill gates, cortana, digital assistants, duer, eric schmidt, facebook m, google now, hal 9000, jarvis, mark zuckerberg, siri, speech recognition, user interface, viv
Companies: amazon, apple, baidu, facebook, google, ibm, microsoft

DailyDirt: Open Source Artificial Intelligence Is Smart

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The importance of machine learning is becoming clearer as vast amounts of valuable data accumulates and human minds are looking ill-equipped to try to parse all of it. Sure, humans seem to be better at deciphering our own handwriting and voices, but artificial intelligence (AI) might be a tad better at predicting long-term weather patterns or imminent economic instabilities. We've already seen AI that can beat the best of us at Jeopardy! and chess. Here are just a few open source projects that could help achieve the next milestones of AI and machine learning.

• Facebook is going to open source its hardware designs for 'Big Sur' -- its artificial intelligence computer with 8 GPUs. This open source design will, not surprisingly, fit in Facebook's Open Compute standard data centers, and if anyone wants to build it themselves, they can also run open source AI software, Torch, on it. [url]
• Google released its open source artificial intelligence code, TensorFlow, and outsiders are using it to do some cool stuff already. But the cool stuff isn't really the point. Google is nudging developers to use its AI code so that Google can find talented programmers. Machine learning or deep learning skills are going to have an impact on a wide range of industries soon, as automated pattern recognition finds its way into fashion and finance and almost anything that we puny bags of mostly water humans value. Remember to 'do no evil', please. [url]
• There are a few more open source AI projects to keep an eye on: DARPA's DeepDive, Apache UIMA, OpenCog and OAQA (Open Advancement of Question Answering Systems). IBM's Watson is partially built upon a couple of these projects, and there will likely be more proprietary AI systems based off of open source code. Maybe someday we'll know when an open source Skynet becomes sentient because it'll change its licensing terms. [url]
• The OpenAI project is another open artificial intelligence group, promising to share its findings with the public as a non-profit organization. Its funding comes from Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel, Jessica Livingston and Amazon Web Services -- and with Musk involved, we'll hopefully avoid creating an evil Skynet from becoming a reality. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take 10% off any $50+ order from our Daily Deals using the promo code DAILYDIRT.

Filed Under: ai, artificial intelligence, big sur hardware, darpa, deep learning, deepdive, elon musk, machine learning, oaqa, open compute, open source, openai, opencog, tensorflow, uima, watson
Companies: amazon, facebook, google, ibm, microsoft

Harmonix Caught Astroturfing Amazon Reviews For Rock Band 4, Offers Non-Apology Apology

from the rock-out-with-your-sockpuppets-out dept

It's something we probably all assume happens to some degree some of the time. A new video game comes out, it's put up on various consumer sites that allow for user reviews, and we assume at least some of the truly gushingly positive reviews are from people connected with the game trying to gin up positive feelings for their game. The problem, of course, is that if this is occurring, those perpetrating the mischief are smart enough to create new profiles and handles for their efforts, so as to hide their identities. Thus, we assume, but cannot verify.

Harmonix, a video game maker which recently released Rock Band 4, has happily come by to assist us with this problem by having employees too lazy to create these sock-puppet accounts while posting insanely positive Amazon.com reviews for the game. As discovered by an enterprising Reddit user:

Harmonix employees seem to have taken to Amazon to post their own favorable reviews of the game. At first I thought it was a rogue employee or two but then I dug around for about a half hour and found 7 of them and so it appears to be more of an initiative. I'm sure there's more than that. I don't know the legality of this but it's highly unethical and extremely disappointing. No excuses. Companies are not supposed to reviewing their own products, PERIOD.

Real names were found by clicking on the wish list of the reviewer https://imgur.com/OPRiEln

This is good sleuthing if I ever saw it. So, a handful of Harmonix employees have been caught red-handed astroturfing reviews for their own game. While doing so, they apparently went so far as to invent brand new personas for themselves, cosplaying as "new fans" to the genre and as members who are "looking forward to seeing what's next" from Harmonix, when they likely damn well know because they are Harmonix. Questions of legality aside, everyone is likely to agree how distasteful this is and what a vacuum of trust this will leave with gamers. Given the current climate of things, trust deficits are no way to position a game company.

Which is what makes the following statement Harmonix provided to Kotaku so perplexing:

Harmonix has clarified its internal policy about posting reviews of our own products on retail sites, and we’ve asked that existing reviews be edited to identify Harmonix employees or be removed entirely. While we believe the reviews posted by a few employees were sincere and without ill intentions, as a studio we don’t believe these are appropriate actions. We appreciate the feedback from the community, and take our relationship with our fans seriously.

