Apple Device Analytics Contain Identifying iCloud User Data, Claim Security Researchers

A new analysis has claimed that Apple’s device analytics contain information that can directly link information about how a device is used, its performance, features, and more, directly to a specific user, despite Apple’s claims otherwise. MacRumors reports: On Twitter, security researchers Tommy Mysk and Talal Haj Bakry have found that Apple’s device analytics data includes an ID called “dsId,” which stands for Directory Services Identifier. The analysis found that the dsId identifier is unique to every iCloud account and can be linked directly to a specific user, including their name, date of birth, email, and associated information stored on iCloud.

On Apple’s device analytics and privacy legal page, the company says no information collected from a device for analytics purposes is traceable back to a specific user. “iPhone Analytics may include details about hardware and operating system specifications, performance statistics, and data about how you use your devices and applications. None of the collected information identifies you personally,” the company claims. In one possible differentiator, Apple says that if a user agrees to send analytics information from multiple devices logged onto the same iCloud account, it may “correlate some usage data about Apple apps across those devices by syncing using end-to-end encryption.” Even in doing so, however, Apple says the user remains unidentifiable to Apple. We’ve reached out to Apple for comment.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

FTX Owes Nearly $3.1 Billion to Top 50 of Its 1M Creditors. Celebrity Endorsers Sued

ABC News reports:

The cryptocurrency exchange FTX owes creditors $3.1 billion, according to court documents filed late Saturday night….

Creditors’ names were not listed on the court filing, but the largest is owed $226,280,579, .

As part of its bankruptcy proceedings, FTX was required to list to the court its 50 largest creditors — either individuals or corporations — who are owed money. The second largest entity is owed $203,292,504, the court filing shows.

A video at the top of the article from ABC News adds that several celebrities “are being sued by a man who invested in the now-bankrupt crypto exchange… The lawyer behind the class claims that FTX was a massive ponzi scheme, only successful because it had a boost from celebrities.”

Meanwhile CNN adds that FTX “owes about $1.45 billion to its top ten creditors, it said in a court filing on Saturday, without naming them.”

The crypto exchange said on Saturday it has launched a strategic review of its global assets and is preparing for the sale or reorganization of some businesses. A hearing on FTX’s so-called first-day motions is set for Tuesday morning before a US bankruptcy judge, according to a separate court filing….

There could be more than 1 million creditors in the US cases that are already filed, FTX Group said, adding that it has been in touch with “dozens” of US and international regulatory agencies including the US Attorney’s Office, the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Meanwhile, authorities in the Bahamas — where FTX is based — are investigating whether any criminal misconduct occurred related to the company’s implosion, the Royal Bahamas Police Force said in a statement last Sunday. The Bahamian authorities have also taken control of cryptocurrency assets held by FTX Digital Markets, The Bahamas-based FTX unit that filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection Tuesday.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Debate at COP27: Nuclear Energy, Climate Friend or Foe?

Long-time Slashdot reader gordm shares an interesting video from the United Nations Climate Change Conference. “At COP27, Tobias Holle (activist with Youth Strike for Climate) debated Mark Nelson (founder of Radiant Energy Fund) as to whether nuclear power can help us tackle climate change.”

The event took place at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s “Atoms for Climate” pavillion, where the IAEA’s climate advisor presented the debate’s topic as “Nuclear Energy: Climate Friend or Foe?” (and introduced the two debaters as “enthusiastic young climate champions”). The Youth Strike for Climate activist objected to commiting humanity to 1 million years of maintaining nuclear waste. But he also argued that extreme weather was creating additional security risks, that the per-kilowatt hour cost was economically prohibitive, that nuclear plants were politically unpopular — and that anyways, they take too long to build giving our current climate crisis. “We need fast solutions.”

The Radiant Energy founder disagreed, arguing over specific statistics and insisting that nuclear energy should be considered a low-carbon energy solution, and also safe. (He pointed out that Chernobyl’s nuclear plant actually continued operating for 14 years after its 1986 nuclear accident.) Interestingly he also argued that in the Netherlands there’s a museum of nuclear waste — a science museum attached to their nuclear facility — “where they don’t just have the high-level waste, they have the highest part of high-level waste, the most dangerous isotopes, separated from the nuclear fuel. The most radioactive stuff — very hot for 500 years — and they have a tour where you can walk over it, and you can feel the warmth from the floor from the radioactive isotopes….

“You can absolutely manage the safe, secure, and even educational storage of the most radioactive isotopes… We know very well how to manage it.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Did the Pandemic Change Our Attitudes About Work?

Through 2020 America’s professional lives “had taken on the overtones of a secular religion,” argues a writer in the Washington Post, with jobs forming “a primary way to find meaning in the world and a crucial part of our identity…. Even precarious, low-paying gigs were valorized as ‘hustle culture,’ representing freedom to perform labor on our terms.”

But then…

Fast-forward to fall 2022. The number of people quitting, while down from the peak, remains at the highest level since the 1970s. White-collar workers don’t want to give up working remotely. Low-paying sectors such as the hospitality industry can’t find enough people willing to work for the wages on offer. Union organizing and strikes have been on an upswing…. [W]hat’s increasingly clear is that the March 2020 decision to partially close down the American economy shattered Americans’ dysfunctional, profoundly unequal relationship with work like nothing in decades. And even if there was great discomfort in a shutdown that severed almost every one of us from assumptions about how we earn a living, we also found an unexpected opportunity: to remake our relationship with the labor that fills our days….

All of it — the lockdowns, the disease, the sudden change in household functioning and how or whether we worked at all — amounted to a massive psychological shock, leading many to ask why labor looms so large in our psyches. “It really was an opportunity — an unwelcome opportunity — to take a look at the mad scramble that many of us have just assumed was normal,” said Kate Shindle, who as president of the Actors’ Equity Association represents a particularly hard-hit industry. Then, when the economy unexpectedly boomed back, Americans were poised to pivot. As many had recognized, it was one thing to seek meaning in work but another to see our lives subsumed by it — and for what? A less-than-adequate paycheck? A job that could literally kill you? “Maybe the poor safety net really kept people from analyzing the role of work in their lives,” David Blustein, author of “The Importance of Work in an Age of Uncertainty” and a professor at Boston College’s Lynch School of Education and Human Development, told me. “Maybe the American work ethic was a form of survival….”

Over and over, when people spoke to journalists, including me, about why they made changes in their professional lives since March 2020, they told us they liked receiving better wages when they switched employers. But even more, they wanted greater control over the terms of their labor…. An increased level of remote work, likely in a hybrid format, is almost certainly here to stay, says Nick Bloom, a professor of economics at Stanford University, who has studied the topic for decades. Employees want it, technological advances continue to make it easier, and companies that forbid it completely are likely to find themselves at a disadvantage….

The past two and a half years brought immense upheaval, and we’ll be struggling to process the resulting changes for years. But it’s undeniable that some of these shifts were long overdue. Workers are highly unlikely to forget what we learned: namely, that our jobs are much more flexible than we thought.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Chinese Takeover of UK’s Largest Chip Plant Blocked on National Security Grounds

Slashdot has been covering plans for the UK’s largest chip plant to be acquired by Chinese-owned firm Nexperia.

But this week the U.K. government “has blocked the takeover of the country’s largest microchip factory by a Chinese-owned firm,” CNBC reported this week, “over concerns it may undermine national security.”

Grant Shapps, minister for business, energy and industrial strategy, on Wednesday ordered Dutch chipmaker Nexperia to sell its majority stake in Newport Wafer Fab, the Welsh semiconductor firm it acquired for £63 million ($75 million).

Nexperia is based in the Netherlands but owned by Wingtech, a partially Chinese state-backed company listed in Shanghai. Nexperia completed its acquisition of Newport Wafer Fab in 2021, and the firm subsequently changed its name to Nexperia Newport Limited, or NN.

