The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) has released its report for Machine Learning for Access Control Policy Verification.  It is a very technical document but useful for those interested in machine learning.

A machine learning classification algorithm is particularly efficient for system model verification  because it does not require comprehensive or complex test cases or oracle, which are needed for  traditional model verification methods. Read the rest of this entry »

In Psyche’s Our evolved intuitions about privacy aren’t made for this era the authors posit the theory that our evolved intuitions about privacy are out of sync with the modern era.  That does explain the significant tension and our mutually contradictory revulsion but also embrace of runaway technology which excel in surveilling our purchases, work, finances and much of our life. An intriguing quote is that ‘we have palaeolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology’.

It is well Read the rest of this entry »

A confluence of reports highlights the dismal state of security preparedness in Australia in particular and throughout the developed world generally.

It governance calculates that in August there were 84 cyber attacks which results in 60,865,828 records being breached.  Of that number T Mobile suffered a hack which affected 53 million records.

Yesterday the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) released its Annual threat report for 2020 – 2021 which reports that over 67,500 cyber crime reports were made in the last 12 months. And the ACSC acknowledges that the figure could, and probably is, higher.  Probably Read the rest of this entry »

The High Court in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller; Nationwide News Pty Limited v Voller; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27 with a 5:2 majority rejected an appeal by media outlets against a ruling that they were liable for comments to their articles on a Facebook page.

FACTS

The appellants each maintain a public Facebook page on terms of use agreed with Facebook which:

• is used to share content and connect with Facebook users.
• is publicly accessible to users, who are able to view and comment on content posted to that page [5].

The use of the Facebook pages usually involves:

• the posting of a hyperlink to a news story,
•  a headline,
• a comment
• an image.
• readers being invited to:
  • “Like”,
  • “Comment”  which are made by users appear on the page and are available to be seen by all Facebook users who can see the page
  • “Share” the post [6]

 Facebook Page administrator

• could:
  • prevent, or
  • block,

the posting of comments by third parties

• could not block all posts on a public Facebook page  [7].
• could delete comments after they were posted but this would not prevent publication
• could “hide” most comments, through the application of a filter, which would prevent publication to all except the administrator which could then be assessed by an administrator [7]

The trial judge found the appellants were publishers.

DECISION

MAJORITY

KIEFEL CJ, KEANE AND GLEESON JJ

Their Honours, as did all judges in this decision, undertook a very comprehensive review Read the rest of this entry »

The adjective “Orwellian” is both overused and misused.  It is often tagged onto a complaint which does not describe a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It is commonly used by someone to label an argument or, often government, proposal which he or she finds disagreeable.  Unfortunately the South Australian Governments use of an app to geo locate and have facial recognition is for those in quarantine is Orwellian. And how this trial became reality demonstrates the dismal state of policy development and exclusion of any input from the community. 

It is relevant to note that South Australia has no Privacy Act.  There is no regulator to deal with privacy breaches, of which this app has the potential for many.  It is a dismal failure of public policy and panic over prudence.  That there has been no outcry from the polity within Australia is a poor reflection on the state of debate here.  The Civil Society’s response has been inconsistent but largely ineffectual.  The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has criticised it on the basis that safeguards are not in place (SA facial recognition app trial should not go ahead without safeguards). It is a weak response that accepts that “..it was possible for facial verification to be conducted safely and appropriately, with the right safeguards.”  Really!  There is more than a few well regarded privacy and other experts who wouldn’t even accept that proposition.  It is a weak and unimpressive Read the rest of this entry »