"Have you ever wondered how Google tracks where you are? How about what
those terms and conditions mean when you access free Wi-Fi?
As
scary as it sounds, your smartphone’s apps share a lot of the private
information on your device with marketing agencies, phone operators and
other private companies. But where does all that data go? And what
happens to it?
AJ+ and the interactive documentary series “Do Not Track” investigate.” *
First came finding
the trees. We had tagged them that summer—loops of red twine, tied
tightly around craggy trunks—when Fitz had been home, when the chill of
winter had seemed distant and unthinkable. The twine would help us find
the right maples, he explained—the hard ones, the thick ones, the ones
that would yield the sweetest sap—even in the snow.
That year, though, the flurries of January had given way
only to wayward morning frosts. In place of the solemn silence of
fresh-fallen snow, we would have only the indolence of ice. The thick
soles of Fitz's boots crunched the stray sticks beneath them, stomping a
path that would be soon be un-pathed by the lushness of spring. He
squinted as he scoured the distance for narrow strips of red. He had
glasses back home; Carol had insisted. They remained folded, neatly, in a
corner of his bedstand drawer. It was too soon for glasses, he said, in the joking way that made clear how deeply he believed it.
Fitz heaved and huffed as he plodded through the forest’s
crunching carpet, breath meeting air in a frenzy of human steam. He had
not planned to be maple-tapping this morning. He had not planned to work
at all, let alone to spend these early hours doing the bland work
required of coaxing the sweetness from trees. He had planned instead to
have breakfast in bed—pancakes, he told me with a glare, oozing with
butter and flooded with syrup. It was best, I told myself, not to point
out the irony.
The buckets, hooked to his thick belt, jangled as Fitz walked—cliiiiiiiiing, claaaaaaaaang,
like the ancient bells whose peals called the people to their gods. The
clatter broke the air. We were strangers here, in this flash-frozen
forest, human hunter-gatherers in that most foreign of lands: one not of
our own making. The still-chilled air stung my face and pierced my
lungs. I found myself, gradually and then suddenly, wishing for a
cigarette to warm the walk—something to heat and soothe. Something
toasted. There are few things as smooth, I couldn’t help but remember,
as a Lucky Strike.
"Got one!" Fitz called, the triumph in his voice shaking
the silence. He wove his way toward the twine-marked maple, buckets
jangling. He examined the tree's trunk, the ripples and runs of the
bark. He tugged at a loose strip, examining how stubbornly it clung.
Fitz nodded, satisfied. He took a measuring tape from his pocket, its
free end unfurling. He anchored it against the rough surface, right hand
grabbing the free end, running it along the bark until his hands met in
the middle. "Exactly 18 inches around," he murmured, still hugging the
tree. "That'll work."
"Could you hand me the compass?"
The south side of the tree, Fitz had once explained, gets
the most direct light from the sun. The heat, day after day, would warm
and soften the sap, making it more pliant, more easily yielding to our
desires—as if, I thought with a chuckle, it had availed itself of Secor
laxatives. Fitz held the compass in an outstretched arm, eyes narrowed
toward the hovering needle. It shook like a Relax-a-cizor. He moved
slowly around the narrow perimeter of the tree trunk, circling, slowly,
until, with the strength of Right Guard deodorant and the confidence of
Richard Nixon—
"Here," he said.
He had found the spot for the tap. He drilled; he hammered
the spile. The trunk shook with each impact. I imagined the sap—soon,
the sap—slow and sweet, its trickle as voluptuous as a siren wearing
both a red dress and an even redder shade of Belle Jolie lipstick.
What would happen, I wondered, if we did not come back,
one day soon, to collect it? What if the sap hardened? What if it became
frozen—not just in the frigid air, but in time, sealing its secrets in a
golden egg of amber? What if it outlasted the little towns of Bethlehem
Steel, the cities constructed with Cartwright Aluminum, the future
built on the sandy foundations of Liberty Capital? What if, some day in
the distance, a man ventures through this same, tree-studded forest,
along the long-covered path Fitz and I had carved for ourselves? What
would he think of us—of what we did, of who we loved, of what we wanted
to be? What would he want? Could he buy it at Mencken's Department
Store?
Will Dr. Scholl's cushion your path? Will Vicks silence your cough? Will Kodak save your memories? Will Clearasil save your soul? Who’s Peggy going out with? How did Pete get such a swell wife?