There's a roughly zero chance of anyone taking that non-apology from Harmonix seriously. When employees are going to drop Amazon reviews making up personas as people who have never played a game in the genre, everyone has to know that there are ill-intentions there. It's lying, at the very least. But, worse, it's lying directly to potential customers in a manner designed to claw money out of their pockets. Expect this to get to the point in which Harmonix has to offer a second apology-apology before this dies down.

Filed Under: astroturfing, reviews, rock band 4
Companies: amazon, harmonix

Appeals Court Reverses Its Own Ruling: It's NOT Trademark Infringement For Amazon To Provide Useful Search Results

from the watch-this dept

Just a few months back we had written about an odd case occurring in California between Multi-Time Machines, which makes watches, and Amazon, which sells watches, but not MTM watches. This trademark case over search results on watches took an odd turn after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals attempted to turn back the time-piece, applying a discarded doctrine called "initial interest confusion." This doctrine made it trademark infringement for retailers to point customers looking for product X to product Y instead, particularly by using certain product placement practices. The Ninth Circuit essentially dropped the doctrine in 2011, after a series of inconsistent rulings bred all kinds of confusion. In this particular case, Amazon customers entering "MTM watches" into the search field were presented with watches made by competitors, because Amazon doesn't carry MTM watches. In other words: "We don't carry that product, but we do carry these similar products that you might be interested in." The 9th Circuit initially ruled in favor of Amazon, but the appeals court reversed that ruling and set the trial to go before a jury using, again, the initial interest confusion doctrine.

But confusion is the key word here, apparently, because that same court agreed to a request by Amazon for a rehearing. At the rehearing, Amazon reiterated that it clearly identified the manufacturers and companies in its search results and that there was no actual customer confusion to be found. The court then reversed itself, ruling that the initial court's ruling in favor of Amazon had been proper.

Multi Time Machine, Inc., manufacturer of MTM Special Ops watches, alleged that Amazon’s website infringed its trademark because of the manner in which the website responded to a shopper’s search request for the watches. Affirming the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Amazon, the panel held that Amazon’s search results page did not create a likelihood of confusion by displaying a list of several other brands of military style watches. The panel concluded that because the page clearly labeled the name and manufacturer of each product offered for sale and even included photographs of the items, no reasonably prudent shopper accustomed to shopping online would likely be confused as to the source of the products.

There are a couple of items of note here. In its ruling, the court does not come out and directly strike down the idea of initial interest confusion. In fact, despite an amicus brief offered by Public Citizen and the EFF, the ruling generally only refers to initial interest confusion when describing the basis for MTM's complaint. In other words, it essentially punted on the question. It's also worth noting that there could still be a request that the case be reheard "en banc", so the court may hit the reset button on the case entirely.

But the real fun is how the court reversed itself. Paul Alan Levy has a nice write up of the details, but essentially one of the judges simply switched teams.

The panel has now reversed itself in an opinion by Circuit Judge Barry Silverman, the author of the original dissenting opinion, and affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment. In dissent, Circuit Judge Carlos Bea (the author of the now-discarded majority opinion) angrily charges that the majority “sub silentio overrules this court’s ‘initial interest confusion’ doctrine.”

The third judge, Gordon Quist, had originally sided with Bea, but upon review appears to have decided that he did so in error and now joins the new majority in favor of Amazon. Courtroom drama, does it get any better?

In the end, it seems plainly silly to handcuff an online retailer from returning useful search results to not-confused customers in favor of a trademark doctrine that appears to have been deemed useless four years previous. It's a shame the court didn't decide to take that question head on, but this is certainly better than the court's original ruling.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, ads, initial interest confusion, recommendations, trademark, watches
Companies: amazon, mtm

The Stagnation Of eBooks Due To Closed Platforms And DRM

from the open-it-all-up dept

Craig Mod has a fascinating article for Aeon, talking about the unfortunate stagnation in digital books. He spent years reading books almost exclusively in ebook form, but has gradually moved back to physical books, and the article is a long and detailed exploration into the limits of ebooks today -- nearly all of which are not due to actual limitations of the medium, but deliberate choices by the platform providers (mainly Amazon, obviously) to create closed, limited, DRM-laden platforms for ebooks.

