California Passes Bill Requiring Easier Data Sharing Opt Outs

Most of the attention today has been focused on California’s controversial “kill switch” AI safety bill, which passed the California State Assembly by a 45-11 vote. However, California legislators passed another tech bill this week which requires internet browsers and mobile operating systems to offer a simple tool for consumers to easily opt out of data sharing and selling for targeted advertising. Slashdot reader awwshit shares a report from The Record: The state’s Senate passed the landmark legislation after the General Assembly approved it late Wednesday. The Senate then added amendments to the bill which now goes back to the Assembly for final sign off before it is sent to the governor’s desk, a process Matt Schwartz, a policy analyst at Consumer Reports, called a “formality.” California, long a bellwether for privacy regulation, now sets an example for other states which could offer the same protections and in doing so dramatically disrupt the online advertising ecosystem, according to Schwartz.

“If folks use it, [the new tool] could severely impact businesses that make their revenue from monetizing consumers’ data,” Schwartz said in an interview with Recorded Future News. “You could go from relatively small numbers of individuals taking advantage of this right now to potentially millions and that’s going to have a big impact.” As it stands, many Californians don’t know they have the right to opt out because the option is invisible on their browsers, a fact which Schwartz said has “artificially suppressed” the existing regulation’s intended effects. “It shouldn’t be that hard to send the universal opt out signal,” Schwartz added. “This will require [browsers and mobile operating systems] to make that setting easy to use and find.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

FTC Finalizes Rule Banning Fake Reviews, Including Those Made With AI

TechCrunch’s Lauren Forristal reports: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on Wednesday a final rule that will tackle several types of fake reviews and prohibit marketers from using deceptive practices, such as AI-generated reviews, censoring honest negative reviews and compensating third parties for positive reviews. The decision was the result of a 5-to-0 vote. The new rule will start being enforced 60 days after it’s published in the official government publication called Federal Register. […]

According to the final rule, the maximum civil penalty for fake reviews is $51,744 per violation. However, the courts could impose lower penalties depending on the specific case. “Ultimately, courts will also decide how to calculate the number of violations in a given case,” the Commission wrote. […] The FTC initially proposed the rule on June 30, 2023, following an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking issued in November 2022. You can read the finalized rule here (PDF), but we also included a summary of it below:

– No fake or disingenuous reviews. This includes AI-generated reviews and reviews from anyone who doesn’t have experience with the actual product.
– Businesses can’t sell or buy reviews, whether negative or positive.
– Company insiders writing reviews need to clearly disclose their connection to the business. Officers or managers are prohibited from giving testimonials and can’t ask employees to solicit reviews from relatives.
– Company-controlled review websites that claim to be independent aren’t allowed.
– No using legal threats, physical threats or intimidation to forcefully delete or prevent negative reviews. Businesses also can’t misrepresent that the review portion of their website comprises all or most of the reviews when it’s suppressing the negative ones.
– No selling or buying fake engagement like social media followers, likes or views obtained through bots or hacked accounts.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Can a Free Business Rent Program Revive San Francisco’s Downtown?

The New York Times visits the downtown of one of America’s biggest tech cities to explore San Francisco’s “Vacant to Vibrant” initiative, where “city and business leaders provide free rent for up to six months” to “entrepreneurs who want to set up shop in empty spaces, many of which are on the ground floor of office buildings.”

The program also offers funding for business expenses (plus technical and business permit assistance) — and it seems to be working. One cafe went on to sign a five-year lease for a space in the financial district’s iconic One Embarcadero Center building — and the building’s landlord says the program also resulted in another three long leases. Can the progress continue?

