Connect with us

Technology

The Trump campaign hacking scandal and leak resembles a repeat of 2016. This time, the media is reacting differently

Published

on

Trump campaign hack-and-leak appears like a rerun of 2016. This time, media outlets are responding differently

This weekend Politico dropped an information bomb:An individual using only the name “Robert” provided the editorial staff with documents allegedly stolen from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Since then now we have learned that New York Times AND The Washington Post I also heard from the same person and received several stolen documents. The document dump has the characteristics of a hack and leak operation, which usually involves malicious hackers stealing confidential information and strategically revealing it to harm the goal of the hack. The FBI said it was investigating the hack. Trump himself he accused Iran’s government about the breach. Longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone said his email account was breached, which likely began the whole operation, based on anonymous people who spoke to The Washington Post.

If this all sounds familiar, it’s because a nearly similar hack-and-leak operation before the US election happened before and will inevitably occur again. It’s value going back in time to the previous hack-and-leak operation to spotlight what we learned then and how those lessons apply now.

In the summer of 2016, a hacker who introduced himself as Guccifer 2.0 and described himself as a Romanian “hacker, manager, philosopher (and) woman lover” claimed to be behind the Democratic National Committee break-in. This got here as a surprise, as cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike he accused Russian intelligence agency behind the hack. In an ironic twist, Roger Stone, meanwhile, publicly disclosed was involved with Guccifer 2.0 and joined the hacker’s claims that he was attacking Democrats.

But because it turned out, after I began asking Guccifer 2.0 some specific questions in 2016, their mask quickly began to fallTwo years later, the FBI confirmed that Guccifer 2.0 was not the only Romanian hacker, but a person controlled by two agents working for the Russian military intelligence unit, the Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU. While I I pat myself on the backI also wish to be clear that in some ways it was easier for me to deal with Guccifer 2.0, his identity, and his motivations, than on the leaked documents, just because I used to be (and still am) a reporter covering cybersecurity moderately than politics.

At this point, and on this latest case, it’s unclear who “Robert” really is. However, early signs point to a repeat of the Guccifer 2.0 situation.

The day before the Politico report on the attack on Trump was published, Microsoft it was revealed that a hacking group supported by the Iranian government “sent a spear-phishing email in June to a high-ranking presidential campaign official from the compromised email account of a former senior adviser.” Microsoft didn’t say what the campaign was or name the “former senior adviser” who was targeted, but sources later said, The Washington Post AND Political that the FBI has been investigating the hacking of the Trump campaign since June.

IN latest report on wednesdayGoogle’s Threat Analysis Group, which studies hackers and government-backed threats, agreed with most of Microsoft’s assessment. Google said it had evidence that Iran-backed hackers were behind attacks on the personal email accounts of about a dozen people related to President Biden and former President Trump back in May.

To summarize: It appears that Iranian government hackers could have hacked Stone, used his email address to then goal and infiltrate the Trump campaign, stolen certain documents (to this point, we only learn about files related to the vetting process for Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance), and finally used someone named Robert to contact reporters in the hopes that they’d look into the leaked documents.

Contact us

Do you may have more details about the Trump campaign hack? Or other politically motivated hacks? From a non-work device, you’ll be able to safely contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai on Signal at +1 917 257 1382 or on Telegram and Keybase @lorenzofb or email. You can even contact TechCrunch via SecureDrop.

The difference from what happened in 2016 is how the media is presenting the whole story.

During this time, countless media outlets acquired Guccifer 2.0’s documents, and later also the stolen ones. from Hillary Clinton’s then campaign manager, John Podesta — and published stories that essentially reinforced the message the Russian government wanted the American public to deal with, namely allegations of corruption and abuse. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote a 2016 book about the hacking campaigns, he told the Associated Press this week it was found that the media had distorted some of the leaks in 2016 in a way that hurt Clinton greater than it must have.

This time, initial coverage of the Trump campaign hack and leak focused on the hack and leak itself, moderately than what was leaked, a undeniable fact that disinformation experts have praised.

“Politico and (its reporter) Alex Isenstadt deserve a lot of credit for turning this story into a story about a (weak, it seems) foreign disinformation effort, rather than reporting on leaked Trump campaign documents themselves.” Thomas Rid saidprofessor at Johns Hopkins and someone who closely monitored 2016 Russian hacking and disinformation campaign

It is essential to notice that this might all change, perhaps if or when “Robert” decides to disclose something that the media deems more newsworthy. It is also essential to keep in mind that as my former colleague Joseph Cox said written a few years agowere many matters hackers leaky information that was in the public interest. The data from these hacks and leaks deserved to be discussed and reported. That could also be true this time, too.

