July 2022


Meta on Tuesday took a step towards abandoning its policy of removing misinformation about COVID from its platform.

The company, which owns Facebook and Instagram, is asking its oversight board for an advisory opinion on whether measures to eliminate dangerous COVID-19 misinformation should be continued or revised.

In an online posting, META’s president for global affairs Nick Clegg explained that the company’s harmful information policies were expanded at the start of the pandemic in 2020 to remove entire categories of false claims worldwide. Prior to that time, content was removed from Meta’s platform only if it contributed to the risk of imminent physical harm.

“As a result,” Clegg wrote, “meta has removed COVID-19 misinformation on an unprecedented scale. Globally, more than 25 million pieces of content have been removed since the start of the pandemic.”

However, Meta suggests that it may be time to change its COVID misinformation policy.

“We are requesting an advisory opinion from the Oversight Board as to whether META’s current measures to address COVID-19 misinformation under our Harmful Health Misinformation Policy are appropriate, or whether we should be able to disseminate this misinformation through other means. should be addressed, such as labeling or demoting it, either directly or through our third-party fact-checking program,” Clegg said.

fading emergency

Meta’s COVID misinformation policies were adopted during a state of emergency that called for drastic measures, said Will Duffield, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a Washington, DC think tank whose vice president, John Sample, oversight on the board. Yes, explained. “Now, three years later, the spirit of emergency has faded,” he told TechNewsWorld.

“There’s a lot of health information out there,” he said. “If people believe ridiculous things about the efficacy of vaccines or certain treatments, it’s more on them now and less of a consequence of a mixed information environment where people don’t yet know what’s true.”

“This was an unprecedented step to entrust the policy to global health organizations and local health authorities,” he said. “At some point, some of them had to be clawed back. You can’t have a state of emergency that lasts forever so it’s an effort to start unwinding the process.”

global impact

Is the opening process starting too soon?

“In the developed world, vaccinations are almost universal. As a result, while caseloads remain high, the number of serious illness and deaths is quite low,” said Dan Kennedy, a professor of journalism at Northeastern University in Boston.

“But in the rest of the world, where there are countries where Facebook is a bigger deal than the US, the emergency is nowhere close to being over,” he told TechNewsWorld.

“While many countries are taking steps to return to more normal lives, this does not mean the pandemic is over,” said Beth Hoffman, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Public Health. .

“A major concern is that removing the current policy will particularly harm areas of the world with low vaccination rates and fewer resources to respond to the rise in new forms or new forms,” ​​she told TechNewsWorld.

Clegg acknowledged the global implications of any policy changes META makes. “It is critical that any policy meta-implementation is appropriate to the full range of circumstances that countries find themselves in,” he wrote.

Sand. line in

Meta wants to draw a line in the sand, maintained Karen Kovacs North, director of the Annenberg program on online communities at the University of Southern California. “They say there is no imminent physical harm, the way there was at the beginning of the pandemic,” she told TechNewsWorld.

“If there is no imminent bodily harm, they don’t want to set a precedent for stern action,” he said.

Clegg noted in his posting that Meta is fundamentally committed to free expression and believes its apps are an important way for people to make their voices heard.

“But resolving the inherent tension between free expression and security is not easy, especially when faced with unprecedented and rapidly growing challenges, as we have lived in the pandemic,” he continued.

“Therefore we are taking the advice of the Oversight Board in this matter,” he wrote. “Its guidance will also help us respond to future public health emergencies.”

Meta says it wants to balance free speech with the spread of misinformation, so it makes sense that it would rethink its COVID policy, said Mike Horning, an associate professor of multimedia journalism at Virginia Tech University. Told.

“While they remain concerned about misinformation, it is also good to see that they are concerned about how the policy could affect free speech,” he told TechNewsWorld.

Backlash from content removal

Horning said removing Covid misinformation could improve Meta’s image among some of its users. “Removal policies can be effective in slowing the spread of misinformation, but it can also create new problems,” he said.

“When people have deleted their posts, more conspiracy theorists see that as confirmation meta is trying to suppress some of the information,” he continued. “So removing the content may limit the number of people viewing the misinformation, leading some to view the company as unfair or biased.”

The effectiveness of removing COVID misinformation may even exceed its expiration date. “One study found that when COVID misinformation controls were first implemented, there was a 30% reduction in the distribution of misinformation,” Duffield said.

“Over time, misinformation peddlers shifted to talking about other conspiracy theories or found coded ways to talk about COVID and COVID skeptics,” he continued. “So initially it had an effect, but over time that effect lessened.”

North notes that some methods of controlling misinformation may seem weak, but may be more effective than simply removing the content. “Removing content can be out-of-the-box. Content is removed so people try to post it in a different way to trick the algorithms,” she explained.

“When you de-index it or reduce its exposure,” she continued, “it’s very hard for a poster to know how much exposure it’s getting so it can be very effective.”

profiting from misinformation

While META declares the noblest objectives to be to change its COVID misinformation policy, there may be some bottom-line concerns influencing the move.

“Content moderation is a burden for these companies,” said Vincent Reynolds, an assistant professor in the department of communication studies at Emerson College in Boston.

“Any time you remove content from your platform, there’s a cost associated with that,” he told TechNewsWorld. “When you drop content, you are more likely to get more content creation and engagement with that content.”

“There are a lot of studies showing that misinformation generates a lot of engagement, and for these companies, user engagement is money,” he said.

According to a new report from Parks Associates, the home security systems market continues to grow despite concerns about false alerts.

The report noted that security system ownership is at an all-time high in many areas, with more than a third of US broadband households (36%) having home security systems and 41% of multi-dwelling unit managers with systems in their common areas. are installed. and parking garage.

“The market was stagnant, making about 20% penetration for decades,” said Yaniv Amir, president of Essence USA, which is part of the Essence Group, a global technology company.

“Over the past five to seven years, we’ve seen significant growth as security has become a part of home automation,” he told TechNewsWorld. “It reached the mid-thirties.”

The report noted that the past several years have been good for selling systems in the small and medium business market. With the COVID-19 pandemic, it explained that the spring and summer of 2020 were characterized by social and political unrest, resulting in increased concerns about safety and security.

false alert problem

According to the report, despite promising growth, accurate detection of security threats remains a problem. False alarms are a threat to user satisfaction with their systems, it maintained, with two out of three security system owners paying fines for false alarms with an average cost of about $150.

“In America, false alarms are a really big deal,” Amir said. “It causes a lot of people to turn off their alarm systems, making them nonfunctional.”

He said one way to avoid false alarms is to use artificial intelligence to trigger the alarm from a single detector. “If you have multiple sensors, an intruder is likely to hit more than one sensor, so an alert from a single sensor is likely to be a false alert,” he explained.

“More advanced systems can use facial recognition to determine whether a face belongs to someone living in a household,” he said. “More advanced technologies can also identify unusual behavior – for example the owner of the house was being attacked.”

Chris White, senior analyst at Parks, told TechNewsWorld that effective monitoring is the best way to avoid false alarms. In addition, he continued, new video and audio analytics will help.

“Device makers are increasingly using AI powered by the cloud or more powerful EDGE to analyze video and audio data collected by cameras and microphones around the residence and verify that the detected event Instead of a pet walking on the porch or branch, there is a danger in the strong wind,” he said.