The hope is that these pop-up operations will pay rent and sign longer leases after the free-rent period is over, and that their presence will regenerate foot traffic in the area. Some 850 entrepreneurs initially applied for a slot, and 17 businesses were chosen to occupy nine storefront spaces in the fall. Out of those businesses, seven extended their leases and now pay rent. Eleven businesses were selected in May for the program’s second cohort, which started operating their storefronts this summer…

The city’s office vacancy rate hit 33.7%, a record high, in the second quarter this year, according to JLL, a commercial real estate brokerage. That’s one of the bleakest office markets in the nation, which has an average vacancy rate of about 22%. For the moment, however, San Francisco has a silver lining in Vacant to Vibrant. Rod Diehl, the BXP executive vice president who oversees its West Coast properties, said the pop-up strategy was good not just for local business owners to test their concepts and explore growth opportunities, but also for office leasing efforts… Beyond free rent, which is typically given for three months with a possibility for another three months, Vacant to Vibrant provides up to $12,000 to the businesses to help cover insurance and other expenses. The program also offers grants up to $5,000 for building owners to cover costs for tenant improvements in the spaces as well as for other expenses like utilities…

In addition to the Vacant to Vibrant program — which received $1 million from the city initially and is set to receive another $1 million for the current fiscal year, which began July 1 — the city is directing nearly $2 million toward a similar pop-up program. This new program would help businesses occupy larger empty spaces along Powell Street, as crime and other retail pressures have driven out several retailers, including Anthropologie, Banana Republic and Crate & Barrel, in the Union Square area.
One business owner who joined “Vacant to Vibrant” in May says they haven’t decided yet whether to sign a lease. “It’s not as crowded as before the pandemic.” But according to the article, “she was hopeful that more businesses opening nearby would attract more people.”

“In addition to filling empty storefronts, the program has the opportunity to bring in a fresher and more localized downtown shopping vibe, said Laurel Arvanitidis, director for business development at San Francisco’s Office of Economic and Workplace Development.”

Victor Gonzalez, an entrepreneur who founded GCS Agency to stage showings for artists, is embracing the opportunity to get a foothold downtown despite the city’s challenges. When he opened a storefront as part of the first Vacant to Vibrant cohort in the Financial District last year, he immediately knew that he wanted to stay there as long as possible. He has since signed a three-year lease. “San Francisco is no stranger to big booms and busts,” he said. “So if we’re in the midst of a bust, what’s next? It’s a boom. And I want to be positioned to be part of it.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Why DARPA is Funding an AI-Powered Bug-Spotting Challenge

Somewhere in America’s Defense Department, the DARPA R&D agency is running a two-year contest to write an AI-powered program “that can scan millions of lines of open-source code, identify security flaws and fix them, all without human intervention,” reports the Washington Post. [Alternate URL here.]

But as they see it, “The contest is one of the clearest signs to date that the government sees flaws in open-source software as one of the country’s biggest security risks, and considers artificial intelligence vital to addressing it.”

Free open-source programs, such as the Linux operating system, help run everything from websites to power stations. The code isn’t inherently worse than what’s in proprietary programs from companies like Microsoft and Oracle, but there aren’t enough skilled engineers tasked with testing it. As a result, poorly maintained free code has been at the root of some of the most expensive cybersecurity breaches of all time, including the 2017 Equifax disaster that exposed the personal information of half of all Americans. The incident, which led to the largest-ever data breach settlement, cost the company more than $1 billion in improvements and penalties.

If people can’t keep up with all the code being woven into every industrial sector, DARPA hopes machines can. “The goal is having an end-to-end ‘cyber reasoning system’ that leverages large language models to find vulnerabilities, prove that they are vulnerabilities, and patch them,” explained one of the advising professors, Arizona State’s Yan Shoshitaishvili…. Some large open-source projects are run by near-Wikipedia-size armies of volunteers and are generally in good shape. Some have maintainers who are given grants by big corporate users that turn it into a job. And then there is everything else, including programs written as homework assignments by authors who barely remember them.

“Open source has always been ‘Use at your own risk,'” said Brian Behlendorf, who started the Open Source Security Foundation after decades of maintaining a pioneering free server software, Apache, and other projects at the Apache Software Foundation. “It’s not free as in speech, or even free as in beer,” he said. “It’s free as in puppy, and it needs care and feeding.”
40 teams entered the contest, according to the article — and seven received $1 million in funding to continue on to the next round, with the finalists to be announced at this year’s Def Con, according to the article.

“Under the terms of the DARPA contest, all finalists must release their programs as open source,” the article points out, “so that software vendors and consumers will be able to run them.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

US Progressives Push For Nvidia Antitrust Investigation

Progressive groups and Senator Elizabeth Warren are urging the Department of Justice to investigate Nvidia for potential antitrust violations due to its dominant position in the AI chip market. The groups criticize Nvidia’s bundling of software and hardware, claiming it stifles innovation and locks in customers. Reuters reports: Demand Progress and nine other groups wrote a letter (PDF) this week, opens new tab urging Department of Justice antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter to probe business practices at Nvidia, whose market value hit $3 trillion this summer on demand for chips able to run the complex models behind generative AI. The groups, which oppose monopolies and promote government oversight of tech companies, among other issues, took aim at Nvidia’s bundling of software and hardware, a practice that French antitrust enforcers have flagged as they prepare to bring charges.

“This aggressively proprietary approach, which is strongly contrary to industry norms about collaboration and interoperability, acts to lock in customers and stifles innovation,” the groups wrote. Nvidia has roughly 80% of the AI chip market, including the custom AI processors made by cloud computing companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon.com. The chips made by the cloud giants are not available for sale themselves but typically rented through each platform. A spokesperson for Nvidia said: “Regulators need not be concerned, as we scrupulously adhere to all laws and ensure that NVIDIA is openly available in every cloud and on-prem for every enterprise. We’ll continue to support aspiring innovators in every industry and market and are happy to provide any information regulators need.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Are AI-Generated Search Results Still Protected by Section 230?

Starting this week millions will see AI-generated answers in Google’s search results by default. But the announcement Tuesday at Google’s annual developer conference suggests a future that’s “not without its risks, both to users and to Google itself,” argues the Washington Post:

For years, Google has been shielded for liability for linking users to bad, harmful or illegal information by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But legal experts say that shield probably won’t apply when its AI answers search questions directly. “As we all know, generative AIs hallucinate,” said James Grimmelmann, professor of digital and information law at Cornell Law School and Cornell Tech. “So when Google uses a generative AI to summarize what webpages say, and the AI gets it wrong, Google is now the source of the harmful information,” rather than just the distributor of it…

Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the nonprofit free-market think tank R Street, worries that innovation could be throttled if Congress doesn’t extend Section 230 to cover AI tools. “As AI is integrated into more consumer-facing products, the ambiguity about liability will haunt developers and investors,” he predicted. “It is particularly problematic for small AI firms and open-source AI developers, who could be decimated as frivolous legal claims accumulate.” But John Bergmayer, legal director for the digital rights nonprofit Public Knowledge, said there are real concerns that AI answers could spell doom for many of the publishers and creators that rely on search traffic to survive — and which AI, in turn, relies on for credible information. From that standpoint, he said, a liability regime that incentivizes search engines to continue sending users to third-party websites might be “a really good outcome.”

Meanwhile, some lawmakers are looking to ditch Section 230 altogether. [Last] Sunday, the top Democrat and Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a draft of a bill that would sunset the statute within 18 months, giving Congress time to craft a new liability framework in its place. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) argued that the law, which helped pave the way for social media and the modern internet, has “outlived its usefulness.”

The tech industry trade group NetChoice [which includes Google, Meta, X, and Amazon] fired back on Monday that scrapping Section 230 would “decimate small tech” and “discourage free speech online.”
The digital law professor points out Google has traditionally escaped legal liability by attributing its answers to specific sources — but it’s not just Google that has to worry about the issue. The article notes that Microsoft’s Bing search engine also supplies AI-generated answers (from Microsoft’s Copilot). “And Meta recently replaced the search bar in Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp with its own AI chatbot.”

The article also note sthat several U.S. Congressional committees are considering “a bevy” of AI bills…

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Utah Locals Are Getting Cheap 10 Gbps Fiber Thanks To Local Governments

Karl Bode writes via Techdirt: Tired of being underserved and overbilled by shitty regional broadband monopolies, back in 2002 a coalition of local Utah governments formed UTOPIA — (the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency). The inter-local agency collaborative venture then set about building an “open access” fiber network that allows any ISP to then come and compete on the shared network. Two decades later and the coalition just announced that 18 different ISPs now compete for Utah resident attention over a network that now covers 21 different Utah cities. In many instances, ISPs on the network are offering symmetrical (uncapped) gigabit fiber for as little as $45 a month (plus $30 network connection fee, so $75). Some ISPs are even offering symmetrical 10 Gbps fiber for around $150 a month: “Sumo Fiber, a veteran member of the UTOPIA Open Access Marketplace, is now offering 10 Gbps symmetrical for $119, plus a $30 UTOPIA Fiber infrastructure fee, bringing the total cost to $149 per month.”

It’s a collaborative hybrid that blurs the line between private companies and government, and it works. And the prices being offered here are significantly less than locals often pay in highly developed tech-centric urban hubs like New York, San Francisco, or Seattle. Yet giant local ISPs like Comcast and Qwest spent decades trying to either sue this network into oblivion, or using their proxy policy orgs (like the “Utah Taxpayer Association”) to falsely claim this effort would end in chaos and inevitable taxpayer tears. Yet miraculously UTOPIA is profitable, and for the last 15 years, every UTOPIA project has been paid for completely through subscriber revenues. […] For years, real world experience and several different studies and reports (including our Copia study on this concept) have made it clear that open access networks and policies result in faster, better, more affordable broadband access. UTOPIA is proving it at scale, but numerous other municipalities have been following suit with the help of COVID relief and infrastructure bill funding.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Can Technology Help Reduce Drunk-Driving Deaths?

An anonymous reader shared this report from the Wall Street Journal:
Drunken-driving deaths in the U.S. have risen to levels not seen in nearly two decades, federal data show, a major setback to long-running road-safety efforts. At the same time, arrests for driving under the influence have plummeted, as police grapple with challenges like hiring woes and heightened concern around traffic stops… About 13,500 people died in alcohol impairment-related crashes in 2022, according to data released in April by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That is 33% above 2019’s toll and on par with 2021’s. The last time so many people died as a result of accidents involving intoxicated drivers was in 2006.
That’s still down from the early 1980s, when America was seeing over 20,000 drunk-driving deaths a year, according to the article. “By 2010, that number had fallen to around 10,000 thanks to high-profile public-education campaigns by groups like MADD, tougher laws, and aggressive enforcement that included sobriety checkpoints and typically yielded well over a million DUI arrests annually.”
But some hope to solve the problem using technology:
Many activists and policymakers are banking on the promise of built-in devices to prevent a car from starting if the driver is intoxicated, either by analyzing a driver’s exhaled breath or using skin sensors to gauge the blood-alcohol level. NHTSA issued a notice in December that it said lays the groundwork for potential alcohol-impairment detection technology standards in all new cars “when the technology is mature.”
And Glenn Davis, who manages Colorado’s highway-safety office, “pointed to Colorado’s extensive use of ignition interlock systems that require people convicted of DUI to blow into a tube to verify they are sober in order for their car to start. He said the office promotes nondriving options such as Lyft and Uber.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Why Oregon’s Drug Decriminalization Failed

In 2020 Oregon passed Measure 110, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs.

But now “America’s most radical experiment with drug decriminalization has ended,” writes the Atlantic, “after more than three years of painful results.”

