Our weekly picks of digital trust-related articles

The razor-thin victory for E.U. supports in Moldova is an uneasy one with the heavy Russian influence campaign on social media in the back of everyone's mind. Platforms like Meta have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to effectively tackle influence campaigns, no matter their target or scale. With the U.S. election just days away, American democracy might pay a steep price for not reining in these companies no matter which side the coin-flip election lands on, as eroding trust in the democratic system is at the core of these campaigns.

A very popular top-level domain (.io) is facing a weird situation I never knew could happen. This particular domain is, in fact, a ccTLD, which means it's tied to a country code—particularly "the British Indian Ocean Territory"—whose ownership is about to be moved from the UK to a neighboring nation. This transfer could result in the termination of the TLD, leading to the termination of all domains that use it within a couple of years.

Finally some fun and fascinating news on AI. Penn State researchers have created an electronic tongue that uses AI to tell different liquids apart, like watered-down milk or various sodas, and check for food safety. This opens up a some cool possibilities to have AI as your very own food tester!

The banning of Discord in Russia and Turkey is concerning because it serves as a crucial communication tool (without suitable alternatives available), and both countries justify the ban by citing security concerns, such as misuse for illegal activities. At the core of the ban is also Discord's alleged unwillingness to comply with local laws and share information. Discord is already banned in the UAE, China, Iran, Egypt, Oman and North Korea.

[DE] "Ein sehr empfehlenswerter Überblicksartikel über laufende EU-Verfahren gegen Meta. Als wären dies allein nicht schon genug negative Presse, enthält der Beitrag eine besorgniserregende Beobachtung: Meta scheint sich offenbar das Recht vorzubehalten Beiträge zu zensieren die die Plattform kritisieren. Sollte das über die im Artikel genannten Einzelfälle hinaus Standardvorgehen sein, wäre dieser Missbrauch ihrer Position als Betreiber ein erheblicher Vertrauensbruch gegenüber ihren Benutzer*innen.

Social networks began by enabling us to connect online with our family and friends and with communities of interest. Influencers then helped generate the growth that was “missing” on the personal side. AI-generated content, which Mark Zuckerberg sees as the next “logical jump” in the engagement race, seems very creepy to me if you consider the initial goal of such networks.

"In the US, despite public skepticism and lack of trust, the crypto-currency industry is determined to assert its influence in Washington, spending record amounts on political campaigns. I find it interesting how they are giving the subject a prominent place on the political agenda, when it's clearly not a priority concern for the majority of voters, and also that they are pushing to be placed under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) rather than the much stricter and better resourced Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

It’s alarming that our right to privacy isn’t guaranteed by default when it comes to surfing the internet. Every time we visit a website, we’re forced to navigate through multiple clicks and scroll down to opt out of intrusive cookies. Even more troubling is the reluctance of lawmakers to make privacy the default setting when they have the chance. As highlighted in this article, a proposal for such a law has been vetoed. While we wait for meaningful change, tools like Privacy Pager, also mentioned here, can help safeguard your privacy in the meantime.

Time to check your Linux servers again - 'perfctl' wants to install a cryptominer for Monero on your systems, add your server as a node to Tor, and some other nice things. It uses Apache RocketMQ as an entry point, but most probably this will be extended in the coming months. Stay safe out there!

Remember the trains which stopped after being maintained by a third-party repair shop? Then hackers 'unlocked' the trains? Here is a follow-up on the legal struggle between this train company and the hackers. It makes me uncomfortable thinking about the power companies have nowadays over things we buy. And much of buying is more like rental, which might be halfway understandable for some tools, but breaks down if your eye-implant cannot work anymore because the company went bust. Or, in this case, because the train company decided you should only service in their yards.

This hack on U.S. wiretap systems illustrates the risks of creating backdoors meant only for 'good guys.' Similar concerns have been raised about the EU's chat control legislation. Whatever weaknesses are designed to allow for 'lawful interception' also opens opportunities for 'unlawful interception', it is as simple as that.

Probably nothing undermines digital trust as much as companies that claim to provide it but, in fact, do the opposite. The case of Avast is just another example on the long ledger of data privacy issues resulting from a lack of political will to install sound and robust federal data privacy laws in the US.

A good discussion on the reasons behind the regulatory fervor regarding AI which reveals that, at its core, it is a struggle for power—specifically, the power to determine the values, goals, and means that will eventually be enshrined in regional and international institutional settings governing AI.

One more thing which doesn't stop inspiring security-related articles: cars with a 24/7 internet connection. This time it's KIA where attackers found a way to remotely open/lock the vehicles, start the motor, and many more things. The only thing needed is the license-plate number. So, it seems that the car manufacturers still don't test their systems enough. But how could this be changed? Higher fines if something like this is found? Certifications for internet-connected cars?

Similar to the TikTok ban, this initiative is driven by a combination of protectionism, national security concerns, and data privacy fears. While it is possible for state and non-state actors to hack into any car system if they are determined to do so, the primary concern is China's completely legal ability to access data collected by its companies under certain justifications. However, the real issue remains the largely unregulated collection of vast amounts of data by car manufacturers, which is just as concerning as the national security issues over who can access that data.

Telegram is used for freedom of speech (resp. cybercrime, at a presumably smaller scale), as is TOR,and many of the privacy-preserving systems around us. Will the latter have the same fate as Telegram? or does the fact that they are "distributed" spare them? I'm curious how democracies can enforce law to systems distributed worldwide. Prohibit their usage? stop investment in their research? other ideas? it's not straightforward.