 |
|
|
|||||
DeepSeek, the Chinese artificial intelligence company whose technology has rattled both Silicon Valley and Wall Street, said Monday it would temporarily limit new user registrations due to “large-scale malicious attacks.” Existing users can log in as usual, it added in an incident report on its website. The attack coincides with the company’s rapid success. Its latest model appears to put it alongside peers like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, but at, what it says, a much lower price point. Founded in 2023, DeepSeek introduced its specialized model, R1, last week. Deepseek R1 is one of the most amazing and impressive breakthroughs Ive ever seen, Trump advisor and Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen said in a post on X. DeepSeek’s mobile phone app hit No. 1 on the Apple App store’s free app list on Monday, surpassing ChatGPT. That success also stoked investor fears and led to a deep tech selloff Monday. Shares of Nvidia, which designs chips for major AI firms, were down more than 15% in midday trading Monday.
Category:
E-Commerce
Long before Roe v. Wade was overturned, reproductive justice advocates had been sounding the alarm about the increasing number of women subjected to criminal investigation for suspected abortion, stillbirth, or miscarriage. These cases were often initiated by healthcare providers and bolstered by state laws used to prosecute women for having abortions. Newer laws, however, incentivize people outside of healthcare, including friends and family members, to report someone they suspect of having an abortion or helping someone else with an abortion. Coupled with the unprecedented access that authorities now have to digital information, these laws create new avenues for prosecution. In the post-Roe era, people capable of pregnancy face growing threats. Healthcare providers, family, friends, information on personal devices, and virtually any activity that can be observed or recorded pose privacy risks that can lead to prosecution. I study online privacy. This vast scope for potential surveillance and privacy intrusion is a key focus of the research my colleagues and I conduct. In a recent paper, we surveyed reproductive healthcare providers about their privacy and security practices. We used the results to map the path of a hypothetical Jane to illustrate how people can identify privacy risks in their own situations. This choose-your-adventure approach helps readers navigate the potential legal, digital, and personal challenges involved in accessing reproductive healthcareand reveals the grim stakes. Privacy protections Historically, healthcare providers who opposed abortion have been the primary sources for reporting patients suspected of seeking abortions. While they remain a significant threat, additional risks to patient privacy have emerged. For example, state laws increasingly compel providers to hand over medical records. This circumvents new Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protections meant to shield protected reproductive health information from use in investigations when people seek abortions in states where the procedure is legal. Authorities might also be able to access records across state lines where abortion is legalfor example, when different electronic health record systems can share data. It is also possible that, in the future, electronic health records could be seized across state lines. Last year, in a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 19 state attorneys general protested the new federal data privacy rules. Texas followed up with a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the rule. Even so-called shield laws adopted by some states meant to protect people seeking abortions from record seizures have loopholes. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services added a privacy rule to protect reproductive health data. Privacy vulnerabilities Despite some protections offered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, additional gaps in safeguarding reproductive health information persist. Data captured outside medical portals, such as from apps or pharmacy transactions, often falls outside the federal laws scope. Its important to note that apps that capture consumer reproductive health data, like period trackers, do not necessarily pose a greater risk than informants. But the dystopian potential of governments reaching into personal intimate data, and the simplicity of the remedydeleting an appdraw disproportionate attention. While its not entirely clear whether period trackers are definitively good or bad from a digital privacy perspective, they do offer potential benefits, such as helping people prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus avoid prosecution. Once reported to authorities, activities conducted on personal devicesbrowsing history, purchases, location data, and messages with friends or familycan become evidence in prosecutions. Authorities have shown a willingness to subpoena records from social media platforms, and they frequently access personal devices. Additionally, laws that incentivize family, friends, and partners to report suspected abortions create a threat of surveillance from intimate associates. These dynamics are exacerbated by new laws that criminalize trafficking minorstransporting them across state linesfor abortion services. Providers role protecting privacy In our research, my colleagues and I found that reproductive healthcare providers can play a critical role in guiding patients on adopting privacy strategies and helping them navigate an increasingly complex landscape of privacy threats. Clinics are trusted spaces for affordable, progressive care that often shield patients from judgment or harm. Based on our interviews with