AI to the rescue

Believing that better analysis will help eliminate false alerts, Mark N. Venna, president and principal analyst at SmartTech Research in San Jose, Calif., said AI will ultimately do the best job of reducing false alerts. “This would allow the cameras to ‘learn’ about a homeowner’s specific environment,” he explained.

“This technology may be integrated at the device level, but it may also surface in Wi-Fi 6e or Wi-Fi 7e routers which can contribute by dramatically reducing latency along with improved bandwidth,” They said.

IDC senior analyst Adam Wright said vendors can do things to improve smart security systems, but it is the user’s responsibility to configure the system appropriately.

“This is one of the drawbacks of adopting a do-it-yourself approach to building a home security system – setting up, setting up and configuring all the necessary rules and sequences can be cumbersome,” he told TechNewsWorld.

“An advantage of professional installers is that they can customize the security solution to the needs of the home and help the user set up the correct configuration to ensure that the system works as intended and avoid false alerts and Minimizes other disruptions,” he said.

integration headache

False warnings aren’t the only problem with home security systems. “Reliable connectivity is a big limitation,” argued Wright. Often network-connected devices become unresponsive or offline, and troubleshooting isn’t always straightforward or easy.

“Furthermore,” he added, “integration with third-party devices remains problematic. For example, dragging a video feed onto a smart display can cause a number of errors and delays that can disrupt the experience.”

Vena agreed that it’s difficult to integrate multiple brands of appliances with many existing home security systems.

“Some of the better home security systems, though not all, do a fair job of integrating devices from different manufacturers, playing an agnostic role,” he said, “but user frustrations can be high when they determine a device that needs to be installed.” He has bought. Do not operate within the home security system’s ecosystem or integrate with your Master Control app.”

He sees future security systems departing from the use of video. “I’m most optimistic about ‘Wi-Fi Sensing’ technology, which allows every Wi-Fi device in your home to use the Wi-Fi signal to determine fall detection, break-ins, and so forth. is,” he observed.

“Acoustic sensing technology can also help detect glass breaks or screams that can be used to send alerts,” he said. “These latter capabilities also have privacy benefits because they don’t use video to make these determinations, something that’s as appealing as an indoor sensor.”

DIY Monitoring

The Parks report also noted that an important new factor in the security sector is the increase in self-monitoring security systems. These self-monitoring systems send alerts to users’ phones for a low monthly fee.

“Self-monitoring has the benefit of lower monthly costs, but it also requires the homeowner to act on alert and contact authorities if a break-in or intruder is detected,” Venna said. Vena said. “It’s a significant disadvantage, because most people don’t want or can’t have their homes monitored.”

Wright said one of the biggest benefits of self-monitoring is the peace of mind that the system won’t falsely trigger a response from emergency services, which can be disruptive or costly.

“However, the disadvantage is if an alert or alarm goes undetected,” he continued. “For example, if the user is not near their phone at all times, or there is a connectivity issue with the phone that does not receive alerts. Then the incident will go unanswered which could mean that emergency services are not dispatched in time.” Huh. “

According to the report, 33% of self-monitoring security system owners told park researchers that they intended to switch to a professional monitoring service because they were not available when a security incident occurred, and that they could not take appropriate action.

A new report from a privileged management firm (PAM) warns that IT security is getting worse as corporations become stuck deciding what to do and what it will cost.

Delinea, formerly Thycotic and Centrify, on Tuesday released research based on 2,100 security decision makers internationally, revealing that 84% of organizations have experienced an identity-related security breach in the past 18 months.

This revelation comes as enterprises are grappling with expanding entry points and more frequent and advanced attack methods from cybercriminals. It also highlights the gap between the perceived and actual effectiveness of security strategies. Despite the high percentage of accepted breaches, 40% of respondents believe they have the right strategy.

Several studies found that credentials are the most common attack vector. Delinia wanted to know what IT security leaders were doing to reduce the risk of attack. This study focused on learning about the adoption of privileged access management by organizations as a security strategy.

Key findings of the report include:

  • 60% of IT security decision-makers have been put off working on an IT security strategy due to multiple concerns;
  • Identity security is a priority for security teams, but 63% believe it is not understood by executive leaders;
  • 75% of organizations will fail to protect privileged identities because they refuse to receive the support they need.

ID security is a priority, but board purchases are critical

Leaving behind corporate commitment to actually take action is a growing policy many executives are following in relation to IT efforts to provide better breach prevention.

Many organizations are hungry to make change, but three quarters (75%) of IT and security professionals believe that promises of change will fail to protect privileged identities due to a lack of corporate support, according to researchers. .

The report noted that 90% of the respondents said that their organizations fully recognize the importance of identity security in enabling them to achieve their business goals. Nearly the same percentage (87%) said it was one of the most important security priorities for the next 12 months.

However, a lack of budget commitment and executive alignment resulted in a constant stall on improving IT security. Some 63% of respondents said that their company’s board still does not fully understand identity security and its role in enabling better business operations.

Chief Security Scientist and Advisor CISO Joseph Carson said, “While the importance of identity security is acknowledged by business leaders, most security teams will not receive the support and budget they need to provide critical security controls and resources to mitigate key risks.” A solution is needed.” in Delinia.

“This means that most organizations will be deprived of protecting privileges, leaving them vulnerable to cybercriminals searching for and abusing privileged accounts,” he said.

Lack of policies puts machine ID at great risk

Despite the good intentions of corporate leaders, companies have a long road ahead when it comes to protecting privileged identities and access. According to the report, less than half (44%) of organizations surveyed have implemented ongoing security policies and procedures for privileged access management.

These missing security protections include password rotation or approval, time-based or context-based security, and privileged behavior monitoring such as recording and auditing. Even more worrying, more than half (52%) of all respondents allow privileged users to access sensitive systems and data without the need for multifactor authentication (MFA).

Another alarming lapse has come to the fore in the research. Privileged identities include humans, such as domain and local administrators. It also includes non-humans, such as service accounts, application accounts, codes, and other types of machine identities that automatically connect to and share privileged information.

However, only 44% of organizations manage and secure machine identities. The majority leave them open and come under attack.

Graph: Delinea benchmarking security gaps and privileged access

Source: Delinia Global Survey of Cyber ​​Security Leaders

Cybercriminals look for the weakest link, Carson noted. Ignoring ‘non-human’ identities – especially when these are growing at a faster rate than human users – greatly increases the risk of privilege-based identity attacks.

“When attackers target machine and application identities, they can easily eavesdrop,” he told TechNewsWorld.

They move around the network to determine the best place to strike and inflict the most damage. He advised that organizations need to ensure that machine identity is incorporated into their security strategies and follow best practices when it comes to protecting all of their IT ‘superuser’ accounts, which could be compromised if , then the entire business could be put on hold, he advised.

The security gap is widening

Perhaps the most important finding from this latest research is that the security gap continues to widen. Many organizations are on the right track to secure and reduce cyber risk for business. They face the challenge that there still exist large security gaps for attackers to gain. This includes securing a privileged identity.

An attacker only needs to find a privileged account. When businesses still have many privileged identities left vulnerable, such as application and machine identities, attackers will continue to exploit and influence businesses’ operations in exchange for ransom payments.

The good news is that organizations realize the high priority of protecting privileged identities. The sad news is that many privileged identities are still exposed because it is simply not enough to secure a human privileged identity, Carson explained.

