Agregátor RSS

** Xiaomi Router AX1500 zlevnil na 699 Kč, obvykle stojí kolem devíti stovek. ** Tento router podporuje Wi-Fi 6 a nabízí čtyři gigabitové WAN/LAN porty. ** Láká na jednoduché nastavení přes mobil a podporu mesh sítí.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has finalized an order requiring web hosting giant GoDaddy to secure its services to settle charges of data security failures that led to several data breaches since 2018. [...]

A recently patched pair of security flaws affecting Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM) software has been exploited by a China-nexus threat actor to target a wide range of sectors across Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. The vulnerabilities, tracked as CVE-2025-4427 (CVSS score: 5.3) and CVE-2025-4428 (CVSS score: 7.2), could be chained to execute arbitrary code on a Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

Turris OS má aktuálně problém s aktualizací související s ukončením podpory protokolu OCSP u certifikační autority Let's Encrypt.

It’s not enough to be secure. In today’s legal climate, you need to prove it. Whether you’re protecting a small company or managing compliance across a global enterprise, one thing is clear: cybersecurity can no longer be left to guesswork, vague frameworks, or best-effort intentions. Regulators and courts are now holding organizations accountable for how “reasonable” their security programs [email protected]

For many organizations, identity security appears to be under control. On paper, everything checks out. But new research from Cerby, based on insights from over 500 IT and security leaders, reveals a different reality: too much still depends on people—not systems—to function. In fact, fewer than 4% of security teams have fully automated their core identity workflows. Core workflows, like The Hacker Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

Cybersecurity researchers have uncovered multiple critical security vulnerabilities impacting the Versa Concerto network security and SD-WAN orchestration platform that could be exploited to take control of susceptible instances. It's worth noting that the identified shortcomings remain unpatched despite responsible disclosure on February 13, 2025, prompting a public release of the issues Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

Last year, I noted that OpenAI’s view on copyright is that it’s fine and dandy to copy, paste, and steal people’s work. OpenAI is far from alone. Anthropic, Google, and Meta all trot out the same tired old arguments: AI must be free to use copyrighted material under the legal doctrine of fair use so that they can deliver top-notch AI programs.

Further, they all claim that if the US government doesn’t let them strip-mine the work of writers, artists, and musicians, someone else will do it instead, and won’t that be awful?

Of course, the AI companies could just, you know, pay people for access to their work instead of stealing it under the cloak of improving AI, but that might slow down their leaders’ frantic dash to catch up with Elon Musk and become the world’s first trillionaire.

Horrors!

In the meantime, the median pay for a full-time writer, according to the Authors Guild, is just over $20,000 a year. Artists? $54,000 annually. And musicians? $50,000. Those numbers are all on the high side, by the way. They’re for full-time professionals, and there are far more part-timers in these fields than people who make, or try to make, a living from being a creative.

What? You think we’re rich? Please. For every Stephen King, Jeff Koons, or Taylor Swift, there are a thousand people whose names you’ll never know. And, as hard as these folks have it now, AI firms are determined that creative professionals will never see a penny from their work being used as the ore from which the companies will refine billions.

Some people are standing up for their rights. Publishing companies such as the New York Times and Universal Music, as well as nonprofit organizations like the Independent Society of Musicians, are all fighting for creatives to be paid. Publishers, in particular, are not always aligned with writers and musicians, but at least they’re trying to force the AI giants to pay something.

At least part of the US government is also standing up for copyright rights. “Making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries,” the US Copyright Office declared in a recent report.

Personally, I’d use a lot stronger language, but it’s something.

Of course, President Donald Trump immediately fired the head of the Copyright Office. Her days were probably numbered anyway. Earlier, the office had declared that copyright should only be granted to AI-assisted works based on the “centrality of human creativity.”

“Wait, wait,” I hear you saying, “why would that tick off Trump’s AI allies?” Oh, you see, while the AI giants want to use your work for free; they want their “works” protected.

Remember the Chinese AI company DeepSeek, which scared the pants off OpenAI for a while? OpenAI claimed DeepSeek had “inappropriately distilled” its models. “We take aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology and will continue working closely with the US government to protect the most capable models being built here,” the company said.

In short, OpenAI wants to have it both ways. The company wants to be free to Hoover down your work, but you can’t take its “creations.”

OpenAI recently spelled out its preferred policy in a fawning letter to Trump’s Office of Science and Technology. In it, OpenAI says, “we must ensure that people have freedom of intelligence, by which we mean the freedom to access and benefit from AGI [artificial general intelligence], protected from both autocratic powers that would take people’s freedoms away, and layers of laws and bureaucracy that would prevent our realizing them.”

For laws and bureaucracy, read copyright and the right of people to be paid for their intellectual work.

As with so many things in US government these days, we won’t be able to depend on government agencies to protect writers, artists, and musicians, with Trump firing any and all who disagree with him. Instead, we must rely on court rulings.

In some cases, such as Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, the actual legal definition of copyright and fair use has found that wholesale copying of copyrighted material for AI training can constitute infringement, especially when it harms the market for the original works and is not sufficiently transformative. Hopefully, other lawsuits against companies like Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic will show that their AI outputs are unlawfully competing with original works.

As lawsuits proceed and new regulations are debated, the relationship between AI and copyright law will continue to evolve. If it comes out the right way, AI can still be useful and profitable, even as the AI companies do their damnedest to avoid paying anyone for the work their large language models (LLMs) run on.

If the courts can’t hold the wall for true creativity, we may wind up drowning in pale imitations of it, with each successive wave farther from the real thing.

This potential watering down of creativity is a lot like the erosion of independent thinking that science fiction writer Neal Stephenson noted recently: “I follow conversations among professional educators who all report the same phenomenon, which is that their students use ChatGPT for everything, and in consequence learn nothing. We may end up with at least one generation of people who are like the Eloi in H.G. Wells’s The Time Machine, in that they are mental weaklings utterly dependent on technologies that they don’t understand and that they could never rebuild from scratch were they to break down.”

This week, more than 140 civil rights and consumer protection organizations signed a letter to Congress opposing legislation that would preempt state and local laws governing artificial intelligence (AI) for the next decade.

House Republicans last week added a broad 10-year ban on state and local AI regulations to the Budget Reconciliation Bill that’s currently being debated in the House. The bill would prevent state and local oversight without providing federal alternatives.

This year alone, about two-thirds of US states have proposed or enacted more than 500 laws governing AI technology. If passed, the federal bill would stop those laws from being enforced.

The nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) joined the other organizations in signing the opposition letter, which warns that removing AI protections leaves Americans vulnerable to current and emerging AI risks.

Travis Hall, the CDT’s director for state engagement, answered questions posed by Computerworld to help determine the impact of the House Reconciliation Bill’s moratorium on AI regulations.

Why is regulating AI important, and what are the potential dangers it poses without oversight? AI is a tool that can be used for significant good, but it can and already has been used for fraud and abuse, as well as in ways that can cause real harm, both intentional and unintentional — as was thoroughly discussed in the House’s own bipartisan AI Task Force Report.

These harms can range from impacting employment opportunities and workers’ rights to threatening accuracy in medical diagnoses or criminal sentencing, and many current laws have gaps and loopholes that leave AI uses in gray areas. Refusing to enact reasonable regulations places AI developers and deployers into a lawless and unaccountable zone, which will ultimately undermine the trust of the public in their continued development and use.

How do you regulate something as potentially ubiquitous as AI? There are multiple levels at which AI can be regulated. The first is through the application of sectoral laws and regulations, providing specific rules or guidance for particular use cases such as health, education, or public sector use. Regulations in these spaces are often already well established but need to be refined to adapt to the introduction of AI.

The second is that there can be general rules regarding things like transparency and accountability, which incentivize responsible behavior across the AI chain (developers, deployers, users) and can ensure that core values like privacy and security are baked in.

Why do you think the House Republicans have proposed banning states from regulating AI for such a long period of time? Proponents of the 10-year moratorium have argued that it would prevent a patchwork of regulations that could hinder the development of these technologies, and that Congress is the proper body to put rules in place.

But Congress thus far has refused to establish such a framework, and instead it’s proposing to prevent any protections at any level of government, completely abdicating its responsibility to address the serious harms we know AI can cause.

It is a gift to the largest technology companies at the expense of users — small or large — who increasingly rely on their services, as well as the American public who will be subject to unaccountable and inscrutable systems. 

Can you describe some of the state statutes you believe are most important to safeguarding Americans from potential AI harms? There are a range of statutes that would be overturned, including laws that govern how state and local officials themselves procure and use these technologies.

Red and blue states alike — including Arkansas, Kentucky, and Montana — have passed bills governing the public sector’s AI procurement and use. Several states, including Colorado, Illinois, and Utah, have consumer protection and civil rights laws governing AI or automated decision systems.

This bill undermines states’ ability to enforce longstanding laws that protect their residents or to clarify how they should apply to these new technologies.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, warns that a patchwork of state AI laws causes confusion. But should a single federal rule apply equally to rural towns and tech hubs? How can we balance national standards with local needs? The blanket preemption assumes that all of these communities are best served with no governance of AI or automated decision systems — or, more cynically, that the short-term financial interests of companies that develop and deploy AI tools should take precedence over the civil rights and economic interests of ordinary people.

While there can be a reasoned discussion about what issues need uniform rules across the country and which allow flexibility for state and local officials to set rules (an easy one would be regarding their own procurement of systems), what is being proposed is a blanket ban on state and local rules with no federal regulations in place. 

Further, we have not seen, nor are we likely to see, a significant “patchwork” of protections throughout the country. The same arguments were made in the state privacy context as well, by, with one exception, states that have passed identical or nearly-identical laws, mostly written by industry. Preempting state laws to avoid a patchwork system that’s unlikely to ever exist is simply bad policy and will cause more needless harm to consumers.

Proponents of the state AI regulation moratorium have compared it to the Internet Tax Freedom Act — the “internet tax moratorium,” which helped the internet flourish in its early days. Why don’t you believe the same could be true for AI? There are a couple of key differences between the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the proposed moratorium. 

First, what was being developed in the 1990s was a unified, connected, global internet. Splintering the internet into silos was (and, to be frank, still is) a real danger to the fundamental feature of the platform that allowed it to thrive. The same is not true for AI systems and models, which are a diverse set of technologies and services which are regularly customized to respond to particular use cases and needs. Having diverse sets of regulatory responsibilities is not the same threat to AI the way that it was to the nascent internet.

Second, removal of potential taxation as a means of spurring commerce is wholly different from removing consumer protections. The former encourages participation by lowering prices, while the latter adds significant cost in the form of dealing with fraud, abuse, and real-world harm. 

In short, there is a massive difference between stating that an ill-defined suite of technologies is off limits from any type of intervention at the state and local level and trying to help bolster a nascent and global platform through tax incentives.

** Seznam do Emailu nasadí velký jazykový model SeLLMa. ** Nejprve bude na kliknutí generovat předmět zprávy. ** V budoucnu začne tvořit souhrny, překládat nebo kontrolovat pravopis.

​Signal has updated its Windows app to protect users' privacy by blocking Microsoft's AI-powered Recall feature from taking screenshots of their conversations. [...]

O tyčových vysavačích nepíšeme na VTM zrovna každý den, tento si ale nemůžeme nechat ujít, Dyson je totiž stále silnější lovebrand i v Česku. A nejen u nás, když totiž britská fabrika před pár hodinami vyrukovala s novým modelem PencilVac , tak trošku zbořila internety a tenká tyčka na baterky se ...

Parents and teachers have personal info, ID documents leaked online, but exam season mostly unaffected

Scotland's West Lothian Council has confirmed that data was stolen from its education network after the Interlock ransomware group claimed responsibility for the intrusion earlier this month.…

Critical vulnerabilities in Versa Concerto that are still unpatched could allow remote attackers to bypass authentication and execute arbitrary code on affected systems. [...]

** Na Apple Maps jsou nyní dostupné cyklistické trasy po celém Česku. ** Novinka je dostupná pro všechna jablečná zařízení včetně Apple Watch. ** Cyklisté ale nespíš nebudou spokojení, protože to Apple pořádně nedomyslel.

A sprawling operation undertaken by global law enforcement agencies and a consortium of private sector firms has disrupted the online infrastructure associated with a commodity information stealer known as Lumma (aka LummaC or LummaC2), seizing 2,300 domains that acted as the command-and-control (C2) backbone to commandeer infected Windows systems. "Malware like LummaC2 is deployed to steal Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

Po třech měsících od úspěšného vydání tady máme první příběhové rozšíření Kingdom Come 2. Barvy smrti se nesnaží vymýšlet nic převratného, nabízí ale slušnou porci obsahu s humorem i výstředními postavami.

AMD zveřejnila, kdy dojde k vydání a specifikace. Ty stojí za pozornost, neboť zatímco u většiny produktů se Zen 5 takty oproti Zen 4 klesly nebo zůstaly, Threadripper je zvyšuje…