reproductive healthcare providers, the protocols they use to manage communications, billing, and other aspects of patient interactions have proved effective at protecting privacy, especially for vulnerable populations like minors or people with abusive partners. Hoever, people seeking abortions face more nuanced threats. Providers tend to overlook digital risks and threats of prosecution tied to patients devices and records. This gap in awareness leaves patients without critical guidance for protecting their privacy. Our initial research conducted in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision revealed that people capable of pregnancy express profound concerns about reproductive privacy, yet often feel inadequately prepared to navigate its complexities. Findings from our forthcoming research suggest that many patients take extensive precautions, yet its not clear how effectively they can prioritize their digital strategies. At the same time, these people place significant trust in their reproductive healthcare providers, especially because they often deem existing guidance on privacy untrustworthy or insufficient. Although providers may currently be less attuned to the newer privacy risks, they could play a crucial role in addressing them. By incorporating digital privacy and threat modeling into their care, providers can help patients navigate a complex landscape of threats in an environment of pervasive surveillance. Nora McDonald is assistant professor of information technology at George Mason University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Its official, Matthew McConaughey is returning to the Super Bowl. We don’t know much else about the Uber Eats big game ad, but we do know McConaughey will be in it, based on two new teasers released today. Here, we see McConaughey, who previously starred in Super Bowl ads for Doritos (2021) and Salesforce (2022) recreating the iconic look of former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, along with Da Bears line from the classic SNL sketch. Ubers head of marketing for North America Georgie Jeffreys says the core objective for its big game work is to continue to drive relevance and brand affinity with Americans, particularly in the suburbs. When it comes to teasers, though, the goal is more about setting vibes and piquing curiosity. There’s no other time when people are ready and waiting to watch an ad, says Jeffreys. There’s also no other time when people are anticipating what you’re going to do as a brand. You have this opportunity to capitalize on it in a way that you might not with other campaigns at other times of the year. If you can get it right, then its kind of your fire starter. The brand began its run with McConaughey last September, when he floated the conspiracy theory that the function of all sports is to act as a catalyst for us to eat more food. He now revisits that theory with a big game teaser that posits an alternative meaning for this year’s Roman numerals. Jeffreys says that the response to that spot completely upended its Super Bowl plans (they typically start thinking about the big game in July), and they began a complete redo in October, working with agency Special US. Since then, both Charli XCX and Martha Stewart have joined the roster. Celebrity strategy When it comes to picking celebrities to work with, Jeffreys says they have to answer a few different questions: Do they appeal to the audience? Are they somewhat unexpected? Are they willing to be self-deprecating? But at its core, they actually have to amplify the creative idea, she says. They need to fit it, and by being a part of the creative idea, they need to make the idea bigger. It’s not the first time the brand has utilized an unlikely pairing of celebrity in its advertising, nor is this its first rodeo in resurrecting a beloved SNL sketch. Back in 2021, it was “Wayne’s World,” reuniting Mike Myers and Dana Carvey to resurrect their classic SNL characters alongside Cardi B. In late 2023, Robert De Niro and Asa Butterfield (Sex Education) starred in a delightful spot depicting them as an unlikely pair of BBFs. (Its 2023 Super Bowl spot starring Diddy definitely hasn’t aged well . . . does Uber Eats deliver baby oil?) For 2022, it was all about celebs looking silly to emphasize the app delivers more than food. So there was Academy Award winner Gwyneth Paltrow biting into a Goop candle. Nicholas Braun (Cousin Greg from HBOs Succession) guzzling dish detergent. Jennifer Coolidge (White Lotus) trying to eat on paper towels. Last year, the spot revolved around celebs forgetting incredibly obvious facts about themselves. Like Jennifer Aniston forgetting she worked with David Schwimmer on Friends or Jelly Roll trying to scrub tattoos off his face. For that teaser, it was David and Victoria Beckham recreating the viral Be honest moment from their Netflix doc series. The brand courted controversy when part of the spot joked about forgetting about a peanut allergy, a scene it cut before it aired during the game. Big Game opportunity Controversy aside, the Uber Eats ad isnt backing away from the sense of humor and tone it’s established over the past few years. And despite the continued fragmentation of media and pop culture, the Super Bowl remains a unique opportunity. If we hadn’t been doing this before the last five years, it would have taken us a lot longer to really establish ourselves as a brand in mainstream culture, says Jeffreys. I think people now have a clearer understanding of our brand and tone because we’re consistently showing up with a very specific type of spot that is landing a specific type of humor. Even if the message changes, the core tenets of our brand are the same. So there is both a long- and short-term play there, which is why we keep coming back.
Category:
E-Commerce
A lawsuit seeking to strike down North Dakota’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors will go to trial Monday, more than a year after families of transgender children and a doctor filed the suit that argued the law violates the state’s constitution.North Dakota is one of more than two dozen states that have banned gender-affirming care. Like North Dakota, many of those states have faced court challenges to the laws.“Our argument is that all North Dakotans have a right to access healthcare that helps improve their lives and well-being, and our clients are no different,” said lead counsel Brittany Stewart, senior staff attorney at Gender Justice, a nonprofit advocating gender equity.Court rulings have significantly reduced the scope of the North Dakota case, filed in late 2023. Earlier this month, a state district judge dismissed from the case some of the claims as well as the children and families who were plaintiffs, leaving only a pediatric endocrinologist as a plaintiff.The trial in Bismarck, the state capital, is expected to last eight days. It’s unclear when the judge will rule.Then-Gov. Doug Burgum signed the bill into law in April 2023 after it overwhelmingly passed the Republican-led Legislature. It makes it a misdemeanor for a healthcare provider to prescribe or give hormone treatments or puberty blockers to a transgender child, and a felony to perform gender-affirming surgery on a minor.Lawmakers who supported the bill that became law said it would protect children from what they said are irreversible treatments and operations.“We were creating an atmosphere where if you felt you had that situation, that you were of that mentality, that we would go ahead and cut off body parts and affirm where you’re at without trying to guide you through it,” said Republican Rep. Bill Tveit, who introduced the bill. “Maybe it was a wrong thought at that age, and if you want to make that decision when you’re of age . . . that’s your prerogative once you’re an adult.”He said he hopes the trial’s outcome affirms the law. North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley declined to comment on the case.Opponents said the legislation would have harmful effects on transgender kids, and noted that gender-affirming surgeries are not performed on minors in North Dakota.A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey last year found that transgender and gender-questioning teens reported higher rates of bullying at school than their peers and that about 1 in 4 transgender teens said they had attempted suicide in the past year.Stewart said, “When you ban the only medically supported care for a specific condition and only for young people who are under 18, you’re not protecting those kids. You’re actively harming those children.”The law contains an exemption for children who were already receiving treatments before the ban’s effective date. But attorneys for the plaintiffs said providers held off due to perceived vagueness in the law. That led the families to travel and miss work and school to seek care for their kidsincluding an eight-hour round trip drive for one family to attend a 30-minute appointment, Stewart said.The judge later said the law does not apply to any minors who were receiving gender-affirming care before North Dakota’s ban took effect, including the three plaintiff children. The judge said they “can receive any gender-affirming care they could have received” previously. But their access remains unchanged because that ruling was not enough of a final decision to satisfy attorneys for healthcare organizations, Stewart said.At least two pediatric endocrinologists in North Dakota were providing gender-affirming care before the ban, Stewart said.“As far as the number of patients, I can’t really say, but honestly whether it’s a lot or a few is really irrelevant to whether this is constitutional,” she said.President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order declaring only two sexes, male and female, are recognized by the federal government. State laws on sports participation, bathroom use, gender-affirming care, and other issues are not directly affected.Every major U.S. medical group, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, has opposed such bans and said that gender-affirming treatments can be medically necessary and are supported by evidence. Research has further shown that transgender youths and adults can be prone to suicidal behavior when forced to live as the sex they were assigned at birth.At least 26 states have adopted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, and most of those states face lawsuits. Federal judges have struck down the bans in Arkansas and Florida as unconstitutional, though a federal appeals court has stayed the Florida ruling. A judge’s order is in place temporarily blocking enforcement of the ban in Montana.The states that have passed laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors include Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Jack Dura, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Automaker Kia America is recalling more than 80,000 vehicles due to floor wiring beneath the front passenger seat that can become damaged and prevent airbags and seat belts from deploying properly.Damaged wiring can also cause an unintended side curtain air bag deployment, according to documents filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.The recall covers 80,255 2023-2025 Niro EV, Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV), and Hybrid vehicles.To remedy the situation, dealers will inspect, replace, and reroute the floor wiring assembly, as necessary, for free. In addition, dealers will install wiring covers. Owners will be notified by letters mailed in March.The recall follows one in November, when Hyundai and Kia recalled over 208,000 electric vehicles to fix a transistor in a charging control unit that could be damaged and stop charging the 12-volt battery. That in turn could cause loss of drive power, increasing the risk of a crash.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] next »