An anonymous reader quotes a report from PCWorld, written by Michael Crider:

> The latest perpetrator of questionable AI branding? HP. The company is introducing "Print AI," what it calls the "industry's first intelligent print experience for home, office, and large format printing." What does that mean? It's essentially a new beta software driver package for some HP printers. According to the [1]press release , it can deliver "Perfect Output" -- capital P capital O -- a branded tool that [2]reformats the contents of a page in order to more ideally fit it onto physical paper .

>

> Despite my skeptical tone, this is actually a pretty cool idea. "Perfect Output can detect unwanted content like ads and web text, printing only the desired text and images, saving time, paper, and ink." That's neat! If the web page you're printing doesn't offer a built-in print format, the software will make one for you. It'll also serve to better organize printed spreadsheets and images, too. But I don't see anything in this software that's actually AI -- or even machine learning, for that matter. This is applying the same tech (functionally, if not necessarily the same code) as the "reader mode" formatting we've seen in browsers for about a decade now. Take the text and images of a page, strip out everything else that's unnecessary, and present it as efficiently as possible. [...]

>

> The press release does mention that support and formatting tasks can be accomplished with "simple conversational prompts," which at least might be leveraging some of the large language models that have become synonymous with AI as consumers understand it. But based on the description, it's more about selling you something than helping you. "Customers can choose to print or explore a curated list of partners that offer unique photo printing capabilities, gift certificates to be printed on the card, and so much more." Whoopee.



[1] https://www.hp.com/us-en/newsroom/press-releases/2024/hp-print-ai.html?cjdata=MXxOfDB8WXww&jumpID=af_gen_nc_ns&utm_medium=af&utm_source=cj&utm_campaign=IDG+Communications&utm_content=4832273_IDG+Communications_8200811&cjevent=9543a96a7c6711ef8341837a0a1cb82a&subacctname=IDG+Communications

[2] https://www.pcworld.com/article/2470105/hp-printers-have-ai-now-because-of-course-they-do.html

Ars Technica's Dan Goodin reports:

> Last week, NIST released its second public draft of [1]SP 800-63-4 , the latest version of its Digital Identity Guidelines. At roughly 35,000 words and filled with jargon and bureaucratic terms, the document is nearly impossible to read all the way through and just as hard to understand fully. It sets both the technical requirements and recommended best practices for determining the validity of methods used to authenticate digital identities online. Organizations that interact with the federal government online are required to be in compliance. A section devoted to passwords [2]injects a large helping of badly needed common sense practices that challenge common policies. An example: The new rules bar the requirement that end users periodically change their passwords. This requirement came into being decades ago when password security was poorly understood, and it was common for people to choose common names, dictionary words, and other secrets that were easily guessed.

>

> Since then, most services require the use of stronger passwords made up of randomly generated characters or phrases. When passwords are chosen properly, the requirement to periodically change them, typically every one to three months, can actually diminish security because the added burden incentivizes weaker passwords that are easier for people to set and remember. Another requirement that often does more harm than good is the required use of certain characters, such as at least one number, one special character, and one upper- and lowercase letter. When passwords are sufficiently long and random, there's no benefit from requiring or restricting the use of certain characters. And again, rules governing composition can actually lead to people choosing weaker passcodes.

>

> The latest NIST guidelines now state that:

> - Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT impose other composition rules (e.g., requiring mixtures of different character types) for passwords and

> - Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT require users to change passwords periodically. However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator. ("Verifiers" is bureaucrat speak for the entity that verifies an account holder's identity by corroborating the holder's authentication credentials. Short for credential service provider, "CSPs" are a trusted entity that assigns or registers authenticators to the account holder.) In previous versions of the guidelines, some of the rules used the words "should not," which means the practice is not recommended as a best practice. "Shall not," by contrast, means the practice must be barred for an organization to be in compliance.

Several other common sense practices mentioned in the document include:

> 1. Verifiers and CSPs SHALL require passwords to be a minimum of eight characters in length and SHOULD require passwords to be a minimum of 15 characters in length.

> 2. Verifiers and CSPs SHOULD permit a maximum password length of at least 64 characters.

> 3. Verifiers and CSPs SHOULD accept all printing ASCII [RFC20] characters and the space character in passwords.

> 4. Verifiers and CSPs SHOULD accept Unicode [ISO/ISC 10646] characters in passwords. Each Unicode code point SHALL be counted as a single character when evaluating password length.