“The order has the effect of requiring Nexperia BV to sell at least 86% of NNL within a specified period and by following a specified process,” the United Kingdom’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said in a statement. Nexperia had initially owned 14% of Newport Wafer Fab, but in July 2021 it upped its stake to 100%.

“We welcome foreign trade & investment that supports growth and jobs,” Shapps tweeted Wednesday. “But where we identify a risk to national security we will act decisively.”

Nexperia plans to appeal the decision.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Do Screens Before Bedtime Actually Improve Your Sleep?

Having trouble falling asleep, a writer for Vulture pondered a study from February in the Journal of Sleep Research that “runs refreshingly counter to common sleep-and-screens wisdom.”

For years, science and conventional wisdom have stated unequivocally that looking at a device — like a smartphone, tablet, laptop, or television — before bed is akin to lighting years of your natural life on fire, then letting the flames consume your children, your community, and the very concept of human progress….

Specifically interested in the use of “entertainment media” (streaming services, video games, podcasts) before bed, [the new February study’s] researchers asked a group of 58 adults to keep a sleep diary and found that, if participants consumed entertainment media in the hour before bed, the habit was associated with an earlier bedtime as well as more sleep overall (though the benefits diminished if participants binged for longer than an hour or multitasked on their phones). Essentially, these researchers explored screen use before bed as a form of relaxation rather than a form of self-harm, which is exactly how I and probably 5 billion other people use it — as a way of distracting our minds from the onslaught of material reality just before we drift off to temporary oblivion.

Vulture’s writer interviews Dr. Morgan Ellithorpe, one of the authors of the Journal of Sleep Research study and an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Delaware who specializes in media psychology.

Dr. Ellithorpe is a proponent of intentional media use as a way to relieve stress, but she tells me that, in her research, she’s found that the worst types of media to absorb before bed are those that have no “stopping point” — Instagram, TikTok, shows designed to be binge-watched. If you intend to binge a show, that might be fine: “Making a plan and sticking to it seems to matter,” she says. We agree that humans are famously bad at that, and that’s where the problems begin. The solution, Dr. Ellithorpe says, is figuring out why we’re on our screens and if that reason is “meaningful.” Are we turning to a screen in order to recover from an eventful day? Because we want something to talk about with our friends? Because we’re seeking, as she puts it, a moment of “hedonic enjoyment”? The key is that you must be able to recognize when that need is fulfilled. Then “you’re likely to have a good experience, and you won’t need to force yourself to stop. But it takes practice.”

Dr. Ellithorpe cites several studies for me to review — on gratification, mood-management theory, selective exposure, and self-determination theory — all of which, to various extents, grapple with the notion that human beings can make decisions to use media for purposeful things. “There’s this push now to realize that people aren’t a monolith, and media uses that seem bad for some people can actually be really good for other people.” Although many researchers like Dr. Ellithorpe and her cohort are onboard with this push, she admits that “the movement has not filtered out to the public yet. So the public is still on this kick of ‘Oh, media’s bad.'”

And that’s a huge part of the issue. “We sabotage ourselves when it comes to benefiting from media because we’ve been taught in our society to feel guilty for spending leisure time with media,” Dr. Ellithorpe says. “The research in this area suggests that people who want to use media to recover from stress, if they then feel bad about doing so, they don’t actually get the benefit from the media use.”

But even Dr. Ellithorpe is prone to unintentional sleep moralizing, saying she is often “bad” and “on her phone two seconds before I turn off the light.” She recommends watching a “low-challenge show” before bed and, like Dr. Kennedy, cites Stranger Things specifically as a dangerous pre-bed content choice because “you have to keep track of all the characters, remember what happened three seasons ago, and it’s emotionally charged. It might be difficult afterward to come down from that and go to bed.” In the end, she suggests watching whatever you want as long as it doesn’t delay your bedtime.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.