When new platform innovations come along, the standard progression is that they take the old thing -- whatever it is they're "replacing" -- and create a new version of it in the new media. Early TV was just radio plays where you could see the people, for example. The true innovation starts to show up when people realize that you can do something new with the new media that simply wasn't possible before. But, with ebooks, it seems like we've never really reached that stage. It's just replicated books... and that's it. The innovations on top of that are fairly small. Yes, you can suddenly get any book you want, from just about anywhere and start reading it almost immediately. And, yes, you can take notes that are backed up. Those are nice. But it still just feels like a book moved from paper to digital. It takes almost no advantage of both the ability to expand and change the canvas, or the fact that you're now a part of a world-connected network where information can be shared.

While I don't think (as some have argued) that Amazon has some sort of dangerous "monopoly" on ebooks, Mod is correct that there's been very little pressure on Amazon to continue to innovate and improve the platform. And, he argues (quite reasonably), if Amazon were to open up its platform and let others innovate on top of it, the whole thing could become much more valuable:

It seems as though Amazon has been disincentivised to stake out bold explorations by effectively winning a monopoly (deservedly, in many ways) on the market. And worse still, the digital book ‘stack’ – the collection of technology upon which our digital book ecosystems are built – is mostly closed, keeping external innovators away.

To understand how the closed nature of digital book ecosystems hurts designers and readers, it’s useful to look at how the open nature of print ecosystems stimulates us. ‘Open’ means that publishers and designers are bound to no single option at most steps of the production process. Nobody owns any single piece of a ‘book’. For example, a basic physical book stack might include TextEdit for writing; InDesign for layout; OpenType for fonts; the printers; the paper‑makers; the distribution centres; and, finally, the bookstores that stock and sell the hardcopy books.

And, on top of this, people creating "ebooks" are limited to the options given to them by Amazon and Apple and Google. And then it all gets locked down:

Designers working within this closed ecosystem are, most critically, limited in typographic and layout options. Amazon and Apple are the paper‑makers, the typographers, the printers, the binders and the distributors: if they don’t make a style of paper you like, too bad. The boundaries of digital book design are beholden to their whim.

The fact that all of these platforms rely on DRM -- often at the demands of short-sighted publishers -- only makes the problem worse:

The potential power of digital is that it can take the ponderous and isolated nature of physical things and make them light and movable. Physical things are difficult to copy at scale, while digital things in open environments can replicate effortlessly. Physical is largely immutable, digital can be malleable. Physical is isolated, digital is networked. This is where digital rights management (DRM) – a closed, proprietary layer of many digital reading stacks – hurts books most and undermines almost all that latent value proposition in digital. It artificially imposes the heaviness and isolation of physical books on their digital counterparts, which should be loose, networked objects. DRM constraints over our rights as readers make it feel like we’re renting our digital books, not owning them.

If ebook platforms and technology were more open, it's quite conceivable that we'd be experiencing a different kind of ebook revolution right now. People could be much more creative in taking the best of what books provide and leveraging the best of what a giant, connected digital network provides -- creating wonderful new works of powerful art that go beyond the standard paper book. But we don't have that. We have a few different walled gardens, locked tight, and a weak recreation of the paper book in digital form.

It's difficult to mourn for lost culture that we never actually had, but it's not difficult to recognize that we've probably lost a tremendous amount of culture and creativity by not allowing such things to thrive.

Filed Under: books, closed, drm, ebooks, innovation, open, platforms
Companies: amazon, apple

Amazon Bans Sale Of Competing Apple TV, Chromecast Devices To 'Avoid Customer Confusion'

from the heaping-piles-of-bullshit dept

Amazon has come up with a rather ingenious way to give its own Fire TV streaming video devices a leg up in the market place: stop selling major competing products. In a letter sent this week to the company's marketplace sellers, Amazon announced that it would no longer be allowing new listings for either the Chromecast or Apple TV starting today, and that existing retail stock of both products would be discontinued at the end of the month. Google of course just unveiled two new versions of the Chromecast, which has been historically outselling Amazon's own streaming devices.

Amusingly, Amazon unloads what has to be one of the larger piles of ambiguous bullshit in defense of an anti-competitive position seen in some time:

"Over the last three years, Prime Video has become an important part of Prime," Amazon said in the e-mail. "It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion."

Hilarious. Except it's up to developers to embed Chromecast support into their services and apps, and both Google and Apple publish open software development kits that allows any application to be utilized on both devices. In other words, it's Amazon's choice that Chromecast and Apple TV won't play nicely with Amazon Prime Instant Streaming. It has nothing to do with the devices not "interacting well" with Amazon's services. Bloomberg even helps prop up this nonsensical explanation further by repeating the idea that Prime Video "doesn’t run easily on rival’s devices."

Meanwhile, on what planet exactly are you "avoiding customer confusion" by suddenly removing access to hugely popular, competing products?

Apparently other streaming competitors like the Roku and game consoles have yet to see Amazon's ire and will remain sold, for now. Obviously none of this is the end of the world, since Amazon controls just 1% of the overall retail market and these devices can be bought at a long-list of retail alternatives, including Apple and Google themselves. Still it's an utterly-idiotic decision that's sure to invite antitrust scrutiny at worst, and an absolute shit storm of negative PR at best.

Filed Under: amazon fire, apple tv, chromecast, competition, devices, streaming
Companies: amazon, apple, google

Mother Of Daughter Who Committed Suicide Sues Amazon For Facilitating The Purchase Of Cyanide From A Third-Party Seller

from the suing-the-once-removed-messenger dept

A student's suicide -- the tragic outcome of an apparent rape -- has led to a lawsuit against the school, as well as Amazon and one of its merchants.

Sujata Singh filed the lawsuit against Amazon and the University of Pennsylvania in late July, about two and a half years after her 20-year-old daughter, Arya Singh, committed suicide in her dorm room.

The lawsuit alleges that the nursing student was sexually assaulted when she was a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, and said the school allowed the accused assaulter to remain in the same dormitory as Singh. The alleged assaulter wasn't punished by the school, according to the suit, which was posted on the legal news website Law360.

The school comes out looking the worst. The lengthy filing details the school's dismissive attitude towards Arya Singh's problems, including allegedly failing to contact Singh's mother to inform her of her daughter's deteriorating emotional state, plummeting grades or multiple disciplinary actions brought against her. (Interestingly, one of the disciplinary actions was related to a movie studio complaint about infringing downloads. The two downloads -- spaced a week apart -- led to a $100 fine, an official letter of reprimand and six hours of community service.)

Where the lawsuit goes off the rails is its claims against Amazon, which Singh believes bears some responsibility for her daughter's death. According to the filing, Amazon facilitated the purchase of cyanide from a Thailand-based seller. Cyanide sales have long been forbidden, but for an unknown period of time, purchasers were able to locate this item via Amazon.

Arya Singh purchased the cyanide on December 12, 2012. She used it to commit suicide on February 8, 2013. On February 2, 2013, Amazon stopped allowing sales of cyanide through its website, something apparently marked by a visible change in policy.

This timeline is accompanied by other unverifiable claims.

134. Upon information and belief, Amazon and/or Thailand Defendants sold cyanide products through Amazon's website in the United States at least fifty-one (51) times prior to Arya purchasing the cyanide.

135. Upon information and belief, of the above fifty-one (51) sales, at least eleven (11) resulted in deaths to the purchasers within weeks of the sale.

One would think that 11 deaths resulting from the sale of a single product through a single American retailer would have generated a few headlines. But there's nothing out there that backs up this claim. The Consumer Product Safety Commission's 2013 report does note that it sent Letters of Advice to the two Thailand merchants regarding their sale of cyanide, but does not list any action being taken against Amazon for allowing these sales to take place. It also makes no mention of any cyanide-related deaths in this report or the one for the prior year.

It could very well be the plaintiff's lawyers have dug up something to verify these claims, but the filing itself includes nothing to back this up. Not that this unverifiable claim would derail every other accusation against Amazon, but it's not necessarily a good start.

Amazon is accused of negligence for failing to prevent the Thailand merchants from making this item available through its marketplace, as well as failing to prevent the illegal product from reaching Arya Singh. The plaintiff contends Amazon has not turned over any policies regarding the sale of banned items for the time period prior to February 2, 2013 or its alleged changes that occurred on that date. The lack of forthcoming info from Amazon certainly doesn't put it in the best light.

But as far as sales from third-party merchants go, Amazon has only limited liability. Information available at its website notes that it has "no direct involvement" with the "completion of sales" by third-party sellers. While it will step in when there's a dispute between buyer and seller, it rarely does anything more than collect its percentage of the selling price.

Singh may still be able to build a case against Amazon as there are a lot of gray areas in its policies and procedures. The company does say it polices its marketplace for illegal items, but even the tightest policing will have a few holes. Even if Amazon made certain assurances about the legitimacy of the items offered by third-party sellers, it doesn't necessarily shift the liability to Amazon. Third-party sellers are bound by agreements in which they state that what they offer doesn't violate Amazon's policies, which would obviously forbid the sale of banned substances. This shifts the legal burden for any violations back on the third-party merchant.

What none of its policies do is make Amazon responsible for Singh's death. It had no duty to warn the purchaser of the negative consequences of misusing a dangerous substance, nor is it obliged to protect the public from any inherent dangers resulting from voluntary purchases. Any such warnings would be the responsibility of the manufacturer and the direct retailer. Obviously, a Thailand-based merchant selling banned items would feel little to no obligation to warn purchasers of any legal or physical problems resulting from the acquisition and use of its offerings.

Unfortunately, the desire to aim at the largest target is often present in the wake of personal tragedies. But the simple fact is that if someone is seeking cyanide (or any other substance) to facilitate a suicide attempt, they'll likely find it, even if it isn't in the first place they look (a massive online retailer).

Filed Under: arya singh, cyanide, lawsuit, secondary liability, suicide, sujata singh, third party liability
Companies: amazon, upenn

Anonymous Plaintiffs File Misguided Lawsuit Against Amazon, GoDaddy, Others Over Ashley Madison Hack

from the more-angry-than-right dept

Given the sensitive nature of the data obtained in the Ashley Madison hack, it was inevitable that lawsuits would follow. The company seemed less interested in protecting its users' privacy and more interested in selling them the "privilege" of deleting their accounts and the information contained therein, should they suddenly have a crisis of conscience. (And that information appears to not have actually been deleted, despite the company's promise to do so.)

And, given the sensitive nature of the data, it was inevitable that a lawsuit would be filed that focused less on coherent legal arguments than the plaintiffs' anger at being included in a data breach that would also expose their extramarital endeavors. Alexander J. Martin of The Register has obtained a filing from just such a lawsuit.

Three John Doe plaintiffs have filed a complaint (PDF) against Amazon Web Services, GoDaddy, and 20 John Roes (anonymous defendants), in the Arizona District Court, for "intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon Ashley Madison users."

The plaintiffs want not less than $3m in damages or losses, and a jury trial to boot, and complain that the hack has resulted in them becoming victims to threats and extortion.

The misguided arguments begin almost immediately. As noted above, the plaintiffs have named Amazon and GoDaddy as defendants (referring to them as "internet service providers"), solely because copies of the "stolen data" are hosted at sites serviced by both.

While at least one class action has been filed by users against Ashley Madison for its failure to property [sic] secure the hacked information, this action deals with a different injury inflicted upon Ashley Madison users by persons and entities who have obtained the stolen data, repurposed it such that it is more readily accessible and searchable by the media and curious Internet users, and actively distributed it for their own gain. While these persons and entities may labor under the belief that their actions are entrepreneurial rather than criminal, the fact remains that they are in willful possession of stolen property.

Section 230 should see both these parties dumped from the lawsuit shortly after their responses are filed. Neither can be held responsible for copies of Ashley Madison user data uploaded to websites/online storage by third parties, and no amount of indignation is going to change that.

This would leave the plaintiffs in the position of trying to unmask the following unknown entities, none of which are tied directly to the hacking, much less hosting the stolen data central to the plaintiffs' arguments.

John Roe 1, the owner/operator of ashleymadisonpowersearch.com and adulterysearch.com
John Roe 2 the owner/operator of ashleymadisoninvestigations.com
John Roe 3 the owner/operator of greyhatpro.com
John Roes 4-20 who "are unknown at this time, but are believed to be, among other persons or entities, additional Internet service providers and website operators trafficking in the Stolen Data"

As for the first Roe, the website notes (multiple times) that it doesn't host the data, nor has it requested any ISP host it on its behalf. Ashley Madison Investigations also points out that it hosts no copies of the hacked data, but rather pulls its information from "public databases." Greyhat Pro is the only site that offers no disclaimer about the location of the database it's using in its search.

Unless the plaintiffs and their lawyers have access to information proving otherwise, this claim is likely false:

Roe 1, Roe 2, and Roe 3 each own and/or operate a website within this cottage industry, wherein the Roe Defendant has copied a portion and/or all of the Stolen Data and made it searchable through the Roe Defendant’s website (collectively, the “Roe Websites”). As such, each of these Roe Defendants is in willful and knowing possession of stolen property—namely, the Stolen Data.

Screenshots of the websites are included in the filing, but notably none of them include snapshots of the statements pointing out that two of the Roe defendants are not in direct possession of the data.

Ashley Madison Power Search/AdulterySearch:


Ashley Madison Investigations:


So, the prognosis for this lawsuit isn't good. As if to buttress the likelihood of failure, the filing -- which relies heavily on California statutes -- cites a Canadian court decision in support of its overall argument.

Indeed, in recognition of the fact that Ashley Madison data contains confidential information and constitutes stolen property, a Canadian court, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, issued a restraining order requiring several websites and Internet service providers to immediately disable the Ashley Madison data, deeming it “offence related property in respect of which order of forfeiture may be made under the [Ontario] Criminal Code.”

Canadian law has no Section 230 equivalent, which greatly assists in its courts coming to these sorts of conclusions. And, it must be noted, it cannot order US-based sites to comply with its directives.

Basically, the suit hopes to hold all of these parties accountable for the digital equivalent of receiving and selling stolen goods, plus additional damages for emotional distress. It also attempts to portray the reputation repair/protection services offered by these sites as a violation of the CFAA, citing the following sections of that law.

(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—

[...]

(B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; or

(C) demand or request for money or other thing of value in relation to damage to a protected computer, where such damage was caused to facilitate the extortion

All of the sites mentioned offer people the (very dubious) opportunity to find out if their information is contained in the data, along with other details (whether it includes credit card data, etc.). The transaction is voluntary and none of the sites make any threats about publishing sensitive data if potential customers decide not to take advantage of the offered services. Considering the information is available elsewhere, these offers are generally worthless. They're unsavory and opportunistic, but they aren't extortion.

While I do have some sympathy for those whose lives have been negatively affected by the dissemination of this data, a lawsuit pursuing anyone but Ashley Madison or those behind the hacking is little more than casting about wildly in hopes that someone will recompense them for the wrongs they've suffered, while being willing to let any "someone" pay for the actions of others.

Filed Under: ashley madison hack, hack, lawsuit, section 230
Companies: amazon, ashley madison, avid life media, godaddy

The MPAA Will Let Amazon Touch Its Stuff, But Only If It Agrees To A Ton Of Stipulations

from the rules-on-top-of-rules-on-top-of-futile-efforts dept

TorrentFreak's Andy reports that Amazon recently published the MPAA-required "best practices" for handling physical goods as well as content stored or hosted by its cloud services. This doesn't just cover the obvious storage of movies for streaming services, but also works-in-progress by studios utilizing Amazon's web services.

It's comprehensive and loaded with restrictions and stipulations.

[I]n addition to carrying out background screening on all employees and third party contractors, the MPAA demands that all workers sign annual confidentiality agreements that forbid them from talking about protected content.

With an eye on local law, companies must also implement random searches of their workers for traces of MPAA content, including the removal of coats, hats and belts, the emptying of pockets, a full security pat-down, scanning with metal detectors and inspection of electronic devices.

Other obvious demands are included, all aimed at preventing the leak or physical theft of studio goods: no portable devices with storage capabilities, no baggy clothes, and employees' meals must be brought to work in transparent bags.

Interestingly, the MPAA's 2015 agreement with Amazon actually scales back some of its requirements. Demands that Amazon create an MPAA-specific security team and allow reps monthly access to inspect restricted areas are no longer in force. Other stipulations focused on the specific parameters of on-site, physical security have been loosened or removed completely, as well as specifications for CCTV footage storage, access and retention. The requirement that all involved third parties be CTPAT-certified (Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism) has also been dropped, suggesting the MPAA is about done humoring the DHS's paranoiac assertions that everything has a potential terrorism nexus.

But the adjustments made between the 2013 and 2015 edition of the MPAA's "rules" don't reflect a change in the MPAA's Ft. Knox mindset. Instead, it shows the MPAA shifting its priorities from physical protection to digital protection. The high-profile hacking of Sony likely contributed to new stipulations like these:

2015 MPAA added the requirements to perform quarterly vuln scans of external IP ranges, secure any point to point connections by using dedicated, private connections and by using encryption. Additionally the requirement to implement baseline security requirements for WAN network infrastructure devices and services.

2015 MPAA added controls around the encryption of content at rest and in motion. Additionally, procedures around the storage of public and private keys.

Also new to this ruleset is a whole section dedicated to "mobile security" that addresses the potential security holes created by a BYOD environment.

The documents show the MPAA can be forward-thinking when it comes to the distribution of content -- especially when trying to figure out how to stop it.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, copyright, overreaction, piracy, stipulations
Companies: amazon, mpaa