> 5. Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT impose other composition rules (e.g., requiring mixtures of different character types) for passwords.

> 6. Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT require users to change passwords periodically. However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator.

> 7. Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT permit the subscriber to store a hint that is accessible to an unauthenticated claimant.

> 8. Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT prompt subscribers to use knowledge-based authentication (KBA) (e.g., "What was the name of your first pet?") or security questions when choosing passwords.

> 9. Verifiers SHALL verify the entire submitted password (i.e., not truncate it).



[1] https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html

[2] https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/09/nist-proposes-barring-some-of-the-most-nonsensical-password-rules/

"Dozens of Fortune 100 organizations" have [1]unknowingly hired North Korean IT workers using fake identities, generating revenue for the North Korean government while potentially compromising tech firms, according to Google's Mandiant unit. "In [2]a report published Monday [...], researchers describe a common scheme orchestrated by the group it tracks as UNC5267, which has been active since 2018," reports The Record. "In most cases, the IT workers 'consist of individuals sent by the North Korean government to live primarily in China and Russia, with smaller numbers in Africa and Southeast Asia.'" From the report:

> The remote workers "often gain elevated access to modify code and administer network systems," Mandiant found, warning of the downstream effects of allowing malicious actors into a company's inner sanctum. [...] Using stolen identities or fictitious ones, the actors are generally hired as remote contractors. Mandiant has seen the workers hired in a variety of complex roles across several sectors. Some workers are employed at multiple companies, bringing in several salaries each month. The tactic is facilitated by someone based in the U.S. who runs a laptop farm where workers' laptops are sent. Remote technology is installed on the laptops, allowing the North Koreans to log in and conduct their work from China or Russia.

>

> Workers typically asked for their work laptops to be sent to different addresses than those listed on their resumes, raising the suspicions of companies. Mandiant said it found evidence that the laptops at these farms are connected to a "keyboard video mouse" device or multiple remote management tools including LogMeIn, GoToMeeting, Chrome Remote Desktop, AnyDesk, TeamViewer and others. "Feedback from team members and managers who spoke with Mandiant during investigations consistently highlighted behavior patterns, such as reluctance to engage in video communication and below-average work quality exhibited by the DPRK IT worker remotely operating the laptops," Mandiant reported.

>

> In several incident response engagements, Mandiant found the workers used the same resumes that had links to fabricated software engineer profiles hosted on Netlify, a platform often used for quickly creating and deploying websites. Many of the resumes and profiles included poor English and other clues indicating the actor was not based in the U.S. One characteristic repeatedly seen was the use of U.S-based addresses accompanied by education credentials from universities outside of North America, frequently in countries such as Singapore, Japan or Hong Kong. Companies, according to Mandiant, typically don't verify credentials from universities overseas.

Further reading: [3]How Not To Hire a North Korean IT Spy



[1] https://therecord.media/major-us-companies-unwittingly-hire-north-korean-remote-it-workers

[2] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/mitigating-dprk-it-worker-threat

[3] https://it.slashdot.org/story/24/08/31/052207/how-not-to-hire-a-north-korean-it-spy

Mozilla has been [1]hit with a complaint by EU privacy group noyb , accusing it of violating GDPR by tracking Firefox users by default without their consent. TechCrunch reports:

> Mozilla calls the feature at issue "Privacy Preserving Attribution" (PPA). But noyb argues this is misdirection. And if EU privacy regulators agree with the complaint the Firefox-maker could be slapped with orders to change tack -- or even face a penalty (the GDPR allows for fines of up to 4% of global revenue). "Contrary to its reassuring name, this technology allows Firefox to track user behaviour on websites," noyb wrote in a [2]press release . "In essence, the browser is now controlling the tracking, rather than individual websites. While this might be an improvement compared to even more invasive cookie tracking, the company never asked its users if they wanted to enable it. Instead, Mozilla decided to turn it on by default once people installed a recent software update. This is particularly worrying because Mozilla generally has a reputation for being a privacy-friendly alternative when most other browsers are based on Google's Chromium."