Not only is the security gap widening between business and attackers but also the security gap between IT leaders and business executives. While this is improving in some industries, the problem still exists.

“Until we address the challenge of communicating the importance of cyber security to the executive board and business, IT leaders will continue to struggle to obtain the resources and budget needed to close the security gap,” he said. warned.

cloud whack-a-mole

One of the main challenges to achieving identity is that mobility and the identity of the cloud environment are everywhere. According to Carson, this increases the complexity of securing identity.

Businesses are still trying to secure them with the current security technologies they already have in place today. But this results in many security gaps and limitations. He said some businesses fall short even by trying to check security identity with simple password managers.

“However, this still means relying on business users to make good security decisions. To secure identities, you must first have a good strategy and plan in place. This means knowing the types of privileged identities that exist in business. Understanding and using security technology that is designed to find and protect them,” he concluded.

Last week I heard about a podcast from Lucid Motors SVP Mike Bell (ex-Apple, ex-Rivian) who codes the Lucid Air and the upcoming Lucid SUV to be named Gravity in 2024, which is very different from every other car. Is. Road including Tesla.

Given that Tesla was heavily influenced by Apple, as well, it will be interesting to see what difference Apple makes in this market when it finally announces its electric car.

The direction of these three companies seems to be hanging in the balance. This is a change from the traditional preferences of older car makers to a model that is more compatible with a tech firm. Car companies like Lucid and Tesla are more like Apple than GM or Ford – which I imagine will eventually become a problem for GM and Ford.

I’ve also had updated briefings from Nvidia and Qualcomm on how they’re tackling autonomous driving, which could be a complimentary approach to the next generation of EVs.

Let’s talk about the future of electric cars, and we’ll kick off with our product of the week: an update on the Bartesian robotic bartender, no joke, Black + Decker.

Nvidia and Qualcomm Vehicle Tech

Nvidia’s drive platform is heavily used in Lucid vehicles. It is a comprehensive suite of offerings that cover the autonomous car technology stack, from concept and simulation to training, to inference in cars. However, most of the strength lies in Nvidia’s Omniverse simulation capability, which is widely used in the automotive industry.

Qualcomm is focusing more on bridging the car side of this equation, with compelling in-car technology that, on paper, is both cheaper and better than other options.

Given that car companies are margin-focused lasers, you can see a world emerging where Nvidia may own much of the backend and control structure for autonomous cars, and where Qualcomm can power its respective self-engineering systems in most cars. May present with driving abilities. Qualcomm has demonstrated that its ability to keep smartphone costs down can translate into in-car solutions that can do the same thing.

An increasingly potential future is one where Nvidia offers a much more autonomous car backend while Qualcomm provides in-vehicle multi-layered computer vision technology.

car and driver conversation

I was driving in the back of a Lucid car (pictured above) last week and I must admit I found the car fascinating to look at. It really is like no other car on the road. The performance specs and price are both amazing.

On performance, they deliver 2.5 seconds 0 to 60 acceleration time, up to 1,111 hp, up to 168 mph, and a range of 520 miles which is class-leading performance at the moment. But that performance will cost you closer to $200K.

Then again you could argue that you’re basically getting four cars for the price of one: a sports car, a family car, an off-road car, and the Holler (there’s a huge amount of luggage space), All in one vehicle.

Lucid also demonstrates a change in thinking about the interaction between the car and its driver. By now the driver has had to learn to drive a car. Every car is so different that most drivers may never learn how to use all the features. For example, I’ve never been able to successfully use my car’s self-parking capability.

The Lucid model learns how to work with you, learns your preferences, and this data can be transferred from car to car so you never have the issue of being unable to properly use a feature you purchased. Don’t have to face

upgrade after purchase

Lucid goes to the forefront of offering a solution that is not only software-defined, but potentially easy to update and upgrade over time, which will keep the cars in service longer than would otherwise be the case.

I’ve gotten frustrated with more traditional car companies because you can almost bet that right after you buy a new car, they’ll make an upgrade that can’t be retrofitted, and you’d know it was coming. .

For example, a few years ago I bought a Mercedes. Sometime between when I ordered the car and it was delivered, they put one of the features I ordered in another package, which was not available when I ordered my car and, because I didn’t select that bundle (again, it wasn’t even available at the time I ordered) they removed the feature from the car.

The only way I could get it back was to pay three times its cost before that happened. This huge cost increase was because it was far more expensive to add that feature once the car was built.

Both Lucid and Tesla have demonstrated that they can do a better job of providing post-purchase upgrades to their cars. As the industry considers the concept of cars as service, this ability to change a car’s configuration after it leaves the factory not only opens the door to a stronger used car opportunity for dealers, but also for a long time. Till then, with a happy relationship. Cars we buy in the end.

Instead of replacing a perfectly good car after three years because it became out of date, imagine updating the vehicle so that it looks almost as good as a new one.

Lucid’s technology-focused software-focused approach also means that many of these upgrades could come as part of the service, just like some of the more interesting improvements to Tesla cars over the years. Tesla is one of the few car companies where drivers can look forward to software updates as Tesla makes in pleasant surprises, and Lucid is looking to overtake Tesla in this regard.

Part of why Lucid may be able to outpace Tesla is its use of Nvidia Drive which is a unique way small car companies can match or exceed the capabilities of larger firms by using Nvidia’s extensive resources. It really is a game changer.

wrapping up

As we move into the middle of the decade, our in-car experiences will be changing substantially, not only to become more customizable for the buyer, but to provide a level of personalized after-sales auto-customization experience for that buyer. To do what hasn’t been seen in the tech market, let alone in the automotive market.

Once this is done, the technology market may have to pick up from some of the advancements of the automotive industry to better compete in its segment as this product concept is a competitive revolution to adapt itself to the unique needs of the user. .

It is difficult to see that any customer, when given the option, would ever opt for the old-fashioned way of forced learning and the lack of flexibility in the increasingly smart personal technology, equipment and vehicles they buy.

Companies like Lucid, Rivian, Tesla, Nvidia and Qualcomm are leading the automotive market and screaming for a future that is far more responsive to the needs of their buyers. That’s good news for our purchasing future, though probably not until the latter half of the decade.

Technical Product of the Week

‘Bev’ by Black + Decker

We were one of the first owners of Bartesian Robotic Bar Tender, and we have enjoyed the product for many years since it came out.

However, there was annoyance over how the alcohol was placed in the device and the pain of filling it with water that often spilled over. We left a bottle of wine without cleaning it for too long and it got stuck. So, we went looking for a replacement only to find out that Black + Decker has created a new version of Bartesian called Bev (little B) and it’s awesome!

Let’s start with the fact that with the old Bartesian we had to swap bottles of rum and gin when making the drink because it only contained four types of alcohol. The new version has five different bottles, and it uses the bottles the alcohol comes in, so you no longer have to clean the bottles, you just throw them out when they’re empty. Plus, it provides a sixth bottle for water so you can easily fill it under the tap (don’t try to fill it with the refrigerator; you’ll find water all over the floor).

'Bev' On-Demand Cocktail Maker by Black+Decker

‘Bev’ on-demand cocktail maker (Image Credit: Bartesian)

The unit has lights under the bottles that light up as drinks or can be cycled as it sits unused, making an impressive presentation in your kitchen or bar. Whereas the old Bartesian had a display that would take you through making a drink, the Biwi has five buttons. The first four drinks are for size and the final drink starts the making process which is much quicker and more fun to watch.

The Bev uses the same pods as the old Bartesian, but lacks a water chiller, so you’ll need a supply of ice. But the result is looking better, far less messy (the old bartesian would leak from time to time when filling), and so far it has worked flawlessly.

On a hot day, and we’re getting a lot of them, a cold rum punch is a great way to end the day; And sitting outside with a chilled cocktail on the weekend helps make it all worthwhile.

Priced at around $300, the new Biwi by Black + Decker is my product of the week. encourage!

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ECT News Network.

A lawsuit was filed by Amazon on Tuesday against administrators of more than 10,000 Facebook groups accusing them of being part of a broker network for churning out fake product reviews.

In its lawsuit, Amazon alleges that administrators attempted to organize the placement of fake reviews on Amazon in exchange for money or free products. It said groups have been set up in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Japan to recruit people to write fake reviews on Amazon’s online store.

Amazon said in a statement posted online that it would use the information found through the lawsuit to identify bad actors and remove the reviews they commissioned from the retail website.

Dharmesh Mehta, Amazon’s Vice President of Selling Partner Services, said in the statement, “Our team intercepts millions of suspicious reviews before they are seen by customers, and this trial goes a step further to uncover criminals operating on social media.” ” “Proactive legal action targeting bad actors is one of many ways to protect customers by holding bad actors accountable.”

against meta policy

Meta, which owns Facebook, condemned the groups for setting up fake review mills on their infrastructure. “Groups that solicit or encourage fake reviews violate our policies and are removed,” Meta spokeswoman Jen Riding said in a statement to TechNewsWorld.

“We are working with Amazon on this matter and will continue to partner across the industry to address spam and fake reviews,” she said.

According to Meta, it has already removed most of the fraud groups cited in Amazon’s lawsuit and is actively investigating others for violating the company’s policy against fraud and deception.

It noted that it has introduced a number of tools to remove infringing content from its service, tools that use artificial intelligence, machine learning and computer vision to analyze specific instances of content that violate rules. Break down and identify patterns of abuse across the platform.

Is Facebook doing enough?

Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy, a consumer advocacy group in the UK, praised Amazon’s action, but questioned whether Facebook was doing enough to prevent abuse of its platform.

“It is positive that Amazon has taken legal action against some of the fake review brokers operating at Facebook, which is a problem the investigation has uncovered time and again,” he said in a statement. “However, it does raise a big question mark about Facebook’s proactive action to crack down on fake review agents and protect consumers.”

“Facebook needs to explain why this activity is prevalent, and [U.K.] The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) must challenge the company to show that the action it is taking is effective,” he continued. “Otherwise, it should consider stern action against the platform.”

“The government has announced that it plans to give stronger powers to the CMA to protect consumers from the avalanche of fake reviews,” he said. “These digital markets, competition and consumer reforms should be legislated as a priority.”

Which one in 2019? released a report that estimated that 250,000 hotel reviews on the Tripadvisor website were fake. Tripadvisor dismissed the analysis in that report as “simplistic,” but in its own “Transparency” report a year later, the site found nearly one million, or 3.6%, of the reviews were fake.

no time for deep dives

“Most consumers don’t have time to dig deep into reviews,” said Ross Rubin, principal analyst at Reticle Research, a consumer technology advisory firm in New York City.

“They take star ratings as a way to build trust in a product and if people are being compensated for posting fake reviews, it undermines trust in reviews,” he told TechNewsWorld.

“Fake reviews not only encourage consumers to buy a substandard product, but they also make it more difficult to differentiate between products,” he said.

“If you have an overwhelming number of products in a category with four-and-a-half or five-star reviews, because many of them are participating in these fake review programs, the value of the reviews themselves are diminished,” he explained.

He acknowledged that fake reviews were a problem everywhere on the Internet. “But,” he continued, “because Amazon has such a strong position in online retailing and is often the first website consumers visit, it is disproportionately targeted by these fake review groups.”

Review mills also use bots to pad product reviews, but Rubin said the technology lacks the effectiveness of using a human. “The reason these groups are using people instead of bots is because bots are easier to detect,” he said. “Amazon uses machine learning techniques to identify when companies are using bots.”

‘Comprehensive’ review manipulation

In a report released last year by Uberall, an online and offline customer experience platform, review manipulation on Amazon was termed “pervasive.”

Amazon claims that only 1% of reviews on the site are fake, but the report disputed that. It cited a 2018 analysis by Fakespot that found the number of fake reviews in certain product categories such as nutritional supplements (64%), beauty (63%), electronics (61%), and athletic sneakers (59%) is more.

“Even if we reduce these numbers by 50%, there will still be a gap between what Amazon and Fakespot report,” Uberall’s report said.

What can be done to curb fake reviews?

Uberall points out that Amazon and some others use the label “Verified Buyer” to indicate high trust in reviews. “It is an approach that needs to be used more widely,” it noted, “though it is not foolproof, as Amazon has discovered.”

“Despite specific anti-fraud mechanisms,” it continued, “fake reviews are a problem that needs to be addressed more systematically and vigorously.”

The paths identified in the report to address the problem include using more technical sophistication and aggressive enforcement to bring review fraud down to low single digits, adopting a review framework that is structurally difficult to defraud and Only genuine verified buyers are to be allowed. Write a review.

“These are not mutually exclusive approaches,” it explained. “They can and should be used in conjunction with each other.”

“With online reviews there is a huge amount at stake for businesses of all sizes,” the report said. “More and better reviews directly translate into online visibility, brand equity and revenue. This creates powerful incentives for businesses to pursue positive reviews and suppress or remove negative reviews.”

A recent gathering of global cybersecurity professionals has unearthed the latest attack scenarios that hackers use to infiltrate corporate networks. But contrary to the hopes of misguided potential victims, no silver bullet or software guarantee will completely protect them.

RSA Conference (RSAC) presenters focused on increasing demand for implementing the zero-trust philosophy. Presenters urged network managers to educate their employees about digital identity proofing. This includes securing the data points needed to practically spread digital ID proofing solutions.

Another major cause of network breaches is organizations integrating their on-premises environments into their cloud environments. This makes the cloud prone to various on-premise generated attacks.

“The RSA Conference plays a vital role in bringing the cyber security industry closer together. As cyber attacks grow in frequency and sophistication, it is imperative that public and private sector practitioners and experts are able to address today’s greatest challenges. Be called upon to hear unique perspectives to help,” commented RSA Conference Vice President Linda Gray Martin.

RSAC provides a year-round platform for the community to engage with, learn from and access cyber security content. That process is available online and at in-person events.

According to the RSAC, better cyber security will come only with a greater focus on threat hunting activities along with authentication, identity and access management.

head in charge

RSA Federal President Kevin Orr oversees the deployment of security, specifically identity access management tools, for federal and commercial customers. His company has its roots in the early days of cybersecurity security.

At this year’s RSA conference and related Public Sector Day, he had the opportunity to speak with leaders in the government and enterprise cybersecurity sector. He discussed his comments on the state of cyber security with TechNewsWorld.

RSA Federal is an identity and access management (IAM) solutions firm that began as a cybersecurity section within Dell Computer Company. Today, it has contracts with some of the most security-sensitive organizations in the world.

Important among the tech firm now known as RSA Federal LLC and the name of one of the leading encryption technology algorithms. RSA provides security services and solutions to customers throughout the federal public sector ecosystem.

RSA is a public-key encryption technology developed by RSA Data Security, which was founded in 1982 to commercialize the technology. The acronym Rivest stands for Shamir and Edelman, the three MIT cryptographers who developed RSA public key cryptography.

long-standing convention roots

A series of RSA company sales have positioned it to capitalize on a growing need for cybersecurity specialists. Security Dynamics bought the company in 1982. Dell later acquired RSA from EMC in 2006. A consortium of private equity investors led by Symphony Technology Group bought RSA from Dell in 2020.

The sales reflected both RSA’s and Dell’s corporate strategies. This allowed RSA to focus on security-first organizations, while Dell pursued its product strategy, according to Orr.

The annual RSAC event is an important gathering for the computer security community. It is considered the world’s leading information security conference and exhibition. Originally scheduled for February 7–10, world events led to it being rescheduled for June 6–9 at The Moscone Center in San Francisco.

RSA Federal is not a conference sponsor. However, its representatives participate in panels, showcases and speeches throughout the event.

This year’s 31st annual conference was the first to be held as a standalone, independent business since the investment from Crosspoint Capital Partners in March. The event was attended by over 26,000 attendees, including over 26,000 speakers, 400 exhibitors and over 400 members of the media.

notable takeaway

According to Orr, the biggest takeaways for cybersecurity were placed in key addresses. Security was impacted by a rapid digital transformation.

This change happened rapidly due to the pandemic. This forced it to accelerate partnerships with people working away from home.

The disruption of change in the physical world is now creating a digital ripple across the entire supply chain. Better supply chain security is needed to prevent tampering within its technology.

“Another major theme was the role played by massive propaganda. We are in a hyper-connected world. The propaganda blurs how people separate fact from fiction,” Orr said. This continues to influence the use of technology.

Perhaps one of the most damaging effects is a lack of deteriorating talent. He said that not enough people are skilled to deal with cyber security threats and what needs to be done within the cyber security domain.

Attacks are on the rise now with many different factors. In a previous world, we were all sitting behind a firewall in a corporation, Orr noted. Security teams can keep tabs on the good guys and the bad guys, except maybe insiders.

“The firewalls disappeared as soon as we went mobile from the pandemic. Your personal limit of security has disappeared. Some of that boundary needs to be built around identity,” he urged.

Identity border protection

From Orr’s catbird seat in the world of cybersecurity, he sees how preventing identity breaches is now necessary. Organizations must know who is connecting to their network. Security teams need to know what the detection does, where they are in the network, and what access they should have to see. In this globalized world, those derailments really changed things.

“The attack vectors also became realised. The attack vectors have really changed,” Orr said.

Network managers must now look at the danger areas and figure out how and where to spend the money. They also need to learn the techniques available and more importantly know that the attack surface is large.

“That means they need additional sets of people or different sets of skills to come across these open issues and address them,” Orr said.

Those decisions also include ROI factors. He further added that what is really driving the security question is that generally a corporate expense should have a return on investment.

Ransomware Gone Rogue

The rise of ransomware attacks sucks money from businesses. Initially the strategy was not to pay the ransom demand. From Orr’s point of view the better strategy now depends on the circumstances.

Either way, the victims of the ransom pay and hope for the best. Or they refuse to pay and still hope for the best. There must be a plan for the worst in the game.

“I think it is a personal decision depending on the situation. Now one size does not fit all. You have to see what the bad guys have and what they value. The big question is how to stop it from happening all the time,” he said.

lack of software options

The cyber security industry is not only facing a shortage of talent. Advanced equipment may be lacking.

“I think there’s a lot of basic technologies. I’ll start with the stuff first. Take a look at the truth. For some types of organizations cybersecurity products aren’t really something you can buy. First Step Click on Phishing Attempts Have to learn not to do,” Orr advised.

The solution starts with education. Then it continues with placing some parameters. Determine what your most valuable data is. Next research how to keep it safe. How do you monitor it?

“Cyber ​​security is really a layered approach,” Orr warned.

never trust, always challenge

That was a big topic of the security conference, he continued. Part of the big change is not being able to trust network visitors.

“It was the kind of thing that has really changed now, not to be trusted. There is always the essential approach to verify. Now you are looking at things differently,” he observed.

We are making good progress. The difference is that we are now preparing for a cyberattack, he concluded.

Last week was busier than usual in the tech world – that says a lot.

Elon Musk was sued by Twitter for completing a deal he initially didn’t want; Some influential people are falsely accusing Qualcomm of Apple’s inability to implement 5G; And Netflix partnered with Microsoft instead of Google or Comcast for ad-generated content.

Let’s walk through some of this apparent madness and see what’s going on.

We’ll close with our product of the week, a new smartwatch for Android using Qualcomm technology that gives the market-leading Apple Watch a run for the money at a reasonable price.

Kasturi-Twitter: There will be another wedding from Hell

Elon Musk never made sense to acquire Twitter, no matter which side you’re on.

Musk already manages several tough companies, has little to no media experience, and Twitter is a fixer-upper, meaning anyone running it has to exclusively project the firm to turn it around. will need to focus. Musk can’t do that.

From Twitter’s perspective, Musk hated the current management team, policies, and critical staff prior to taking over the company, meaning that his tenure as CEO would not only cost a lot of people their jobs, but that He will try to bring back any past. compensation to top management

On top of that, Musk was reportedly abusive to some members of that staff, some of whom are part of protected groups, making him a potential HR nightmare. It has also recently been revealed that she had impregnated a subordinate which would normally be a termination-level offense at a company like Twitter.

Add to that the fact that Tesla buyers were jumping ship because of Musk’s Twitter acquisition effort, and the SEC was anything but happy, the acquisition seemed like a train wreck in slow motion. Much of the loss to Twitter, including its inability to retain or acquire significant staff, as well as a troubling reduction in revenue as advertisers begin to question the company’s future, is unprecedented.

Now that he has seriously damaged Twitter, Musk no longer wants to buy it. Given the shape Twitter is in now, I can’t blame it for going away. However, it appears he has done too much of that damage, nor can I blame the Twitter board for taking Musk to court.

Ultimately it highlights the need for better protection and control over CEOs to keep them off the rails and cripple companies that would have been viable otherwise – and to better protect employees and investors from avoidable disastrous consequences.

Qualcomm-Apple: Let’s Play ‘Who’s the Bully?’

I was on an analyst call last week, during which Apple was called again for threatening Qualcomm.

With resources of an magnitude greater than those of Qualcomm, Apple supporters keep trying to convince the courts and regulators to try and convince them that they are the victims and that Qualcomm is the bully.

This latest effort argues that two Qualcomm patents are preventing Apple from building a viable 5G modem, even though it is highly likely that it was caused by Intel’s process of acquiring a failed modem attempt and a subset of those employees who were running it unsuccessfully.

I equate it to getting a losing racing team and then screaming that the winners were taking an unfair advantage because you can’t win. Maybe if you had bought a winning team and then didn’t break it?

Oddly, not only do the two patents have nothing to do with the 5G effort, but Apple has a Qualcomm license, so it should be able to use them without penalty.

Typically, when you have a design that infringes another firm’s patent, you either obtain a license from the firm that has the patent, or you get a legal solution. Apple is licensing but claims the small price (usually under $10 per iPhone) is too high, even though it’s clear that their workarounds are even more expensive.

Situations like this prove that licensing is a good value because it’s a lot cheaper than reinventing the technology. Still, instead of acknowledging that Qualcomm gave Apple a pretty decent licensing deal, Apple supporters argue that Apple should be able to set Qualcomm’s prices. This is despite the fact that Apple’s own pricing model is considered premium and contributes to profits that drive Apple’s valuation far higher than Qualcomm’s.

Apple continues to lose this battle in court – but apparently it thinks bullying is something it deserves – so I really doubt it will be good for the company as a result.

Netflix-Microsoft: Why not Google or Comcast?

Netflix is ​​in trouble because it didn’t anticipate that many, if not most, of its major content suppliers, notably Disney, would choose to move away from the platform and go it alone. This should come as no surprise as we have been talking about arbitration since the beginning of the Internet.

If Netflix had most of its content, it would have prevented those other providers from snatching Netflix from their customers, which is exactly what happened. To address the related revenue shortfall, Netflix is ​​going after symptom of the problem (revenue shortfall) by partnering with Microsoft: a company that understands setting up a digital store for both products and services.

Both Google and Comcast, which have similar services, could have helped. But those “similar services” are Netflix’s competitors, so using one of them is advisable. In addition, Google and especially Comcast do not partner that well and Microsoft has made partnerships as a significant competitive advantage. This advantage only strengthened under the leadership of CEO Satya Nadella, a huge open source and partnership advocate.

While Netflix isn’t going straight because of its problem (lack of strong content ownership) just yet, this move, assuming it’s successful, should improve revenue and profits that will help it acquire and keep more content providers. Will eventually fix the underlying crisis.

However, to avoid history repeating itself, Netflix needs to understand its mistake, which is the firm needing to control what it sells. Otherwise, those who control it are likely to make the company redundant.

wrapping up

Musk’s bid to buy Twitter meant nothing to either side, and abuse of that company should come with penalties, as he nearly destroyed it in an effort that was likely to be disastrous for both parties. Was.

Apple keeps threatening Qualcomm. If it were me, I wouldn’t do business with that company because of abuse alone. But the courts continue to do the right thing by supporting the abusing party Qualcomm.

Ultimately, while Netflix doesn’t understand the problems associated with not owning more of its most popular content, it is selecting a partner to help fix the revenue side of the issue. It chose wisely by partnering with Microsoft which is a better partner than other potential alternatives and would not use the information gained from the deal to harm Netflix. Even so, Netflix will still need to fix the main problem: reassuring that no one can walk away with important content in the future.

Technical Product of the Week

Mobvoi TicWatch Pro 3 Ultra GPS

I keep looking for a smartwatch that is better than the Apple Watch and I keep missing. That’s because Apple does a great job of integrating its smartwatch and phone while Android doesn’t seem to compete on the side.

ticwatch pro 3 ultra gps
ticwatch pro 3 ultra gps

By far the top Apple Watch competitor is the new TicWatch Pro 3 Ultra GPS which is by far the best Android-based watch I’ve tested. Using Qualcomm’s latest Snapdragon Wear 4100 platform and Google’s Wear OS for smartwatches, this watch is impressive.

What does it do better than the Apple Watch?

This list is short because I can only point to two things, but the first thing is big. The TicWatch Pro 3 Ultra GPS has two overlapping screens. One is a full-color OLED, but the other is a very low-power FSTN screen that potentially offers up to a week of battery life. That’s a lot longer than any Apple Watch I’ve seen so far.

It’s not that big, but important nonetheless, this watch is round like most watches on the market, not square to your wrist like the iPad mini. I like a watch that looks like a clock and not a small TV screen.

The software is now down-level. It should be Wear OS 3, but for now only uses version 2.36 (I understand there is an upgrade coming in a few months). The watch is still fast, however, and has a few dedicated apps that manage your health, pulse, oxygen levels, breathing, rest, hearing, and sleep.

I especially like how quickly you can configure this TicWatch to take a walk or run. It has both a microphone and a speaker which are important for the phone I have – the Microsoft Surface Duo 2 which sounds great but is awkward to hold your face in during calls.

Mobvoi has done a good job with this watch and at its suggested retail price of $299, it’s not a bad deal. While I can hardly wait for an update to Google Wear OS 3, the latest TicWatch Pro 3 Ultra GPS is a great alternative to the Apple Watch for those of us who don’t use iPhones — and it’s my product of the week Is.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ECT News Network.

Using no-code technology instead of dedicated code programmers could become the future of software development in the retail marketing and related software-manufacturing industries. But it is not a one-size-fits-all solution for all use cases.

No-code, a method of creating software applications that requires little to no programming skills, lets workers within an occupation build an application without formal programming knowledge or training in a particular programming language.

In essence, the no-code platform enables users to create software applications such as online forms or even fully functional websites, or to add functionality to an existing site or app.

It’s important to clarify that many different applications of no-code platforms exist, according to Christian Brink Fredriksson, CEO of Leapworks, a global provider of automation software.

No-code platforms are fairly new. Therefore companies planning to adopt a no-code approach should thoroughly examine and test the no-code tools on the market to ensure that the selected products live up to their claims.

“There are a lot of platforms today that claim to be, but there are actually no codes, or they lack the power needed to do what they say they would do without additional coding,” he told TechNewsWorld.

Leapworks has developed a test automation product that is accessible and easy to maintain. Its secret sauce is providing faster results at a lower cost, requiring fewer specialist resources than traditional test automation approaches.

“At Leapworks, we have democratized automation with our fully visual, no-code test automation platform that enables testers and everyday business users to create, maintain and scale automated software tests in any kind of technology. Makes it easier to do,” Frederickson said. This enables enterprises to rapidly adopt and scale automation.

Security remains top concern

An explicit inquiry about no-code platforms should consider how no-code technology addresses the security problems that affect both proprietary and open-source programming.

If designed well, no-code platforms can be safe and secure, Fredrickson said. When coding manually from scratch, it is easy to introduce bugs and vulnerabilities that hackers can exploit.

“Since no-code platforms are designed to automate the creation of apps or to perform functions in an automated manner, they are inherently more consistent,” he explained.

Of course, the no-code platform itself has to be secure. Before choosing a solution, organizations should conduct a thorough security audit and select a solution that is ISO-27001 and SOC-2 compliant, he recommended.

Coding Pros and Non-Pros alike

No-code platforms are primarily meant only for programmers or IT coders to use in-house instead of outsourced software developers. Both use cases come into play successfully.

No-code platforms are certainly useful for IT coders and programmers, but the primary value of no-code test platforms is to expand the ability to build and test applications for people who are not trained as software developers. , offered Fredriksen.

For example, Leapworks makes it easy for testers and everyday business users to set up and maintain large-scale test automation. This empowers quality assurance teams to experience shorter test cycles and an immediate return on investment.

Benefits for DevOps

Speeding up testing is a huge advantage, noted Fredriksen, because hand-coding poses a huge bottleneck, even for an experienced DevOps team. While testers are extremely skilled at designing tests and understanding the inherent complexity of software, they are not traditionally trained to code.

He set a good example.

Leapworks co-founder and chief product officer Klaus Topholt worked at an investment bank before joining Fredriksen to found Leapworks in 2015. The test was important as the bank relied on rapid trading at high volumes. If the quality of the software was poor, it could literally lead to the bankruptcy of the institution.

“Klaus decided to create a simplified programming language for creating tests so that testers could install them, speeding up the process. But he quickly found that testing and programming are completely different domains, and, frankly, It’s not fair to force testers, who are already highly skilled, to learn extremely complex programming skills,” Fredrickson explained.

During discussions with the testing team, Klaus and his colleagues began using a whiteboard to create a flowchart. Everyone immediately understood what this meant.

lesson learned

Flow charts were such a simple, clear way to express something complex. So, it was clear that this was the way forward to enable model testers to create their own sophisticated tests without coding.

“The lesson was, if you give testers something as intuitive as a flow chart to create automated tests, you’ll save a lot of time and remove bottlenecks, because you’re not relying on the developers’ time and expertise. are,” Frederickson said.

Klaus left the investment bank to found Leapworks and became a no-code platform. They built a visual language that enables business users to automate testing using a flowchart model.

Leapwork co-founders Klaus Topholt and Christian Brink Friedrichsen

Leapworks CPO and Co-Founder Klaus Topholt (L) | Christian Brink Fredriksson, CEO and co-founder of Leapworks (Image Credit: Leapworks)

“It democratizes automation because it is so easy for non-coders to use and maintain, which in turn empowers businesses to scale up their automation efforts and accelerate the development process,” Fredrickson said.

No-code Q&A

Headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark, last year Leapworks raised $62 million in the largest Series B funding round ever in Danish history. The round was led by KKR and Salesforce Ventures.

Leapworks is used by Global 2000 companies – including NASA, Mercedes-Benz and PayPal – for robotic process automation, test automation, and application monitoring.

We asked Fredriksen to reveal more details about the inner workings of the no-code solution.

TechNewsWorld: How can companies add automation to their testing processes?

Christian Brink Fredrickson: Release is a way to include automated tests as an integral part of moving from one stage of the process to another.

For example, when a developer tests code in a development server, a series of automated tests must be triggered as part of the same process that generates the build.

These regression tests can identify large bugs early, so the developer can fix them quickly, while the code is still fresh in the developer’s mind.

Then, as the code progresses to testing and, eventually, production, again, a series of automated tests must be launched: extensive regression testing, verification of its visual appearance, performance, and so on.

It is important that business users – such as a business analyst or a tester in a QA department – have the ability to implement this automation. That’s where no-code is so important.

How does no-code differ from low-code solutions?

Fredriksen: No-code doesn’t really involve any code. If you want non-developers to use the platform, you have to no-code it. Less code may speed up development, but you’ll still need someone with developer skills to use it.

Which is more beneficial for Enterprise and DevOps, no-code or low-code?

Fredriksen: No-code empowers enterprises and DevOps teams to implement automation at scale, ultimately enhancing software delivery performance. Low-code solutions still require you to know how to code to maintain the software.

No-code allows anyone to automate a workflow. Using no-code, developers and technically skilled workers can focus on high-value tasks, and QA professionals such as testers can maintain testing automatically and easily.

Surveys have shown that testing is the one that slows down the development process the most. If you want to make a serious impact on DevOps, you really should consider using a no-code platform.

Is no-code a threat to software and website developers?

Fredriksen: I would argue the exact opposite. No-code has the potential to open up new opportunities for developers. More software is being created and optimized than ever before, and yet we are in the midst of a serious developer shortage, with 64% of companies experiencing a software engineer shortage.

Instead of relying on code-based approaches and forcing businesses to search for talent externally, no-code allows companies to use their existing resources to build and test software. Technological resources are then free to focus on more complete, higher-value tasks, such as accelerating innovation and digital transformation.

Where do you see no-code technology going?

Fredriksen: AI is a powerful technology, but its short-term effects are a bit high. We believe that the challenge to limit the capabilities of artificial intelligence today is human-to-AI communication.

It should be possible to tell the computer what you want it to do, without any technical details on how to do it. Essentially, we need to be able to give requirements to the AI ​​for a task, and then the AI ​​can handle the rest.

We at Leapwork have made great strides on this problem. There is still much more work to be done.

Unless you’re one of those rare people who shy away from cell phone use, you’re walking around with a cyber bomb in your pocket.

Smartphone malware is an ever-increasing threat. More than 5 billion people use mobile phones worldwide. More than 90% of those individuals rely on smart- or Internet-enabled phones, with an average of 40 installed apps on each phone.

By the end of this year, more than 200 billion apps will have been downloaded from the virtual app store. Therein lies the danger.

Official Apple and Google-controlled software stores are cautious in weeding out unsafe apps. But many cell phone users rely on rogue and third-party download repositories that become overrun with infectious malware.

The danger doesn’t end there at App Stores. Cybercriminals have a toolbox full of ways to slip malicious mobile malware onto your phone. All you have to do is visit the wrong website, click on a link embedded in an email or text message, or open an attached document to enable Cyber ​​Trap.

know the risks

Mobile malware is a growing cyber security concern. This may result in the theft and subsequent sale of your personal data.

Adware is now the cause of 42% of new mobile malware worldwide. Banking malware threats, especially on Android devices, have increased by up to 80%.

According to the latest reports regarding enterprise security, having most of the free or even paid antivirus apps on your phone does little to help detect or prevent sophisticated cyber attacks. About half of free Android antivirus programs do not detect malware effectively.

iPhone security isn’t impenetrable either. Although Android malware is much more prevalent than iOS infections, cybercriminals are getting better access to iPhones. Both platforms are susceptible to malware that opens backdoors into phones through text messaging and other shared file exchanges.

Cybercriminals want your data. Most mobile malware is designed to peer into your digital data to steal your various usernames and passwords. This moves them to your bank accounts.

But cyber thieves do not stop here. They also have invasive software that lets them view your audio and video and track your locations.

What to do

Start by fixing some of the shortcomings in the way you use your smartphone. You want to make it more difficult for cybercriminals to take advantage of you. Taking stock of your installed apps is a great start.

android phone

Go to the Settings panel and open the Permissions section. Its exact location will vary depending on the Android version installed and whatever user interface (UI) is used by the phone’s manufacturer.

Normally, you can go to Settings > Apps > View All Apps. Then tap on an app’s name and scroll down the list to tap Permissions.

Check each app for permissions granted by default. Remove all that the app needs. Question why access to the camera, microphone, documents and photos is needed. These are the ways app developers collect your data in order to monetize the software.

Be sure to toggle on the option to remove permissions and free up space for unused apps. Even better, long press on the app name to uninstall the apps you don’t use.


Go to Settings > Apple ID > Password & Security

Work your way through the menu items to set your preferred options. Pay particular attention to the Apps using Apple ID section. This is where you can find third-party apps, such as fitness or email apps, associated with your accounts.

Keep this list short. Be sure to remove apps you no longer use by touching the Edit button and the red “Remove” icon.

Got Malware?

Be suspicious at the first sign of your phone behaving strangely. Both Android and Apple smartphone platforms offer the same set of common symptoms that indicate that malware may be running inside your device.

It helps if you know the most recent apps you’ve installed and the documents or text links you have open. This knowledge can help you troubleshoot a potential malware issue.

If your phone has one or more of these six symptoms, it may be caused by malware:

1. Unusual messages and pop-ups
Inappropriate messages or unwanted advertising pop-ups are sure signs of mobile malware or spyware.

2. Titles in your app drawer or library that you don’t recognize
Search the Internet for the title. This can indicate whether the app is secure or not. Delete all unknown app titles.

3. Slow Performance
This could mean that you have almost maxed out on your available RAM (Random Access Memory). Remove unused apps and restart your phone. If the slowness persists, suspect malware.

4. High Internet usage and/or increased battery consumption
These two symptoms often go hand in hand when malware runs on a device. See below for how to perform a system reset to clear your memory and storage, as well as remove malware.

5. Unusual noise or static on your phone connection
This is a telltale sign that a surveillance app is spying on your phone conversations.

6. Funny Voicemail Messages or Text Messages
Receiving messages and calls from unknown parties are major indicators that access to your phone has been compromised.

remove malware

Resetting or restoring your smartphone is one of the most effective ways to remove suspected malware. Before you waste time and money buying and downloading so called mobile security solutions, do this. Like most battery saver and memory clearing apps, they are pretty much useless.

When finished with these steps you will need to set up your phone again.

Follow these steps to reset your Android smartphone:

Make sure your data is backed up to Google Drive or a comparable solution (see below). Backing up to Google Drive isn’t a requirement, but it’s an easy way to proceed. You need to at least make a backup of your personal data. Otherwise, a copy of your data that was on the device prior to resetting will no longer exist.

  • Open Settings and select System
  • choose reset option
  • Select Erase All Data (Factory Reset)
  • Select reset phone at the bottom
  • When prompted to confirm that you want to do a factory reset, tap Erase Everything.
  • Re-download and install your apps from Google Play

Follow these steps to reset your iPhone:

Back up your data using iCloud or any of the other solutions listed below. However, make sure that your stored iCloud data is not infected.

  • Go to Settings > General > Transfer or Reset iPhone
  • Tap “Erase All Content and Settings” to clear all apps and data – again, make sure you back up your data to iCloud or to a local drive!
  • Restart your iPhone and set it up again
  • Re-download and install your apps from the App Store

We cannot stress enough to make a backup copy of your data.

You will not have access to the data on your device before the reset. So please understand that backing up your data is your only defense against losing it.

Alternative backup locations not mentioned above are Microsoft’s OneDrive or other cloud storage service you use, an XD card in the device, your local computer, or external media such as a USB drive.

Over the years, US broadband has received a bad rap by comparing it to the European market. According to a report released Monday by the DC tech think tank, that rap — and the comparison on which it is founded, is questionable.

Comparisons between US and European broadband prices abound, but their respective markets are built on such completely different cost structures, so that any comparison between the two is meaningless without accounting for the difference in expenditure required, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has mentioned in the report. ITIF).

Costs for US broadband providers are 53% higher than their European counterparts, ITIF reported, driven by higher labor costs, taxes, advertising and payments for spectrum licenses.

It added that US providers also spend more on capital investment, on an overall and per household basis, than European providers, which benefit from lower taxes and government subsidies.

Another criticism of US providers — that they artificially inflate prices to pad profits — doesn’t hold water, either, the report said, because the average profit among European providers is higher than among their state counterparts. Is.

“The US telecommunications market is very different from Europe,” said technology analyst Jeff Kagan. “So, comparing them makes little sense. It’s like trying to compare a pizza to fried chicken.”

“Government is more closely involved in the European model,” he told TechNewsWorld. “When government is part of the mix, quality is low.”

eliminate unproductive comparisons

The report noted that broadband populists in the United States have argued that the US broadband system, through which most people obtain broadband from large, private telecommunications or cable companies, is lacking.

For most, however, it continued, their animosity ranges from practical to ideological. They see broadband as something that naturally requires a strong government role, not the private sector.

To further his case, the report noted, he argues that the US system undermines other countries and regions, especially in Europe, where the EU has imposed strict network unbundling requirements on functionaries.

But as this report shows, it says, comparing EU and US broadband is fraught with difficulties, and most importantly, any such analysis is inherently “apples to oranges”. Includes comparison.

The report declares that it is time to end unproductive EU-US broadband comparisons and put to rest the misleading notion that the two structures are comparable to rest.

“Consumers are not comparing themselves to Europe,” said Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group in Durham, NH, which specializes in research and analysis on the adoption of products and services in the broadband, media and entertainment industries.

“They’re comparing themselves to what they get, and they’re generally satisfied with that,” he told TechNewsWorld.

need for more literacy

Should the US reform its broadband policy to more closely align with the EU model?

Jessica Dine, a research assistant for broadband policy at ITIF and a co-author of the report, doesn’t think so. “Right now, much of our focus should be on ensuring that every state participates thoughtfully and wholeheartedly in existing programs designed to encourage deployment and adoption,” she told TechNewsWorld.

“The money is already there,” she continued. “The real question is whether it will be used effectively.”

Dine explained that while some rural areas would not be served without subsidies, the $65 billion allocated to broadband through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, enacted by Congress, should be enough to actually close the digital divide.

“For some time now, some of the biggest gaps in US broadband access have been in favor of adoption, not deployment,” she said. “There is therefore good reason to pull back on financing high-cost locations and instead focus on programs like Lifeline to help individuals in need wherever they live.”

“We must re-imagine the program to encourage digital literacy while simultaneously reducing the cost of Internet access at the individual level,” he said.

Leichtman said that in surveys conducted by his firm, only 1% of respondents said they wanted broadband but could not get it.

“The number one reason for not having broadband is not availability, not cost, it is lack of need,” he said. “And the reason for the lack of need is computer literacy. It’s old people and poor people without computers.”

“If we make this all about availability, we’re really missing the crux of the issue, which is computer literacy,” he said.

unreasonable fear of falling

The report also noted that critics of US broadband argue that a failure to emulate Europe’s approach to technology would result in the country falling behind the pack of developed nations in terms of high-speed Internet access, capacity and prices. . The food controversy.

According to a report by the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association, they said, the average fixed downlink speed of US broadband was 199 MB/s, which is significantly higher than the world average of 108 MB/s.

In the mobile sector, it continued, the average US downlink speed of 96 MB/s beat both the European and world averages. Furthermore, US 5G coverage at 93.1% of the population is higher than both Europe and Japan, and barely below South Korea.

He said that in 2020 US high-speed, fixed broadband coverage was 98% of homes compared to 87% in Europe.

“While it is more difficult to directly compare prices, US prices are falling,” she said, citing the “2022 Broadband Pricing Index” by USTelcom. It shows that when adjusted for inflation, the price of the most popular speed service from US providers declined by 14.7% from 2021 to 2022, and the price of the fastest speed dropped by 11.6%.

Incorrect comparison persists

As flawed as comparisons between the European and US broadband markets may be, they continue to swell. “There seems to be an enduring belief that to properly assess something you need to compare it to the competition,” Dine said. “In this case, it is appealing to look between US and European broadband offerings to argue that one is doing better than the other.”

“This is not necessarily a bad approach when it comes to areas that are actually comparable between countries, and it can be a helpful way of pointing out flaws or approaches that should be followed,” she observed. .

“As this report points out, there are many inherent differences in the regulatory, economic and geographic foundations of each country’s broadband market,” she continued. “Taken together, these constitute such a large difference in the cost inherent in deploying broadband that it is not necessary to compare prices without taking into account the costs.”