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek has pledged to sign legislation repealing the principal elements of the ballot initiative… Possessing hard drugs is again a crime in Oregon, and courts will return to mandating treatment for offenders. Oregonians had supported Measure 110 with 59 percent of the vote in 2020, but three years later, polling showed that 64 percent wanted some or all of it repealed…

More than $260 million were allocated to services such as naloxone distribution, employment and housing services, and voluntary treatment… Once drugs were decriminalized and destigmatized, the thinking went, those who wanted to continue using would be more willing to access harm-reduction services that helped them use in safer ways. Meanwhile, the many people who wanted to quit using drugs but had been too ashamed or fearful to seek treatment would do so. Advocates foresaw a surge of help-seeking, a reduction in drug-overdose deaths, fewer racial disparities in the health and criminal-justice systems, lower rates of incarceration, and safer neighborhoods for all…

Measure 110 did not reduce Oregon’s drug problems. The drug-overdose-death rate increased by 43 percent in 2021, its first year of implementation — and then kept rising. The latest CDC data show that in the 12 months ending in September 2023, deaths by overdose grew by 41.6 percent, versus 2.1 percent nationwide. No other state saw a higher rise in deaths… Neither did decriminalization produce a flood of help-seeking. The replacement for criminal penalties, a $100 ticket for drug possession with the fine waived if the individual called a toll-free number for a health assessment, with the aim of encouraging treatment, failed completely. More than 95 percent of people ignored the ticket, for which — in keeping with the spirit of Measure 110 — there was no consequence. The cost of the hotline worked out to about $7,000 per completed phone call, according to The Economist. These realities, as well as associated disorder such as open-air drug markets and a sharp rise in violent crime — while such crime was falling nationally — led Oregonians to rethink their drug policy.

The article notes that Oregon was the first U.S. state to decriminalize marijuana back in 1973, and had long shown low rates of imprisonment for non-violent crimes (diverting offenders into so-called “drug courts which could mandate treatment or order court-directed supervision). “However, after Measure 110 was passed and the threat of jail time eliminated, the flow of people into these programs slowed.”

But “One thing Measure 110 got right, at least in principle, is that Oregon’s addiction-treatment system was grossly underfunded,” the article concludes. And it adds that the newly-passed law now “provides extensive new funding for immediate needs, including detox facilities, sobering centers, treatment facilities, and the staff to support those services.”

They recommend other states adopt “adequately funded, evidence-based prevention and treatment” — and instead of punitive incarcerations, “use criminal justice productively to discourage drug use.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

FTC and DOJ Think McDonald’s Ice Cream Machines Should Be Legal To Fix

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have urged the US Copyright Office to broaden exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s Section 1201. Specifically, the two agencies are advocating for the extension of the right to repair to include “commercial and industrial equipment,” which includes McDonald’s ice cream machines that are notorious for breaking down. The Verge reports: Exemptions to DMCA Section 1201 are issued every three years, as per the Register of Copyrights’ recommendation. Prior exemptions have been issued for jailbreaking cellphones and repairing certain parts of video game consoles. The FTC and DOJ are asking the Copyright Office to go a step further, extending the right to repair to “commercial and industrial equipment.” The comment (PDF) singles out four distinct categories that would benefit from DMCA exemptions: commercial soft serve machines; proprietary diagnostic kits; programmable logic controllers; and enterprise IT. ‘In the Agencies’ view, renewing and expanding repair-related exemptions would promote competition in markets for replacement parts, repair, and maintenance services, as well as facilitate competition in markets for repairable products,” the comment reads.

The inability to do third-party repairs on these products not only limits competition, the agencies say, but also makes repairs more costly and can lead to hundreds or thousands of dollars in lost sales. Certain logic controllers have to be discarded and replaced if they break or if the passwords for them get lost. The average estimated cost of “unplanned manufacturing downtime” was $260,000 per hour, the comment notes, citing research from Public Knowledge and iFixit. As for soft serve machines, breakdowns can lead to $625 in lost sales each day. Business owners can’t legally fix them on their own or hire an independent technician to do so, meaning they have to wait around for an authorized technician — which, the comment says, usually takes around 90 days.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.