>

> Another component of noyb's objection is that Mozilla's move "doesn't replace cookies either" -- Firefox simply wouldn't have the market share and power to shift industry practices -- so all it's done is produce another additional way for websites to target ads. [...] The noyb-backed [3]complaint (PDF), which has been filed with the Austrian data protection authority, accuses Mozilla of failing to inform users about the processing of their personal data and of using an opt-out -- rather than an affirmative "opt-in" -- mechanism. The privacy rights group also wants the regulator to order the deletion of all data collected so far.

In a statement attributed to Christopher Hilton, its director of policy and corporate communications, Mozilla said that it has only conducted a "limited test" of a PPA prototype on its own websites.While acknowledging poor communication around the effort, the company emphasized that no user data has been collected or shared and expressed its commitment to engaging with stakeholders as it develops the technology further.



[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/25/mozilla-hit-with-privacy-complaint-in-eu-over-firefox-tracking-tech/

[2] https://noyb.eu/en/firefox-tracks-you-privacy-preserving-feature

[3] https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2024-09/C089%20Firefox%20Beschwerde%20Redacted.pdf

An anonymous reader quotes a report from 404 Media:

> After a horseback riding accident left him paralyzed from the waist down in 2009, former jockey Michael Straight learned to walk again with the help of a $100,000 ReWalk Personal exoskeleton. Earlier this month, that exoskeleton broke because of a malfunctioning piece of wiring in an accompanying watch that makes the exoskeleton work. The manufacturer refused to fix it, saying the machine was now too old to be serviced, and Straight [1]once again couldn't walk anymore . "After 371,091 steps my exoskeleton is being retired after 10 years of unbelievable physical therapy," Straight [2]posted on Facebook on September 16. "The reasons [sic] why it has stopped is a pathetic excuse for a bad company to try and make more money. The reason it stopped is because of a battery in the watch I wear to operate the machine. I called thinking it was no big deal, yet I was told they stopped working on any machine that was 5 years or older. I find it very hard to believe after paying nearly $100,000 for the machine and training that a $20 battery for the watch is the reason I can't walk anymore?"

>

> Straight's experience is a nightmare scenario that highlights what happens when companies decide to stop supporting their products and do not actively support independent repair. It's also what happens without the protection of right to repair legislation that requires manufacturers to make repair parts, guides, and tools available to the general public. Specifically, a connection wire became desoldered from the battery in a watch that connects to the exoskeleton: "It's not the actual battery, but it's the little green connection piece we need to be the right fit and that's been our problem," Straight posted on Facebook. Straight's personal exoskeleton was broken for two months, he said in a video on Facebook. He was eventually able to get the device fixed after attention from an article in the Paulick Report, a website about the horse industry, and a spot on local TV. "It took me two months, and I got no results," he said in the video. With social media and news attention, "it only took you all four days, and look at the results," he said earlier this week while standing in the exoskeleton.

"This is the dystopian nightmare that we've kind of entered in, where the manufacturer perspective on products is that their responsibility completely ends when it hands it over to a customer. That's not good enough for a device like this, but it's also the same thing we see up and down with every single product," Nathan Proctor, head of citizen rights group US PIRG's right to repair project told 404 Media. "People need to be able to fix things, there needs to be a plan in place. A $100,000 product you can only use as long as the battery lasts, that's enraging. We should not have to tolerate a society where this happens."

"We have all this technology we release into the wild and it changes people's lives, but there's no long-term thinking. Manufacturers currently have no legal obligation to support the equipment indefinitely and there's no requirements that they publish sufficient documentation to allow others to do it," Proctor said. "We need to set minimum standards for documentation so that, even if a company goes bankrupt or falls off the face of the earth, a technician with sufficient knowledge can fix it."



[1] https://www.404media.co/paralyzed-jockey-loses-ability-to-walk-after-manufacturer-refuses-to-fix-battery-for-his-100-000-exoskeleton/

[2] https://www.facebook.com/mj.straight.9/posts/pfbid08WJkmwePBXPXrktEKT1PpbTutQkysBh8nRoAy6dC1SSZKAe5Ti9q4ETYg7fHC5hDl

The Verge's Emma Roth reports:

> [1]NotebookLM , Google's AI note-taking app, can now summarize and [2]help you dig deeper into YouTube videos . The new capability works by analyzing the text in a YouTube video's transcript, including autogenerated ones. Once you add a YouTube link to NotebookLM, it will use AI to provide a brief summary of key topics discussed in the transcript. You can then click on these topics to get more detailed information as well as ask questions. (If you're struggling to come up with something to ask, NotebookLM will suggest some questions.)

>

> After clicking on some of the topics, I found that NotebookLM backs up the information provided in its chat window with a citation that links you directly to the point in the transcript where it's mentioned. You can also create an Audio Overview based on the content, which is a podcast-style discussion hosted by AI. I found that the feature worked on most of the videos I tried, except for ones published within the past two days or so. [...] In addition to adding support for YouTube videos, Google announced that NotebookLM now supports audio recordings as well, allowing you to search transcribed conversations for certain information and create study guides.



[1] https://notebooklm.google/

[2] https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24255176/google-notebooklm-summarize-youtube-videos-ai

According to the [1]Wall Street Journal , the U.S. Department of Justice is [2]investigating Super Micro Computer after short-seller Hindenburg Research [3]alleged "accounting manipulation" at the AI server maker. Super Micro's shares fell about 12% following the report. Reuters reports:

> The WSJ report, which cited people familiar with the matter, said the probe was at an early stage and that a prosecutor at a U.S. attorney's office recently contacted people who may be holding relevant information. The prosecutor has asked for information that appeared to be connected to a former employee who accused the company of accounting violations, the report added.

>

> Super Micro had late last month delayed filing its annual report, citing a need to assess "its internal controls over financial reporting," a day after Hindenburg disclosed a short position and made claims of "accounting manipulation." The short-seller had cited a three-month investigation that included interviews with former senior employees of Super Micro and litigation records. Hindenburg's allegations included evidence of undisclosed related-party transactions, failure to abide by export controls, among other issues. The company had denied Hindenburg's claims.



[1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/justice-department-probes-server-maker-super-micro-computer-2ca6a4d3

[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-justice-department-probes-super-150035464.html

[3] https://hindenburgresearch.com/smci/

A New York federal court has [1]ordered (PDF) the operators of shadow library LibGen to [2]pay $30 million in copyright damages to publishers . The default judgment also comes with a broad injunction that affects third-party services including domain registries, browser extensions, CDN providers, IPFS gateways, advertisers, and more. These parties must restrict access to the pirate site. An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak:

> Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon granted the default judgment without any changes. The anonymous [3]LibGen defendants are responsible for willful copyright infringement and their activities should be stopped. "Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed as a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct and will continue to be irreparably harmed should Defendants be allowed to continue operating the Libgen Sites," the order reads. The order requires the defendants to [4]pay the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, a total of $30 million , for which they are jointly and severally liable. While this is a win on paper, it's unlikely that the publishers will get paid by the LibGen operators, who remain anonymous.

>

> To address this concern, the publishers' motion didn't merely ask for $30 million in damages, they also demanded a broad injunction. Granted by the court yesterday, the injunction requires third-party services such as advertising networks, payment processors, hosting providers, CDN services, and IPFS gateways to restrict access to the site. [...] The injunction further targets "browser extensions" and "other tools" that are used to provide direct access to the LibGen Sites. While site blocking by residential Internet providers is mentioned in reference to other countries, ISP blocking is not part of the injunction itself. In addition to the broad measures outlined above, the order further requires domain name registrars and registries to disable or suspend all active LibGen domains, or alternatively, transfer them to the publishers. This includes Libgen.is, the most used domain name with 16 million monthly visits, as well as Libgen.rs, Libgen.li and many others.

>

> At the moment, it's unclear how actively managed the LibGen site is, as it has shown signs of decay in recent years. However, when faced with domain seizures, sites typically respond by registering new domains. The publishers are aware of this risk. Therefore, they asked the court to cover future domain names too. The court signed off on this request, which means that newly registered domain names can be taken over as well; at least in theory. [...] All in all, the default judgment isn't just a monetary win, on paper, it's also one of the broadest anti-piracy injunctions we've seen from a U.S. court.



[1] https://torrentfreak.com/images/gov.uscourts.nysd_.606312.36.0.pdf

[2] https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-court-orders-libgen-to-pay-30m-to-publishers-issues-broad-injunction-240925/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis

[4] https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-court-orders-libgen-to-pay-30m-to-publishers-issues-broad-injunction-240925/

Apple has pulled 60 VPNs from its App Store in Russia, according to research from anti-censorship org GreatFire. From a report:

> The iThing-maker's action comes amid a Kremlin crackdown on VPNs that has already seen a ban on privacy-related extensions to the open source Firefox browser. The software's developer, Mozilla, defied that ban and allowed the extensions back into its web store. In July, Apple [1]removed at least one VPN from its Russian App Store . Cupertino [2]removed at least 60 more between early July and September 18 , according to research by GreatFire posted to its site that tracks Apple censorship. The org's research asserts that 98 VPNs are now unavailable in Russia -- but doesn't specify if the removals were made in the iOS or macOS app stores.



[1] https://apple.slashdot.org/story/24/07/04/1342248/apple-bows-to-kremlin-pressure-to-remove-leading-vpns-from-russian-app-store

[2] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/26/apple_vpn_russia/

Google has [1]restricted the creation of new accounts for Russian users, state news agencies cited Russia's digital ministry as saying on Thursday. Reuters:

> Google has been under pressure in Russia for several years, particularly for not taking down content Moscow considers illegal and for blocking the YouTube channels of Russian media and public figures since Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. "The ministry confirms that Google has restricted the creation of new accounts," Interfax quoted the digital ministry as saying. "Telecom operators have also recorded a significant reduction in the number of SMS messages sent by the company to Russian users."



[1] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/09/26/google-restricts-account-creation-in-russia-digital-ministry-says-a86486

An anonymous reader shares a report:

> In the decade-long fight to control CRISPR, the super-tool for modifying DNA, it's been common for lawyers to try to overturn patents held by competitors by pointing out errors or inconsistencies. But now, in a surprise twist, the team that earned the Nobel Prize in chemistry for developing CRISPR is [1]asking to cancel two of their own seminal patents , MIT Technology Review has learned.

>

> The decision could affect who gets to collect the lucrative licensing fees on using the technology. The request to withdraw the pair of European patents, by lawyers for Nobelists Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, comes after a damaging August opinion from a European technical appeals board, which ruled that the duo's earliest patent filing didn't explain CRISPR well enough for other scientists to use it and doesn't count as a proper invention. The Nobel laureates' lawyers say the decision is so wrong and unfair that they have no choice but to preemptively cancel their patents, a scorched-earth tactic whose aim is to prevent the unfavorable legal finding from being recorded as the reason.



[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/09/25/1104475/nobel-prize-winners-cancel-crispr-patents-europe/

Cybersecurity firm Kaspersky has [1]defended its decision to automatically [2]replace its antivirus software on U.S. customers' computers with UltraAV , a product from American company Pango, without explicit user consent. The forced switch, affecting nearly one million users, occurred as [3]a result of a U.S. government ban on Kaspersky software .

Kaspersky spokesperson Francesco Tius told TechCrunch that the company informed eligible U.S. customers via email about the migration, which began in early September. Windows users experienced an automatic transition to ensure continuous protection, while Mac and mobile users were instructed to manually install UltraAV. Some customers expressed alarm at the unannounced software swap. Kaspersky blamed missed notifications on unregistered email addresses, directing users to in-app messages and an online FAQ. The abrupt change raises concerns about user autonomy and privacy in software updates, particularly as UltraAV lacks an established security track record.



[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/26/kaspersky-defends-automatically-force-replacing-its-software-without-users-explicit-consent/

[2] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/09/23/1949250/some-kaspersky-customers-receive-surprise-forced-update-to-new-antivirus-software

[3] https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/06/20/1322221/biden-to-ban-us-sales-of-kaspersky-software-over-ties-to-russia

A year-long test of Apple's 80% charge limit feature on the iPhone 15 Pro Max has revealed only marginal benefits to battery health. MacRumors editor Juli Clover reported her device [1]maintained 94% battery capacity after 299 charge cycles , compared to 87-90% capacity for iPhones without the limit. The opt-in setting, introduced with iPhone 15 models, aims to extend battery longevity by restricting maximum charge.

Clover adhered strictly to the 80% limit for 12 months, noting occasional inconveniences like depleted batteries during long days. While the test showed slightly better battery health retention, Clover questioned whether the trade-off in daily usability was worthwhile. She adds:

> I don't have a lot of data points for comparison, but it does seem that limiting the charge to 80 percent kept my maximum battery capacity higher than what my co-workers are seeing, but there isn't a major difference. I have four percent more battery at 28 more cycles, and I'm not sure suffering through an 80 percent battery limit for 12 months was ultimately worth it. It's possible that the real gains from an 80 percent limit will come in two or three years rather than a single year, and I'll keep it limited to 80 percent to see the longer term impact.



[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2024/09/24/iphone-80-percent-charging-test/

An anonymous reader shares a New Yorker story:

> Ultimately, [1]the iPhone 16 does [2]little to meaningfully improve on the experience I had with the 12 , besides, perhaps, charging with a USB-C, as my laptop does, cutting down on the number of cords I have to keep track of. Instead, the greatest leaps in Apple's hardware are largely directed at those niche users who are already invested in using tools such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality. The company has announced that, within a month or so, the new phones will be able to operate its proprietary artificial-intelligence system, which means that users may soon be relying on A.I. to perform daily personal tasks, like navigating their calendars or responding to e-mails. The 15 and 16 Pros can take three-dimensional photos, designed for V.R., using the Apple Vision Pro. Thus far, I don't use A.I. tools or V.R. with any frequency and have no intention of doing so on my iPhone.

>

> The fact that I do not need an iPhone 16 is a testament not so much to the iPhone's failure as to its resounding success. A lot of the digital software we rely on has grown worse for users in recent years; the iPhone, by contrast, has become so good that it's hard to imagine anything but incremental improvements. Apple's teleological phone-design strategy may have simply reached its end point, the same way evolution in nature has repeatedly resulted in an optimized species of crab. Other tech companies, meanwhile, are embracing radical departures in phone design. Samsung offers devices that fold in half, creating a smaller screen that's useful for minor tasks, such as texting, and a larger one for watching videos; Huawei is upping the ante with three folds. The BOOX Palma has become a surprise hit as a smartphone-ish device with an e-ink screen, similar to Amazon's Kindle, which uses physical pixels in its display. Dumbphones, too, are growing more popular by intentionally doing less. Apple devices, by contrast, remain effective enough that they can afford to be somewhat static.



[1] https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/24/09/09/1851240/apple-unveils-iphone-16-pro-featuring-bigger-screen-new-chip-and-pro-recording-options

[2] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/the-end-of-the-iphone-upgrade

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a law (AB 2426) to combat "disappearing" purchases of digital games, movies, music, and ebooks. The legislation will force digital storefronts to tell customers they're just getting a license to use the digital media, [1]rather than suggesting they actually own it . From a report:

> When the law comes into effect next year, it will ban digital storefronts from using terms like "buy" or "purchase," unless they inform customers that they're not getting unrestricted access to whatever they're buying. Storefronts will have to tell customers they're getting a license that can be revoked as well as provide a list of all the restrictions that come along with it. Companies that break the rule could be fined for false advertising.



[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426

An anonymous reader shares a report:

> Google Maps is reeling in business pages engaging in fake reviews, and highlighting such activity to its users. Google will now impose [1]restrictions against business profiles that violate the search giant's Fake Engagement policy , such as temporarily removing reviews, blocking new reviews or ratings, and displaying a warning message on profiles that have had fake reviews deleted.

>

> The business profile restrictions were introduced in the UK earlier this year, but Search Engine Roundtable notes that the support page was updated in mid-September to seemingly apply globally. For the moment, however, only users in the UK are seeing the business warnings.



[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254882/google-maps-removing-fake-business-reviews-warning-message

Intel has released microcode update 0x12B for its 13th and 14th generation Core processors, [1]addressing persistent stability issues stemming from voltage irregularities. The update targets a specific clock tree circuit within the CPU's IA core that was causing elevated voltage requests during idle and light workloads.

The company identified four key factors contributing to voltage instability: motherboards exceeding Intel's power specifications, an Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost algorithm allowing sustained high performance at elevated temperatures, frequent high voltage requests from the processor, and problematic microcode demanding elevated core voltages during low-activity periods. While previous update 0x129 addressed some concerns, the new 0x12B update aims to resolve the root cause of the "Vmin shift" problem, where voltage spikes lead to increased power requirements and potential degradation over time. Intel is working with motherboard manufacturers to roll out BIOS updates incorporating the new microcode.



[1] https://community.intel.com/t5/Blogs/Tech-Innovation/Client/Intel-Core-13th-and-14th-Gen-Desktop-Instability-Root-Cause/post/1633239

The Tor Project:

> Today the Tor Project, a global non-profit developing tools for online privacy and anonymity, and Tails, a portable operating system that uses Tor to protect users from digital surveillance, have [1]joined forces and merged operations . Incorporating Tails into the Tor Project's structure allows for easier collaboration, better sustainability, reduced overhead, and expanded training and outreach programs to counter a larger number of digital threats. In short, coming together will strengthen both organizations' ability to protect people worldwide from surveillance and censorship.

>

> Countering the threat of global mass surveillance and censorship to a free Internet, Tor and Tails provide essential tools to help people around the world stay safe online. By joining forces, these two privacy advocates will pool their resources to focus on what matters most: ensuring that activists, journalists, other at-risk and everyday users will have access to improved digital security tools.

>

> In late 2023, Tails approached the Tor Project with the idea of merging operations. Tails had outgrown its existing structure. Rather than expanding Tails's operational capacity on their own and putting more stress on Tails workers, merging with the Tor Project, with its larger and established operational framework, offered a solution. By joining forces, the Tails team can now focus on their core mission of maintaining and improving Tails OS, exploring more and complementary use cases while benefiting from the larger organizational structure of The Tor Project.

>

> This solution is a natural outcome of the Tor Project and Tails' shared history of collaboration and solidarity. 15 years ago, Tails' first release was announced on a Tor mailing list, Tor and Tails developers have been collaborating closely since 2015, and more recently Tails has been a sub-grantee of Tor. For Tails, it felt obvious that if they were to approach a bigger organization with the possibility of merging, it would be the Tor Project.



[1] https://blog.torproject.org/tor-tails-join-forces/

WordPress has escalated its [1]feud with WP Engine , a hosting provider, by [2]blocking the latter's servers from accessing WordPress.org resources -- and therefore from potentially vital software updates. From a report:

> WordPress is an open source CMS which is extensible using plugins. Its home is WordPress.org, which also hosts resources such as themes and plugins for the CMS. A vast ecosystem of plugins exists from numerous suppliers, but WordPress.org is the main source. Many WordPress users rely on several plugins. Preventing WP Engine users from accessing plugin updates is therefore serious, as it could mean users can't update plugins that have security issues, or other fixes.

>

> WordPress co-founder and CEO Matt Mullenweg recently called WP Engine a "cancer" and accused it of profiting from WordPress without contributing to development of the CMS. Mullenweg has sought to have WP Engine pay trademark license fees -- a move he feels would represent a financial contribution commensurate with the benefits it derives from the project. WP Engine doesn't want or intend to pay. Mullenweg argued that if WP Engine won't pay, it should not be able to benefit from resources at WordPress.org.



[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/09/23/1348226/wordpress-founder-calls-wp-engine-a-cancer-to-wordpress-and-urges-community-to-switch-providers

[2] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/26/wordpressorg_denies_service_to_wp/

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica:

> Among the first AI companies that the Federal Trade Commission has exposed as deceiving consumers is DoNotPay -- which initially was advertised as "the [1]world's first robot lawyer " with the ability to " [2]sue anyone with the click of a button ." On Wednesday, the FTC announced that it [3]took action to stop DoNotPay from making bogus claims after learning that the AI startup conducted no testing "to determine whether its AI chatbot's output was equal to the level of a human lawyer." DoNotPay also did not "hire or retain any attorneys" to help verify AI outputs or validate DoNotPay's legal claims.

>

> DoNotPay accepted no liability. But to settle the charges that DoNotPay violated the FTC Act, the AI startup agreed to pay $193,000, if the FTC's consent agreement is confirmed following a 30-day public comment period. Additionally, DoNotPay agreed to warn "consumers who subscribed to the service between 2021 and 2023" about the "limitations of law-related features on the service," the FTC said. Moving forward, DoNotPay would also be prohibited under the settlement from making baseless claims that any of its features can be substituted for any professional service.

"The complaint relates to the usage of a few hundred customers some years ago (out of millions of people), with services that have long been discontinued," DoNotPay's spokesperson said. The company "is pleased to have worked constructively with the FTC to settle this case and fully resolve these issues, without admitting liability."



[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/07/12/208204/worlds-first-robot-lawyer-now-available-in-all-50-states

[2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/10/10/1459218/new-app-lets-you-sue-anyone-by-pressing-a-button

[3] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/startup-behind-worlds-first-robot-lawyer-to-pay-193k-for-false-ads-ftc-says/