Regardless, it is essential for journalists to offer the full context of hacking and leak operations, whether or not they are carried out by hackers working for governments attempting to undermine elections or specific presidential candidates, or by hacktivists with well-intentioned intentions.

When Politico asked the hacker how he obtained the documents, Robert supposedly said: “I suggest you do not inquire where I got them from. Any answer to that question will compromise me and also legally prevent you from publishing them.”

Perhaps Robert himself knows that this time the journalists have drawn conclusions.

This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Technology

Bluesky addresses trust and security issues related to abuse, spam and more

Published

on

By

Bluesky butterfly logo and Jay Graber

Social media startup Bluesky, which is constructing a decentralized alternative to X (formerly Twitter), provided an update Wednesday on the way it’s approaching various trust and security issues on its platform. The company is in various stages of developing and piloting a variety of initiatives focused on coping with bad actors, harassment, spam, fake accounts, video security and more.

To address malicious users or those that harass others, Bluesky says it’s developing recent tools that can have the option to detect when multiple recent accounts are created and managed by the identical person. This could help curb harassment when a foul actor creates several different personas to attack their victims.

Another recent experiment will help detect “rude” replies and forward them to server moderators. Like Mastodon, Bluesky will support a network where self-hosters and other developers can run their very own servers that connect to Bluesky’s server and others on the network. This federation capability is still in early access. But in the long term, server moderators will have the option to resolve how they need to take care of individuals who post rude responses. In the meantime, Bluesky will eventually reduce the visibility of those responses on its app. Repeated rude labels on content will even lead to account-level labels and suspensions, it says.

To curb using lists to harass others, Bluesky will remove individual users from the list in the event that they block the list creator. Similar functionality was recently introduced to Starter Packs, a sort of shared list that will help recent users find people to follow on the platform (check TechCrunch Starter Pack).

Bluesky will even scan lists with offensive names or descriptions to limit the potential of harassing others by adding them to a public list with a toxic or offensive name or description. Those who violate Bluesky’s Community Guidelines might be hidden from the app until the list owner makes changes that align with Bluesky’s policies. Users who proceed to create offensive lists will even face further motion, though the corporate didn’t provide details, adding that the lists are still an area of ​​energetic discussion and development.

In the approaching months, Bluesky also intends to move to handling moderation reports through its app, using notifications relatively than counting on email reports.

To combat spam and other fake accounts, Bluesky is launching a pilot that can attempt to routinely detect when an account is fake, scamming or sending spam to users. Combined with moderation, the goal is to have the option to take motion on accounts inside “seconds of receiving a report,” the corporate said.

One of the more interesting developments is how Bluesky will comply with local laws while still allowing free speech. It will use geotags that allow it to hide some content from users in a particular area to comply with the law.

“This allows Bluesky’s moderation service to maintain flexibility in creating spaces for free expression while also ensuring legal compliance so that Bluesky can continue to operate as a service in these geographic regions,” the corporate shared in a blog post. “This feature will be rolled out on a country-by-country basis, and we will endeavor to inform users of the source of legal requests when legally possible.”

To address potential trust and safety issues with videos which have recently been added, the team is adding features like the flexibility to disable autoplay, ensuring videos are labeled, and providing the flexibility to report videos. They are still evaluating what else might need to be added, which might be prioritized based on user feedback.

When it comes to abuse, the corporate says its general framework is “a question of how often something happens versus how harmful it is.” The company focuses on addressing high-impact, high-frequency issues, in addition to “tracking edge cases that could result in significant harm to a few users.” The latter, while only affecting a small number of individuals, causes enough “ongoing harm” that Bluesky will take motion to prevent abuse, it says.

User concerns will be reported via reports, emails and mentions @safety.bsky.app account.

This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading

Technology

Apple Airpods Now With FDA-Approved Hearing Aid Feature

Published

on

By

The newest AirPods are a part of a growing group of hearing aids available over-the-counter.


Apple’s latest Airpods could help those with hearing impairments. The tech company’s software update has been approved by the FDA to be used as hearing aids.

The FDA approved Apple’s hearing aid feature on September 12. The free update, available on AirPods Pro 2, will amplify sounds for the hearing impaired. However, the feature is simply available to adults 18 and older with an iPhone or iPad compatible with iOS 18.

“Today’s approval of over-the-counter hearing aid software for a commonly used consumer audio product is another step that will increase the availability, affordability, and acceptability of hearing support for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss,” said Dr. Michelle Tarver, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in a press release. obtained by .

They confirmed the feature’s use after a clinical trial with 118 participants. The results showed that users “achieved similar perceived benefits to those who received a professional fit on the same device.” Apple also announced the brand new development just days before the agency’s approval.