And, God, what is Don’s deal? Why won’t he ever have a drink with me
after work? He likes me, right? He thinks I’m an okay guy? Don, if
you’re reading this, I would really love to have a drink with you after
work.
The sugar seeped from inside the maple tree. It was
yielding to us, slowly, inevitably. There would be syrup for our
pancakes—for everyone’s pancakes.
Jeb Bush at a town-hall-style meeting in Reno, Nev., on WednesdayCredit James Glover/Reuters
RENO, Nev. — “Your
brother created ISIS,” the young woman told Jeb Bush. And with that, Ivy
Ziedrich, a 19-year-old college student, created the kind of
confrontational moment here on Wednesday morning that presidential
candidates dread.
Mr. Bush, the former
governor of Florida, had just concluded a town-hall-style meeting when
Ms. Ziedrich demanded to be heard. “Governor Bush,” she shouted as
audience members asked him for his autograph. “Would you take a student
question?”
Mr. Bush whirled
around and looked at Ms. Ziedrich, who identified herself as a political
science major and a college Democrat at the University of Nevada.
She had heard Mr. Bush
argue, a few moments before, that America’s retreat from the Middle
East under President Obama had contributed to the growing power of the
Islamic State. She told the former governor that he was wrong, and made
the case that blame lay with the decision by the administration of his
brother George W. Bush to disband the Iraqi Army.
“It was when 30,000
individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out — they
had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access
to all of the same arms and weapons,” Ms. Ziedrich said.
She added: “Your brother created ISIS.”
Mr. Bush interjected. “All right. Is that a question?”
Ms. Ziedrich was not finished. “You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir.”
“Pedantic? Wow,” Mr. Bush replied.
Then Ms. Ziedrich
asked: “Why are you saying that ISIS was created by us not having a
presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars where we send young
American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are
you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”
Mr. Bush replied: “We
respectfully disagree. We have a disagreement. When we left Iraq,
security had been arranged, Al Qaeda had been taken out. There was a
fragile system that could have been brought up to eliminate the
sectarian violence.”
He added: “And we had
an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept
10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, could have created the
stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress. The result was
the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”
He concluded: “Look,
you can rewrite history all you want. But the simple fact is that we are
in a much more unstable place because America pulled back.”
Bad games are released all the time, that is nothing new. However, to be this
bad is almost an art form. Check out some of the worst video games ever
created. Do you have a game in mind that didn’t make the list?
2
Shaq-Fu (1994) – Gamespot score: 4.5/10
A game about Shaquille O’ Neal fighting mummies in another dimension. ‘Nuff said.
3
Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis (2003) – IGN score: 2.4/10
“Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis, in my opinion, is much like Aquaman himself: pathetic.” – Matt Casamassina, IGN
4
Dragonball: Evolution (2009) – IGN score: 2.0/10
This game is a disgrace and just parallels all of the terribleness that is the movie.
5
Rambo: The Video Game (2014) – IGN score: 3.0/10
Another attempt to cash in on a popular franchise, Rambo: The Video Game
looks and plays like it was a terrible game made for the Nintendo 64.
6
Drake and the 99 Dragons (2003) – IGN score: 2.9/10
If you pay $20 for this game then you have paid $20 too much.
7
Blackwater (2011) – IGN score: 2.5/10
It was a great idea to utilize the Kinect for a first-person shooter. It
was a terrible idea to exploit our love for military shooters and try
to sell this glitchy garbage.
8
Batman: Dark Tomorrow (2003) – IGN score: 2.2/10
“A crime against comic book licenses. Flawed from top to bottom, from
beginning to end… This is a great example of ‘what not to do.'” – Hilary
Goldstein, IGN
9
Catwoman (2004) – IGN score: 3.8/10
A less exciting, dumbed down Tomb Raider.
10
Sonic the Hedgehog (2006) – Gamespot score: 4.4/10
Unfortunately the Sonic name doesn’t make this game good. Stick to the originals.
11
Fugitive Hunter: War on Terror (2003) – IGN score: 3.3/10
Pros: You can get into a fist fight with Osama Bin Laden. Cons: Absolutely everything else.
12
Bubsy 3D (1996) – IGN score: 2.5/10
One of the biggest turn-offs for this game is Bubsy’s unimaginably
annoying commentary that spurts out of the main charter every couple
seconds. And even if you could get past this annoying cat, the gameplay
is so impossible that you couldn’t play if you tried.
13
Infestation: Survivor Stories (The War Z) (2012) – Gamespot score: 2.0/10
First of all, the pay-to-play structure is hard to deal with. You buy
your characters and equipment, which you will positively lose when you
die and are looted. Fighting zombies never seemed so depressing.
14
Link:The Faces of Evil (1993) – IGN score: 3.4/10
A CD-i Zelda game that wasn’t even created by Nintendo, we wonder where they went wrong?
15
Charlies Angels (2003) – Gamespot score: 1.9/10
Outside of the underdressed “Angels,” this game is nothing more than a marketing ploy, and plays like one to boot.
16
Ride to Hell: Retribution (2013) – IGN user score: 1.5/10
This is the kind of game you buy for $5 just so you can laugh. Ride to
Hell is so broken and hard to play it could be used as a form of torture
for your worst enemies.
17
RoboCop (2003) – Gamespot score: 2.2/10
It’s a very easy game with mediocre graphics, but a waste of a good license.
18
Custer’s Revenge (1982) – IGN user score: 1.9/10
A game in which you play a naked General Custer on the hunt to,
essentially, sexually assault the Native American woman at the other end
of the screen.
19
Superman 64 (1999) – Gamespot score: 1.3/10
“It serves no purpose other than to firmly establish the bottom of the barrel.” – Gamespot
20
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) – IGN score: 2.5/10
There is no basic understanding of how to play this game. Many attribute E.T. as the downfall of Atari in the 80’s.
21
Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing (2003) – Gamespot score: 1/10
Just how bad is Big Rigs? So bad that your mind will be forced to
restart and you will have to relearn all basic human functions.
We know this is only a few out of the plethora of terrible games. Let us know about more.
A scene from "Terminator."
(Screenshot: Warner Bros. via CNET/CBS Interactive)
It may not be quite the self-aware computer network that takes over millions of computers and machines, but "Skynet" is real.
Documents published by The Intercept,
leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, confirm that the Skynet
program exists -- at least in name only. Its name comes from the
intelligent computer defense system in the "Terminator" films, which later destroys most of humanity in a nuclear apocalypse.
The National Security Agency program analyzes
location and metadata from phone records to detect potentially
suspicious patterns, according to the publication.
In one example, it was used to identify people that act as couriers
between al-Qaeda leadership. (This may have been the program that helped identify Osama bin Laden's courier, leading to his targeted killing in Pakistan by US forces in 2011.)
According
to one of the documents, it uses "behavior-based analytics," such as
low-use phones that only take incoming calls, SIM card or handset
swapping, or frequent disconnections from the phone network (such as
powering down cellphones). Also, repeated trips mapped out by location
data, including visits to other countries or airports, can flag a person
as being suspicious -- or a potential terrorist.
More than 55
million cell records collected from major Pakistani telecom companies
were fed into the Skynet system to determine targets of interest, the
document said.
But questions remain around why the program flagged
a prominent Al Jazeera journalist as a "member" of al-Qaeda. It's
probably not a surprise that the system alerted on Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan,
a Syrian national, based on his frequent travel between Afghanistan and
Pakistan. But the fact that it identified him as a member of a
terrorist group is a mystery, as well as a great concern.
Zaidan
"absolutely" denied that he is a member of al-Qaeda, and criticized the
US government's "attempt at using questionable techniques to target our
journalists."
We reached out to the NSA to see why it used the name, but didn't hear back at the time of writing.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) spent more than
$82,000 in taxpayer money on concessions at NFL games - a sum that
Republicans later reimbursed to the state Treasury to avoid impropriety.
According to a New Jersey Watchdog
analysis of records from the governor's office that was published
Monday, Christie used $300,000 of his $360,000 state allowance over five
years to purchase food, alcohol and desserts. Some $82,594 of that sum
went to Delaware North Sportservice, which operates the concessions at
MetLife Stadium, the home of both the New York Giants and Jets teams.
To
avoid a potential scandal that could embarrass their rising political
star, the New Jersey Republican State Committee reimbursed the Treasury
in March 2012 for Christie’s purchases from “DNS Sports.” Since then,
the governor has refrained from using his expense account at MetLife and
other sports venues.
According to the analysis, Christie was also a big fan
of the grocery store Wegmans Food Markets, where he spent $76,373 in 53
shopping runs. A spokesman for the governor defended the nature of the
expenses, explaining they were for "official" and "business" purposes.
This isn't the first time the potential 2016 presidential candidate's expenses have come under scrutiny. In February, The New York Times detailed the governor's taste for private jets and access to celebrities. And earlier this year, ethics watchdogs raised concerns
about Christie's all-expense-paid trip to watch a playoff game
featuring the Dallas Cowboys -- of which the governor is a fan -- that
was paid for by team owner Jerry Jones.
I have seen a lot of amazing low-cost, single-board computers
recently, but the CHIP is perhaps an amazement too far. It's not that I
don't believe in it, I do, it is more that this really does threaten to
be a revolution and I hope it succeeds.
The C.H.I.P is a small computer, similar to the Raspberry Pi with Arduino compatible I/O, that is set to cost only $9!
Even if it cost a little more it would still be a revolution because
it has Bluetooth and WiFi built in. If this isn't enough for you, then
consider that is powered by a LiPO battery without needing any extras.
There is a Kickstarter running at the moment and it has already
exceeded its goal of $50,000 reaching over $350,000 with 28 days still
to go. It has been funded but you can still buy a CHIP for a $9 pledge.
The company behind the project has run one successful
Kickstarter project before, see OTTO - The Hackable Raspberry Pi GIF Camera.
If you are expecting some limited PIC chip running the show then you
would be wrong. The device has a 1GHz ARM A13 (Single core Cortex A8)
compatible processor with 512MB of RAM and 4GB of Flash storage. It also
has a Mali GPU with OpenGL support. Notice that the latest Pi 2 has
quad core A7 running at 900MHz and the original Pi has a single core
version 6 ARM running at 700MHz - so the CHIP is some where between the
original Pi and the new Pi in terms of processor.
It is also more powerful and an Arduino and it has a composite video
output which can be converted to VGA or HDMI as required. The first
models to be available will only have the composite output converters
will be available later. You can connect a keyboard and mouse via
Bluetooth or via USB.
There are two USB ports a full size USB and a
micro USB with OTG. This means that you can use a CHIP as a "desktop"
computer if you want to.
And if you do want to then there is Pocket CHIP. This is a slightly
unlikely, tiny, case for the CHIP complete with tiny keyboard and
4.3-inch touch screen. It claims to operate for 5 hours from a battery
and it will fit in your pocket. I'm not at all sure what this could be
useful for, but I still want one. The case also has a full GPIO breakout
connector on the back so one possible use is as a teaching/experimental
IoT setup. A CHIP plus a Pocket CHIP costs $49.
Turning to its IoT capabilities, the first thing to say is that this
is already WiFi-enabled so no need to use Zigbee or Zwave to get
connected. The basic CHIP has connectors that are compatible with
Arduino shields, although there is no way to know what will or will not
work.
As standard you get eight GPIO lines, PWM, I2C, SPI and a UART. There
is also support for MIPI-CSI cameras and LCD display. The connector for
the 3.7V LiPo battery is also a charger and power can be supplied via
the microUSB connector. There is also an audio connector.
It comes with a version of Debian Linux and a lot of standard
software such as LibreOffice and Scratch. Of course you can install
other applications using the usual package manager.
Take a look at this OTT video and try not to be put off the really good idea:
Why is CHIP so cheap?
The answer given is:
"QUANTITY. Our partners at Allwinner
worked hard to help us find how to reduce costs, so that we could
introduce C.H.I.P. to EVERYBODY. To sell C.H.I.P. for $9, we need to
order tens of thousands of chips. By using common, available, and
volume-produced processor, memory, and wifi chips, we are able to
leverage the scales at which tablet manufacturers operate to get
everyone the best price."
Allwinner is a Chinese chip manufacturer responsible for the chips
that power so many of the low cost (around $50) Android tablets that you
can buy at the moment. Even so, $9 seems like a very low price and it
is hard to see where the profit is coming from on the basic model.
However, if you want a VGA or HDMI adaptor as well the price rises to
$19 and $24 respectively. Add a PocketCHIP and an HDMI adapter to the
basic CHIP and you arrive at a cost of $64. Still amazing value, but
there might be a little more margin built in.
You might be wondering why I think this might be a revolution?
There are two aspects to the revolution that a successful CHIP might bring about.
The first is in the hi-tech world of IoT. A battery-backed SBC with
WiFi connection for $9 makes it possible to think of building disposable
sensors. If you need to measure something, throw a CHIP with a sensor
at it. You can instrument lots and lots of things without having to
justify the cost. In the same way an appliance module based on CHIP
could control lights, motors and other equipment without using
unreliable and complex radio protocols such as Z-wave.
This might just be where the IoT revolution actually starts.
The second is in computers as appliances. If an additional computer
just costs $9, you can always throw another CPU at the problem. In
education you can use Pocket CHIP and give one per student and still
have some over for spares. You can assign a media server to each TV,
have your own VPN server, mail server and so on.
This is the move from personal computing to personal disposable
computing and it could be as revolutionary as the move from the fine
handcrafted pen to the ballpoint.
And, of course, it is all open source.
The first units should ship in December.
Undercover
documentaries reveal horrible working conditions in parts of Asia,
raising questions about America's ability to regulate trade partners
practices. Ed Schultz, Charles Kernaghan, Jim Keady and Lori Wallach
discuss.
Over the last 15 years, the Social Security Administration’s Office of
the Chief Actuary has consistently underestimated retirees’ life
expectancy and made other errors that make the finances of the
retirement system look significantly better than they are, a new study
by two Harvard and one Dartmouth academics concludes. The report, being
published today by the Journal of Economic Perspectives,
is the first, the authors say, to compare the government agency’s past
demographic and financial forecasts with actual results.
In a second paper appearing today in Political Analysis,
the three researchers offer their theory of why the Actuary Office’s
predictions have apparently grown less reliable since 2000: The civil
servants who run it have responded to increased political polarization
surrounding Social Security “by hunkering down” and resisting outside
pressures—not only from the politicians, but also from outside technical
experts.
“While they’re insulating themselves from the politics,
they also insulate themselves from the data and this big change in the
world –people started living longer lives,’’ coauthor Gary King, a leading political scientist and director of Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science, said in an interview Thursday. “They need to take that into account and change the forecast as a result of that.”
In its annual report last July, Social Security predicted its old age
and disability trust funds, combined, would be exhausted in 2033 and
that after that point the government will have enough payroll tax
revenues coming in to pay only about three quarters of promised
benefits. King said his team hasn’t estimated how much sooner the fund
might run out, but described it as in “significantly worse shape” than
official forecasts indicate.
In addition to underestimating recent
declines in mortality (i.e. increases in life expectancy) for those 65
and older, the Actuary has overestimated the birth rate—meaning the
number of new workers who will be available to pay baby boomers their
benefits 20 years from now , the researchers assert.
Before 2000, the
Actuary also made errors, but they went in both directions and the
Actuary was readier to adjust the forecasts from year to year as new
evidence came in, King said. Since 2000, he added, the errors “all are
biased in the direction of making the system seem healthier than it
really is.’’
A Social Security spokesman said today that Chief Actuary Stephen
Goss couldn’t comment on the papers because he wasn’t provided them in
advance and is tied up today in meeting with the Social Security
Advisory Board Technical Panel. But he pointed to an Actuarial Note Goss and three colleagues published in 2013 in response to a New York Times op-ed by King and one of his current coauthors, Samir Soneji, an assistant professor at Dartmouth’s Institute for HealthPolicy
& Clinical Practice.
In that op-ed, they attacked the Actuary’s
methods of projecting mortality rates and predicted the trust fund would
be depleted two years earlier than predicted. In their response, Goss
and his colleagues called Kind and Soneji’s methods of predicting death
rates “highly questionable” and noted that the Actuary’s methods have
been audited since 2006 by an independent accounting firm and received
unqualified opinions.
The dust-up might be ignored as bickering by the pointy heads, if it weren’t so consequential. In a recent Gallup survey,
36% of workers said they were counting on Social Security as a major
source of retirement income. Differences over the estimates are
important, King observed, because they affect “basically half of the
spending of the U.S. government,’’ including Medicare. Moreover, the
forecasting assumptions affect the projected impact of any proposed
changes to the program.
In their political paper, King, Soneji and
Konstantin Kashin, a PhD candidate at King’s institute, recount how
partisan fighting over Social Security intensified in the late 1990s,
when conservatives began arguing the program was unsustainable and
should be partially privatized, with younger workers offered individual
savings accounts. In 2001, newly elected President George W. Bush
appointed a commission intended to support such a change, but he put the
issue aside after the September 11 terrorist attacks. After his
reelection in 2005, however, Bush started pushing for changes in a
series of town halls and speeches that, the paper notes, put the Social
Security actuaries under “an extreme form of political pressure.’’
Democrats
and news reports pointed to changes in the language used by the Social
Security Administration that seemed (in line with White House policy) to
emphasize that the program was not financially sustainable. Goss openly
clashed with a Republican Social Security Commissioner.
Bush’s
privatization push flopped and during recent elections Republicans have
attempted to cast themselves as the protectors of Social Security, which
enjoys strong support from voters across the political spectrum. In
2013, after President Obama proposed a deficit reduction deal that,
along with raising taxes on the rich, would have chipped away at
inflation adjustments in Social Security, the idea was attacked by
politicians from both parties.
But the problem of how to solve
the system’s long term funding deficit has hardly gone away and the
partisan divide seems to be widening again. Democrats have slammed
a provision adopted by the new Republican Congress that they would
block a transfer of money from the Social Security old age fund to the
Social Security disability fund, which will be depleted next year. They
say such transfers have been routine in the past and that it is a ploy
by Republicans to force cuts tor retirement program too. Last month,
Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a possible Presidential
candidate, proposed that the age for receiving full Social Security
benefits be raised gradually to 69 and that benefits be limited for
individuals with more than $80,000 in other income and ended completely
for those earning more than $200,000.
King emphasized that there
is “no evidence whatsoever,” that Goss and his actuaries are bending to
political pressure from either Democrats or Republicans. On the
contrary, he said, while resisting such pressure, they’ve put too high a
value on remaining consistent in their forecasts, in part because they
don’t want to “panic” the public. “They’re trying to show the numbers
don’t change because they think it will inspire confidence. Maybe in the
very short run it will inspire confidence by not changing the numbers.
But having the numbers be wrong doesn’t inspire confidence at all,’’
King said.
The political paper asserts that Goss has resisted
changes in forecasting assumptions suggested by the Social Security
Advisory Board’s Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods—a panel of
actuaries and economists that meets once every four years and is in
session now. In some cases, the paper claims, the Actuary has made
some suggested change in an assumption, but then changed another,
unrelated assumption in the opposite direction “to counterbalance the
first and keep the ultimate solvency forecasts largely unchanged.”
In
their 2013 Actuarial Note, however, Goss and his colleagues say that
while the 2011 Panel did push for faster changes in mortality
assumptions, the panel’s recommendations, if adopted in full, would have
actually resulted in a projection that the Social Security trust funds
would run out a year later.
King, who presented his own findings
to the Technical Panel yesterday, is pushing for one big change in the
Actuary’s practices that he says the Panel has also favored: making all
the Actuary’s data and methods open for scrutiny by others.
“This
is a period of big data. When you let other people have access to data,
things like Money Ball happen,’’ King said. In addition to new
algorithms, he said, the government actuaries need to take note of
recent findings about unconscious bias by researchers and apply new
methods social scientists have developed to guard against such bias.
“Four
hundred years ago you had people sitting in a monastery and thinking
they thought great thoughts and that was their entire life,’’ King said.
“Now we check on each other. If they would leave things open they’d
have so much help and they’d be better off politically because their
forecasts would be better.”
Less than 30 hours after GOG.com launched its Galaxy beta client,
scammers were lining up to trick gamers into infecting their computers
with malware, according to a new blog post from security research firm
and anti-virus software maker Malwarebytes. Malwarebytes security
analyst Jovi Umawing details how some users are getting tricked in a new
blog post today.
Once a scammer tricks users into visiting their fraudulent download
site and jumping through several web pages, they give them access to a
fake client download. Once executed, the file displays a dialog box
claiming that it is initializing, followed by an error window.
Ultimately, nothing is stalled, save a PUP.
What is a PUP? The short answer is a "potentially unwanted program." The long answer can be found on the Malwarebytes web site. You can learn about this GOG Galaxy related scam here.
Of course, the only real place you can get the GOG Galaxy client is on GOG.com.
The Koch brothers are at it again. POLITICO recently revealed that
Americans for Prosperity will be putting $125 million into “Get Out The
Vote’ campaigns in deep red states like Alabama and Utah. The only
reason for this is to drum up cultural wars in these areas to incite the
craziest of the crazies for the 2016 election.
Idaho Falls, Idaho – Would you find it frightening— perhaps even
downright Orwellian — to know that a DNA swab that you sent to a company
for recreational purposes would surface years later in the hands of
police? What if it caused your child to end up in a police interrogation
room as the primary suspect in a murder investigation?
In an extremely troubling case out of Idaho Falls, that’s exactly what happened.
Police
investigating the 1996 murder of Angie Dodge targeted the wrong man as
the suspect, after looking to Ancestry.com owned Sorensen Database labs
for help. The labs look for familial matches between the murderers DNA
and DNA submitted for genealogical testing after failing to find a match
using traditional methods.
The
cops chose to use a lab linked to a private collection of genetic
genealogical data called the Sorenson Database (now owned by
Ancestry.com), which claims it’s “the foremost collection of genetic
genealogy data in the world.” The reason the Sorenson Database can make
such an audacious claim is because it has obtained its more than 100,000
DNA samples and documented multi-generational family histories from
“volunteers in more than 100 countries around the world.” Some of these
volunteers were encouraged by the Mormon Church—well-known for its
interest in genealogy—to provide their genetic material to the database.
Sorenson promised volunteers their genetic data would only be used for
“genealogical services, including the determination of family migration
patterns and geographic origins” and would not be shared outside
Sorenson.
Its consent form states:
The only
individuals who will have access to the codes and genealogy information
will be the principal investigator and the others specifically
authorized by the Principal Investigator, including the SMGF research
staff.
Despite this promise, Sorenson shared its vast
collection of data with the Idaho police.
Without a warrant or court
order, investigators asked the lab to run the crime scene DNA against
Sorenson’s private genealogical DNA database. Sorenson found 41
potential familial matches, one of which matched on 34 out of 35
alleles—a very close match that would generally indicate a close
familial relationship. The cops then asked, not only for the “protected”
name associated with that profile, but also for all “all information
including full names, date of births, date and other information
pertaining to the original donor to the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy
project.”
Ancestry.com failed to respond to
questions about how frequently it receives court orders in criminal
investigations or if the company attempts to resist law enforcement
requests for peoples’ private genetic information, according to The New
Orleans Advocate.
This is when things become even more convoluted.
The DNA from the Ancestry.com database linked a man, Michael Usry, to
the case that didn’t fit the police profile, as he was born in 1952.
The
cops then used the genetic information and traced his line of male
descendants, ultimately finding his son Michael Usry Jr., born in 1979,
which much more closely fit the police profile of the killer.
Once
they had targeted Ursy Jr. as the suspect, they began to scour his
Facebook page looking for connections to Idaho, finding a couple of
Facebook friends that lived in the area of Idaho Falls.
Police
then, by Google searching, realized that Usry Jr. was a filmmaker and
had done some short films containing murder scenes. Law enforcement
subsequently got a warrant for Usry Jr.’s DNA based upon the completely
circumstantial evidence presented by Idaho investigators.
The cops
then called Usry Jr. and asked him to meet them, under the guise that
they were investigating a hit-and-run accident. Thinking he “had nothing
to hide,” he agreed to meet with the investigators, without an attorney
present. He was subsequently taken to an interrogation room where he
eventually allowed them to collect his DNA.
Despite the flimsy
circumstantial evidence used to get the warrant, ultimately the test
showed that although there were a number of familial alleles shared with
the murderers sample, Usry Jr.’s DNA did not conclusively match the
killers.
This case is particularly troubling as it seems to
decimate an individual’s right to privacy in the name of “public
safety,” while allowing the police to run roughshod over people’s civil
rights.
“It’s not very common to see this sort of thing, and I
frankly hope it doesn’t become very common because an awful lot of
people won’t bother testing” their DNA, Judy G. Russell, a genealogist
and attorney who writes The Legal Genealogist blog, told The New Orleans
Advocate.
There is one key difference between traditional DNA
testing and familial testing. The traditional method consists of taking a
sample and looking for a specific match with a given database, such as
the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System, while familial searching looks for
common alleles, or gene variants.
Proponents
argue familial searching is a harmless way for police to crack
otherwise unsolvable cases. The closest partial matches can steer
investigators toward a criminal’s family members, whose DNA profiles
closely resemble those of a convicted or incarcerated relative.
Skeptics
like Murphy, the NYU law professor, warn that the technique drastically
expands DNA testing beyond the function envisioned by states that
compel criminal defendants to submit DNA samples upon arrest. Many
states lack formal legal rules governing the use of familial searching
by law enforcement, while Maryland has explicitly outlawed the practice.
This
case exposes the very real danger posed to privacy and civil liberties
by familial DNA searches and by private, unregulated DNA databases.This
case only serves as a glimpse into the dystopian reality we will soon
find ourselves living in, according to The Electronic Frontier
Foundation.
“This risk will increase further as
state and local law enforcement agencies begin to use Rapid DNA
analyzers—portable machines that can process DNA in less than an hour.
These machines will make it much easier for police to collect and
analyze DNA on their own outside a lab. Currently, because forensic DNA
analysis in a lab takes so long, we generally see its use limited to
high-level felonies like rape and murder. However, Rapid DNA
manufacturers are now encouraging local police agencies to analyze DNA
found at the scene of low-level property crimes. This means much more
DNA will be collected and stored, often in under-regulated local DNA
databases. And, because most of the forensic DNA found at property crime
scenes is likely to be touch DNA—this only increases the risk that
people will be implicated in crimes they didn’t commit.”
Is
this really the kind of future we want to create for our children?
Shouldn’t we be able to research and learn about our family’s
genealogical ancestry without fear that police will be reviewing our
genetic information without our consent?
This case makes it clear
that even when a private business states in writing that your data will
be held as private and safe from prying eyes, that may very well not be
what transpires.
Jay Syrmopoulos is an
investigative journalist, freethinker, researcher, and ardent opponent
of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of
Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has previously
been published on BenSwann.com and WeAreChange.org.
Once again Chuck Todd showed how gullible he is to Right Wing
manipulation. Luckily, likely Democratic Presidential Candidate Martin
O'Malley would have none of it. It started innocently enough.
"I want you to respond to something that Speaker Boehner said to me
about blame when it comes to America's inner cities," Chuck Todd said.
"Let's take a listen."
He then played a clip from Speaker John Boehner. "Chuck, what we have
here," Speaker Boehner said. "is 50 years of liberal policies that have
not worked to help the very people that we want to help." That comment
is to be expected from any Republican as their Ayn Rand ideology
dictates policies lacking in social assistance.
Chuck Todd then referenced the Washington Post article titled "Why
couldn’t $130 million transform one of Baltimore’s poorest places?" He
must have forgotten that many times editors give stories titles that
have very little to do with the conclusions the article would come to.
He must not have read the article. "A hundred million dollars was poured
into this community over the last 20 years," Todd said.
"Are we not
spending the money correctly? What are we getting wrong here? Money has
been there."
Martin O'Malley would have none of it. "Chuck that's just not true,"
Martin O'Malley said. "We haven't had an agenda for America's cities for
at least two decades."
Chuck Todd snapped back with a simplistically silly statement. "So we've had money but no agenda."
Martin O'Malley went on to state that there has not been an agenda
for cities since Democratic President Jimmy Carter. He pointed out that
even with limited support because of the dedication and innovation of
mayors, cities are actually coming back. He pointed out that the failure
to invest in infrastructure, the off-shoring of American jobs, and the
basic lack of investment was the problem.
Most importantly he pointed
out that the $130 million over 20 years Chuck Todd speaks about is a
spit in a bucket.
Had Chuck Todd read the article he would have understood the following.
The effort to revive Sandtown was massive. More than 1,000
homes were eventually renovated or built. Schools were bolstered.
Education and health services were launched. ...
The most significant problem, according to community organizers and
the Enterprise report, was that new businesses and jobs never
materialized. And as Baltimore’s decent-paying manufacturing jobs
vanished — a problem shared by Detroit, Cleveland and other Rust Belt
cities — there were fewer and fewer opportunities for Sandtown residents
to find meaningful work.
In the absence of jobs, the drug trade flourished.
In other words the $130 million was invested mostly in real estate
capital and not human capital. It was not sustainable and the results
are probative.
Chuck Todd once again allowed his program to be used as an Ayn Rand
message conduit. Many cities are on the brink of rebellion because of
the despair and income inequality. The Right Wing machine needs to
convince these people that real investment in both physical and human
capital are not the answers lest these 'rebellions' force progressive
change.
It is for this reason why a Democratic primary is necessary. It will
give America a vision of what it means to have a real progressive
agenda. It provides the platform to remind America that it has been
living under a conservative biased agenda for north of thirty years. The
catastrophic results surround us all.