“Hearing health is an essential part of our overall well-being, yet it is often overlooked — in fact, according to Apple’s Hearing Study, as many as 75 percent of people diagnosed with hearing loss go untreated,” said Sumbul Desai, MD, vice chairman of Health at Apple. press release“We’re excited to deliver breakthrough software features in AirPods Pro that put users’ hearing health first, offering new ways to test and get help for hearing loss.”

What’s more, Apple intends its recent AirPods to supply a “world-first” hearing health experience. Noting that 1.5 billion people suffer from hearing loss, the device also goals to forestall and detect hearing problems.

“Your AirPods Pro will transform into your own personalized hearing aid, amplifying the specific sounds you need in real time, such as parts of speech or elements of your environment,” Desai added in a video announcing the event.

The latest AirPods are a part of a growing variety of over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids. They usually are not only more accessible, but additionally significantly cheaper than prescription medical devices. While they’re designed for individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss, they’ll initially treat those with limited abilities.

AirPods Pro 2 is available now for $249.


This article was originally published on : www.blackenterprise.com
Continue Reading

Technology

LinkedIn collected user data for training purposes before updating its terms of service

Published

on

By

LinkedIn scraped user data for training before updating its terms of service

LinkedIn could have trained AI models on user data without updating its terms.

LinkedIn users within the United States — but not within the EU, EEA, or Switzerland, likely as a consequence of data privacy laws in those regions — have the choice to opt out toggle on the settings screen, revealing that LinkedIn collects personal data to coach “AI models to create content.” The toggle isn’t recent. But, as in early reported According to 404 Media, LinkedIn didn’t initially update its privacy policy to handle data use.

The Terms of Service have already been published. updatedbut that sometimes happens well before an enormous change, equivalent to using user data for a brand new purpose like this. The idea is that this offers users the choice to make changes to their account or leave the platform in the event that they do not like the changes. It looks like that is not the case this time.

So what models does LinkedIn train? Its own, the corporate’s says in a Q&A session, including models to put in writing suggestions and post recommendations. But LinkedIn also says that generative AI models on its platform could be trained by a “third-party vendor,” equivalent to its corporate parent Microsoft.

“As with most features on LinkedIn, when you use our platform, we collect and use (or process) data about your use of the platform, including personal data,” the Q&A reads. “This may include your use of generative AI (AI models used to create content) or other AI features, your posts and articles, how often you use LinkedIn, your language preferences, and any feedback you may have provided to our teams. We use this data, in accordance with our privacy policy, to improve or develop the LinkedIn Services.”

LinkedIn previously told TechCrunch that it uses “privacy-enhancing techniques, including redaction and removal of information, to limit personally identifiable information contained in datasets used to train generative AI.”

To opt out of LinkedIn’s data collection, go to the “Data Privacy” section of the LinkedIn settings menu in your computer, click “Data to improve Generative AI,” after which turn off “Use my data to train AI models to create content.” You may try a more comprehensive opt-out through this typebut LinkedIn notes that opting out is not going to affect training that has already taken place.

The nonprofit Open Rights Group (ORG) has asked the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the UK’s independent regulator for data protection laws, to research LinkedIn and other social networks that train on user data by default. Earlier this week, Meta announced it was resuming plans to gather user data for AI training after working with the ICO to simplify the opt-out process.

“LinkedIn is the latest social media company to process our data without asking for our consent,” Mariano delli Santi, a lawyer and policy officer at ORG, said in a press release. “The opt-out model once again proves to be completely inadequate to protect our rights: society cannot be expected to monitor and prosecute every internet company that decides to use our data to train AI. Opt-in consent is not only legally required, but also common sense.”

The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), the supervisory authority responsible for monitoring compliance with the GDPR, the EU’s general privacy rules, told TechCrunch that LinkedIn had last week announced that clarifications on its global privacy policy could be published today.

“LinkedIn has informed us that the policy will include an opt-out setting for members who do not want their data used to train AI models that generate content,” a DPC spokesperson said. “This opt-out is not available to EU/EEA members, as LinkedIn does not currently use EU/EEA member data to train or tune these models.”

TechCrunch has reached out to LinkedIn for comment. We will update this text if we hear back.

The need for more data to coach generative AI models has led to more platforms repurposing or otherwise repurposing their vast troves of user-generated content. Some have even taken steps to monetize that content—Tumblr owner Automattic, Photobucket, Reddit, and Stack Overflow are among the many networks licensing data to AI model developers.

Not all of them made opting out easy. When Stack Overflow announced it will begin licensing content, several users deleted their posts in protest — only to see those posts restored and their accounts suspended.

This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending