Google Allowed Advertisers To Target "Jewish Parasite," "Black People Ruin Everything"

Google, the world's biggest advertising platform, allows advertisers to specifically target ads to people typing racist and bigoted terms into its search bar, BuzzFeed News has discovered. Not only that, Google will suggest additional racist and bigoted terms once you type some into its ad buying tool.

Type “White people ruin,” as a potential advertising keyword into Google's ad platform, and Google will suggest you run ads next to searches including “black people ruin neighborhoods.” Type “Why do Jews ruin everything,” and Google will suggest you run ads next to searches including “the evil jew” and “jewish control of banks.”

BuzzFeed News ran an ad campaign targeted to all these keywords and others this week. The ads went live and were visible when we searched for the keywords we'd selected. Google's ad buying platform tracked the ad views. Following our inquiry, Google disabled every keyword in this ad campaign save one — an exact match for “blacks destroy everything,” is still eligible. Google told BuzzFeed News that just because a phrase is eligible does not guarantee an ad campaign will run against it.

“This violates our policies against derogatory speech and we have removed it,” a Google spokesperson told BuzzFeed News after being sent a screenshot of live ad campaign targeted to the search terms “Zionists control the world.”

This revelation comes as Facebook is scrambling to adjust its advertising platform which allowed marketers to target “Jew haters.” Facebook blamed the issue, first reported by ProPublica, on its software algorithms. The company said these targeting criteria emerged when people listed the terms under their education and employer fields of their profiles. Facebook Thursday night said it would temporarily stop offering advertisers the option to target by these self-reported targeting fields.

In our Google ad buy, BuzzFeed News used ProPublica's story's as the destination URL.

There are major differences between Facebook and Google's ad systems that make Google's system harder to police. On Facebook, you essentially pick targeting criteria from Facebook's catalogue of information about people — their gender, location, interests and more. On Google, you target ads to terms you anticipate will be typed in the search box. So Google's universe of potential ad targeting contains many more unknowns.

Google removed 1.7 billion ads that violated its ad policies in 2016, according to its bad ad report.

Still, BuzzFeed News' campaign was largely made up of keywords suggested by Google's ad buying platform, which seemed to go the extra mile to make sure all angles of certain racist or bigoted ad buys got covered.

Here's a quick breakdown of how the campaign was built. Typing an exact match for “why do jews ruin everything” into Google's ad buying tool generated 77 additional keyword suggestions, from “jews ruin the world” to “jewish parasites.” The keyword tool generates suggestions from the text on the destination website copy, and also pulls from search trends. Google is looking into the way the tool works, and making updates to it, the company told BuzzFeed News.

BuzzFeed News selected a few of these terms and targeted a campaign to them. Google's sole warning, at first, seemed to be that “zionist Jews run the world” wasn't searched all that often.

BuzzFeed News then tried other terms including “white people ruin.” Google suggested 14 additional keywords here too, among them: “black people destroy everything” and “black people ruin neighborhoods.”

BuzzFeed News targeted these terms too. Google disabled most of them after BuzzFeed News provided the company with details about the campaign, but an exact match for “black people destroy everything” is still eligible.

On Thursday, Slate found an additional number of hateful categories inside Facebook's ad platform. BuzzFeed News tried these categories as keywords inside Google too.

Google's ad buying platform would not allow three of them.

With those keywords removed, the campaign was deemed eligible by Google's ad buying tool, though it again had concerns about low search volume.

When Google disapproved some of the campaign's targeting, its system sent the following message: “We value diversity and respect for others, so we strive to avoid offending users with ads or promoted content that's inappropriate for our ad network. Please remove any content that promotes hatred, intolerance, harassment, intimidation, exploitation, violence, or self-harm.”

Quelle: <a href="Google Allowed Advertisers To Target "Jewish Parasite," "Black People Ruin Everything"“>BuzzFeed

Three Ex-Googlers Just Sued The Company For Allegedly Discriminating Against Women

Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

A class-action lawsuit filed today against Google in California Superior Court in San Francisco alleges that the company systematically discriminates against its female employees by paying them less than their male counterparts. In addition, the lawsuit claims that Google “assigns and keeps women in job ladders and levels with lower compensation ceilings and advancement opportunities than those to which men with similar skills, experience, and duties are assigned and kept.”

Filed on behalf of three ex-employees — Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri — the lawsuit's class encompasses any woman who worked at Google in California in the last four years. Plaintiff lawyer Jim Finberg, in an interview with BuzzFeed News, estimated that class “could be in the tens of thousands.” Finberg added that filing the lawsuit in California, as opposed to filing a federal lawsuit, was strategic: “The California Equal Pay Act was amended twice in ways that make it somewhat more favorable than the Federal Equal Pay Act. On a technical level, the California statute says 'equal pay for substantially similar work,' and the federal statute says 'equal pay for equal work.'”

Google attracted increasing public scrutiny over the last few months. Last week, the New York Times reported that an internal Google spreadsheet of self-reported employee wages showed that women at five of Google's six job hierarchy levels are paid less than men. In August, Google engineer James Damore's memo against the company's diversity initiatives, which was circulated within the company, went viral; Damore was fired. Damore's memo and firing came against the backdrop of Google's ongoing refusal to comply with orders to release its pay data, going back two years. In January, the US Department of Labor sued the company for its compensation data; in April, a Labor Department representative testified that “we found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” and still Google declined to release its pay data. In July, a judge ruled that the Labor Department's request for data was overly broad. Now the Labor Department either has to appeal, or be satisfied with the more limited data set that the judge ruled Google must supply.

If the lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss and goes into discovery, Google will be forced to provide reams of documentation about its hiring and pay practices. One of the lawsuit's most damning allegations is that Google's failure to pay men and women equally is willful because the company knew or should have known about its pay disparities but failed to equalize salaries.

The three plaintiffs all worked on different teams at the company, but had similar stories of being paid less than their male counterparts, shunted into less prestigious (and therefore lower-paying) roles, and denied promotions. Ellis worked for Google from May 2010 to July 2014 as a software engineer, and her pay disparity, she alleges, started when she was asked what her base salary at her previous job had been, and was offered the same amount. (Several states and cities, including San Francisco, have since passed laws banning the practice of asking for job applicants' previous salaries.) Not only that, Ellis was put in Level 3 on Google's Software Engineering ladder — which the company typically assigns to recent college graduates. Ellis had graduated in 2006 and had four years of backend engineering experience.

Within a few weeks, the lawsuit alleges, Google hired a male engineer — who had also graduated in 2006 — onto Ellis's team, but placed him at Level 4, where he was eligible for “substantially higher salary and opportunities for bonuses, raises, and equity” than Ellis was as a Level 3 engineer. By the time Ellis was finally promoted to Level 4, her male counterparts had also been promoted, “ensuring she could never catch up on the gender pay gap.”

The complaint also alleges that women at Google were pushed into frontend engineering roles, which were perceived as less technically rigorous than backend engineering roles — even though the skills needed for both jobs were “substantially similar.” But frontend engineers were paid less, while backend engineers, according to the complaint, were fast-tracked for promotion. The suit says Ellis eventually resigned because of the sexist culture at Google.

The second plaintiff, Holly Pease, worked at Google for over 10 years in a variety of engineering management roles in the Mountain View and Sunnyvale offices, receiving excellent performance reviews during her time there. By the time she became a senior manager, most of the employees she managed were on the “technical” job ladder, as was the only other senior manager in her group — who also happened to be a man. But Pease was placed and kept on the non-technical Business Systems ladder, “with lower compensation and opportunities for upward mobility.” She was later denied the opportunity to transition to a role on the technical ladder.

After Pease returned from a medical leave (the lawsuit doesn't specify when or how long the leave was), the only position available to her was a non-engineering role in physical security. She accepted the job and continued to get high performance reviews, but claims she resigned in February 2016, “due to the lack of technical and engineering opportunities available to her and other women at Google, the denial of compensation commensurate with her skills relative to similar men, and the stalling out of her career at the company.”

The third plaintiff, Kelli Wisuri, started working in sales at Google's Mountain View office after her company was acquired in October 2012. Despite her 2.5 years of sales experience, Google put her at Level 2, the lowest level available for permanent full-time employees, while, the suit alleges, placing male employees with similar qualifications and experience into Level 3 or higher. In addition — like Pease, who was put on a less lucrative and prestigious ladder than her male counterparts — Wisuri was put into the Sales Enablement ladder, which was salaried, and not the Sales ladder, which was paid on commission. Enablement jobs, therefore, have “considerably less compensation potential than Sales jobs.” In addition, almost all of the Sales teams Wisuri worked with were men — but about 50% of the employees on the Sales Enablement ladder were women.

The lawsuit claims Wisuri resigned in January 2015 “due to the lack of opportunities for advancement for women at Google.”

By making the suit a class action, the plaintiffs have substantially increased Google's potential liability: The plaintiffs are asking for back wages, interest, and liquidated damages for everyone in the class.

In a statement provided to BuzzFeed News via email, Google spokesperson Gina Scigliano wrote: “We work really hard to create a great workplace for everyone, and to give everyone the chance to thrive here. In relation to this particular lawsuit, we’ll review it in detail, but we disagree with the central allegations. Job levels and promotions are determined through rigorous hiring and promotion committees, and must pass multiple levels of review, including checks to make sure there is no gender bias in these decisions. And we have extensive systems in place to ensure that we pay fairly.”

In response, plaintiff lawyer Finberg pointed to the Department of Labor investigation and the New York Times story, and added, “Certainly the information we have obtained from dozens and dozens of women at Google tells us that despite what might be Google's intentions, Google does not pay women as well as men who perform similar work.”

LINK: Ellis v. Google Complaint

Quelle: <a href="Three Ex-Googlers Just Sued The Company For Allegedly Discriminating Against Women“>BuzzFeed

21 Celebrities Just Got A Harsh Warning About Instagram Ads

An Instagram from Amber Rose that appears to endorse the clothing shop Fashion Nova. The FTC included this example in its letter to her.

instagram.com

The FTC has taken a big step in cracking down on celebrities doing shady Instagram ads by sending a new set of warning letters to 21 celebrities that require them to respond.

Some celebrity Instagram ads are obvious and easy to identify, but there are many that are confusing or unclear. And a lot of celebrities and influencers don’t properly disclose their #sponsored posts. A report on the top 50 most popular celebrities showed that 93% of the ads they did were not properly disclosed.

According to the FTC’s guidelines, you’re supposed to disclose an ad if you have a “material connection” to a product or brand. That means you’re not only supposed to say #ad if it was a very straightforward thing where you were paid to post about a product, but also if you were given a free gift (like clothes or a free private jet ride), or if you have a big endorsement deal with a brand, like Rihanna and Puma, or Kendall Jenner being the “face” of Esteé Lauder. Nebulous hashtags like #partner or just tagging the sponsor aren’t considered proper disclosures.

In March, the FTC sent “educational” letters to a 43 celebrities/influencers as well as brands, reminding them of the rules that they have to disclose if their posts are ads.

In the past, the FTC has only gone after against brands, not celebrities, for undisclosed social media ads. The “educational” letters to celebs were a new tactic, but they were still a step away from a real enforcement action, and the FTC said in the March letter that they were not attempting to verify if posts in question were ads or not. These new warning letters sent on September 6 are a step further, and now the FTC wants the celebrities to officially respond to the letters.

The FTC did not have any additional comment on these letters.

For example, the letter the FTC sent to Ciara about a photo of sneakers she posted on Instagram on May 8 reads [emphasis added]:

You posted a picture of three pairs of baby shoes and you wrote, “Thank You @JonBuscemi.” In the picture, you tagged the shoes ” buscemi” and “jonbuscemi.” As my earlier letter explained, a simple “thank you” is probably inadequate to inform consumers of a material connection because it does not sufficiently explain the nature of your relationship; consumers could understand “thank you” simply to mean that you are a satisfied customer. In addition, the FTC staff believes that simply tagging a brand is an endorsement of the brand. Your post does not disclose whether you have a material connection with the marketer of Buscemi shoes.

instagram.com

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, brought these celebrities’ undisclosed ads to the FTC’s attention months ago, and has been monitoring these celebs since they received the letters back in March. Earlier this summer, they sent a letter to the FTC asking them to take further action, since they saw that many of celebs who received educational letters hadn’t clean up their act at all. Now, they are hoping the FTC will press even harder.

“While we are pleased that the FTC is taking deceptive social media marketing seriously,” Kristen Strader, a representative for the organization, told BuzzFeed News, “until enforcement action is taken against companies that facilitate influencer marketing, or influencers who post undisclosed ads, the culture around influencer marketing on social media will remain as it is – accepted consumer deception on behalf of profit-driven companies, without consequences.”

deleted Instagram

Here are the 21 celebrities who received letters:

Farrah Abraham (from Teen Mom)

Akon

Amber Rose

Ashley Benson

Naomi Campbell

Ciara

Scott Disick

Tiona Fernan (an Instagram model)

Lilly Ghalichi (Shahs of Sunset star and makeup artist)

Lucy Hale (Pretty Little Liars)

Chelsea Houska (Teen Mom 2 star)

Vanessa Hudgens

Jenni “JWoww” Farley

Vanessa Lachey

Lindsay Lohan

Shay Mitchell (Pretty Little Liars)

Rach Parcell (fashion blogger)

Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi

Lisa Rinna

Sofia Vergara

Dorothy Wang (from Rich Kids of Instagram)

Instagram: @letthelordbewithyou

Quelle: <a href="21 Celebrities Just Got A Harsh Warning About Instagram Ads“>BuzzFeed

Here’s Why It Doesn't Matter If People Trust Facebook’s Fake News Label In The News Feed

Reuters

When it comes to Facebook’s effort to stop the flow of misinformation on its platform, the labels can be misleading — and the project appears to be more about perfecting the company's algorithms than providing a “Good Housekeeping” stamp of approval for readers.

Almost exactly nine months ago, the company announced it would add a “disputed by third party fact-checkers” label to links in the News Feed that external fact checkers deemed completely false. Since then, the label has been a major focus of reporting and research. “Tagging fake news on Facebook doesn't work, study says,” read the headline on a Politico story about a draft research paper. (Facebook questioned the study’s methodology and the validity of its findings.)

But here’s the hidden truth people keep missing: the public’s reaction to the disputed label is largely irrelevant to stopping the spread of misinformation.

One reason is that any link rated false by third party checkers automatically has its reach reduced on Facebook. People can share it all they want but the platform prevents it from going viral as a result of an algorithmic push.

“The [disputed label] is almost more valuable in terms of reduced reach than in terms of consequences of users understanding of the individual item,” Alexios Mantzarlis, director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), told BuzzFeed News.

The second, less obvious reason why the label isn’t the most important piece of Facebook’s initiative is that these fact checked links are being added to what is fast becoming the world’s biggest and most up to date database of false stories. As with everything about Facebook, it’s the data and the algorithms that matter most.

With each new debunked story, the company gathers more data it can use to train its algorithms to make better decisions about which content to surface in the News Feed. This means the fact checkers are in effect working as content raters for Facebook in order to help train machines. Not surprisingly, this isn’t what motivates the fact checkers to do their work.

“I don't want to sound like a Neanderthal but I'm not really focusing on it,” Aaron Sharockman, the executive director of PolitiFact, told BuzzFeed News. “For us, our biggest priorities are to make the tools we use to spot and fact check fake news as efficient as possible so we can cover as much ground and have an impact.”

Facebook

As the checkers go about their important work, Facebook is now beginning to use their data to roll out new initiatives. Last month it announced that pages which repeatedly share false news stories will be blocked from using ad tools on the platform. Facebook is identifying these pages using the stories declared false by its fact checking partners. Thanks to that data, the company can now easily track if a page keeps sharing false stories, and automatically block that page from promoting itself with boosted posts or other types of ads. This is a powerful deterrent.

But unlike a disputed label in the News Feed, an ad product tweak based on a database of objectively false stories isn’t something that users see, and it’s not something a researcher can analyze. As with so much of Facebook’s data, it’s not accessible those outside the company. So yes, this is yet another example of data-rich Facebook getting even richer. (At least Facebook is now paying its fact checking partners for their work.)

This type of database is time-consuming and expensive to maintain. Normally, researchers have to secure grants and train people to evaluate and classify content. Facebook’s partnership with the likes of PolitiFact and Snopes means the company has some of the best fact checkers in the business identifying completely false stories, thereby providing a constant stream of high quality data.

I know from personal experience how hard it is to generate reliable data in this area. In 2014 I led a research project that tracked rumors being reported by news websites and logged whether they were true, false, or unverified. At the end of the project, a research assistant and I had gathered more than 100 rumors and over 1,500 news articles citing them into a database. It was an almost full time job for me for several months to get that data.

Similar projects also needed significant human effort to classify stories, tweets, images or other kinds of content. For example, an EU-funded project created a corpus of several hundred real and fake images shared on Twitter during Hurricane Sandy, the Boston Marathon bombings, and other news events. Another rumor-analysis project produced a set of over 300 manually-annotated Twitter conversations, as well as a dataset of 5,000 annotated tweets.

Quality datasets of this nature are hard to come by — and I’m not aware of any that are being maintained on an ongoing basis like the one Facebook is building. That’s why years later I still receive requests from academics to use my project’s data. (In addition to the fact checkers, Facebook also gets the data generated when users report a link as false.)

With the fact checkers, Facebook has found a way to create a reliable source of expertly-annotated data it can mine to create smarter artificial intelligence. Along with spotting completely false stories, the data may also prove useful in helping the platform identify common characteristics of low-quality websites. This is good news, and ultimately far more impactful than a label being shown to users. That’s not to suggest the label isn’t important — at the very least it reminds hoaxsters they will be publicly called out, in addition to having their reach killed and Facebook’s ad tools turned off. The label should exist, and it should work.

But the reality is that on a platform with over 2 billion monthly active users, human fact checkers and labels on links only go so far. Mantzarlis said the combination of humans and artificial intelligence is ultimately the only way to address the problem at the scale Facebook operates.

“I think Facebook understands that a combination of artificial intelligence and human fact checkers is probably a winning one,” he said.

He also said this means Facebook is likely to keep working with fact checkers over the long term.

“We’re not in a place where they’re just using the human [checkers as] experiments and will then cut them all off suddenly,” he said.

Mantzarlis was referring to Facebook’s decision last year to get rid of the human curators who worked on its Trending product in favor of using an algorithm-driven approach. The initial result of that decision was that the Trending product promoted several false stories to potentially millions of users.

It seems Facebook learned its lesson: keep the humans and display their work publicly, but most importantly make sure you’re feeding the machines.

Quelle: <a href="Here’s Why It Doesn't Matter If People Trust Facebook’s Fake News Label In The News Feed“>BuzzFeed

Snapchat Is Animating Your Bitmoji So You Can Play With Them In The Real World

Snapchat is animating your Bitmoji. Starting today, you'll be able to bring them to life inside the Snapchat app, and watch them navigate the world around you.

Snap Inc.

Refresher: Bitmoji are digital avatars you can customize so they look like you.

Snap Inc.

Snapchat bought Bitmoji (the company) for more than $100 million in March, 2016. Yup, it knows what we want:

Guggy.com

You can access your animated Bitmoji by tapping the front facing camera display inside Snapchat (Where the dancing hot dog once lived). The animated Bitmoji will appear alongside other Snapchat effects in bottom carousel. Scroll through to find them.

Snap Inc.

Snap will regularly refresh these Bitmojis' activities. Expect everyday situations, like getting coffee. And fun things, like skateboarding and air guitar.

Now, go have fun. And remember to do real world stuff too. Like feeding yourself and getting exercise.

giphy.com

Quelle: <a href="Snapchat Is Animating Your Bitmoji So You Can Play With Them In The Real World“>BuzzFeed

Jaybird Just Made The Best-Sounding Wireless Earbuds

Runner-favorite Jaybird is releasing a new product called RUN — and they’re the best wireless earbuds for working out.

Jaybird, the company that makes my favorite headphones for running, is shipping its first pair of wireless earbuds called RUN later this month.

Jaybird, the company that makes my favorite headphones for running, is shipping its first pair of wireless earbuds called RUN later this month.

The RUN is a cable-less, wire-free earbud that can connect to your device (laptop, phone, tablet, etc.) over Bluetooth, and it will be available sometime later this month for $180 (which, I know, is very expensive). Its most compelling feature? It actually sounds great when you're outside, on the move.

Wireless earbuds are a growing category and there are many to choose from: Apple's $159 AirPods, Samsung's $140 Gear IconX, the $150 Bragi Headphone, and the $300 Here Ones, just to name a few.

What makes this pair exciting is that it's made by Jaybird. The Utah-based company is focused on sound, sweatproof-ness, and fit — so much so, that its headphones are often a hassle to set up. They come with a variety of bud and wingtip sizes, and can be configured in your ear in multiple ways. It takes a while to get it right. Once the buds do fit, though, they sound and feel great, plus they stay in your ear, which is very important for people who run, bike, and bounce around outside.

The RUN, however, required less set-up time than other Jaybird earbuds I've tried. The default bud/wingtip-size ended up being perfect for my ears, and I loved how good they made my workout beats sound. Overall, I think the RUN are the best-sounding pair of wireless earbuds for athletes I've tried so far. They're great for runs and rides under 4 hours, but because of their short battery life, shape, and connectivity quirks, I'd recommend other brands (AirPods and Bragi) for all-day wear.

Nicole Nguyen / BuzzFeed News

I’ll start with the bad: Its charging case can hold up 12 hours of battery life, but the battery on the buds themselves isn’t great.

I'll start with the bad: Its charging case can hold up 12 hours of battery life, but the battery on the buds themselves isn't great.

The case, which is charged via a micro USB cable, is very small and portable, though it's a little awkward to open with one hand. A light indicator on the outside shows whether or not your earbuds are charged.

The embedded magnets that are supposed to guide the earbuds into their charging ports could be stronger, but doing that would add more weight to the case.

Each bud only holds four hours of battery life. Jaybird did implement a fast charging system into the case — five minutes of charging in the case powers the earbuds with up to one hour of listening — which is fine for long bike rides or runs (I kept the buds in the case while resting). But, with just four hours of power per session, the earbuds aren't really designed for all-day wear at the office or at home. It takes a few hours to charge completely, from 0 to 100%. The Bragi Headphone offers six hours, while AirPods lasts for five (plus, their quick charging time is 15 minutes for three hours of listening).

Nicole Nguyen / BuzzFeed News

They stay in really, really well.

View Video ›

My main issue with the AirPods, was that the little stick that juts out past the ear kept catching onto my hair whenever I tried to tuck my locks behind my ear. They'd also go flying every time I took off my sweater.

Once the RUN are in, they stay put (see: headshake test above).

video-player.buzzfeed.com


View Entire List ›

Quelle: <a href="Jaybird Just Made The Best-Sounding Wireless Earbuds“>BuzzFeed

The Government Has Dropped Its Demand That Facebook Not Tell Users About Search Warrants

Matt Rourke / AP

Federal prosecutors are dropping their demand that Facebook be barred from alerting users about search warrants for information about their accounts, according to a new court filing on Wednesday.

In making the decision, prosecutors did not concede the legal arguments raised by Facebook and civil liberties and electronic privacy groups against the nondisclosure orders attached to the search warrants. According to court papers filed jointly by Facebook and the US attorney's office in Washington on Wednesday, prosecutors determined that the underlying investigation that prompted the search warrants — the details of which are under seal — had “progressed … to the point where the [nondisclosure orders] are no longer needed.”

The announcement came less than 24 hours before an appeals court in Washington, DC, was set to hear arguments in the case. According to the joint filing, a lower court judge vacated the nondisclosure orders at the government's request, making Facebook's appeal of those orders moot. The lawyers asked the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to dismiss the case, and the court granted that request on Wednesday afternoon.

Nate Cardozo, a lawyer for the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, told BuzzFeed News that although the organization was pleased with the outcome, he expected there would be other cases in the future that would ultimately lead to definitive court rulings on the issue of when the government can block tech companies from notifying customers about demands for their information. EFF was one of several advocacy groups that filed briefs in the case arguing that the gag orders were unlawful.

“We've won the battle but the war is not over,” Cardozo said.

There’s already another case pending in federal court in Seattle that touches on some of the same concerns raised in the Facebook case. Microsoft is suing the Justice Department over a section of federal law that the government relies on to seek court orders that block tech companies from notifying subscribers when prosecutors request information. The judge ruled in February that part of Microsoft’s constitutional challenges could go forward. A trial is scheduled for June 2018.

Although most information about the case is sealed, EFF speculated in its court papers that the case relates to the mass arrests during protests in Washington on President Trump's inauguration day. More than 200 people were arrested in the hours around the inauguration, and felony charges for rioting and property destruction are pending against the majority of those defendants.

According to information about the case that is public, federal prosecutors served Facebook with search warrants for three account records over a three-month period. A District of Columbia Superior Court judge signed off on nondisclosure orders that prevented Facebook from telling users about the warrants until Facebook complied with the government's request.

Facebook unsuccessfully challenged the nondisclosure orders before the Superior Court judge, and appealed to the DC Court of Appeals. The appeals court issued a public order in June saying that it would accept input from any outside groups that Facebook or the government wanted to weigh in, although those groups wouldn't be privy to details about the investigation.

Several civil liberties and electronic privacy groups filed briefs in late June opposing the nondisclosure orders, arguing that users should have the right to challenge demands for their information, particularly if they involved First Amendment–protected speech activity. Facebook's interests may not always be the same as its customers, they said.

The DC Court of Appeals had scheduled public arguments for Sept. 14.

Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, said in an email to BuzzFeed News that although the fight over the gag orders was over, it was still possible that the individuals whose Facebook accounts were at issue could go to court to challenge the government's requests for their information.

“Now that Facebook is free to notify these three users that their accounts are subject to a search warrant, we hope the users will contact us or other lawyers to challenge the government's attempt to conduct a fishing expedition through their Facebook accounts,” Spitzer said.

A spokesman for the US attorney's office did not immediately return a request for comment. Facebook's lawyer, John Roche of the law firm Perkins Coie in Washington, referred a request for comment to the company, which did not immediately respond.

Quelle: <a href="The Government Has Dropped Its Demand That Facebook Not Tell Users About Search Warrants“>BuzzFeed

Apple's Best Product Is Its Media Strategy

The big question on everyone’s mind, as Apple CEO Tim Cook stepped onstage to announce an array of iPhones and a new Apple Watch and a new Apple TV on Tuesday was: Will there be a nuclear war with North Korea?

No. Wait. That wasn't it.

It was: What is happening in Florida and Texas and the islands in the Atlantic in the aftermath of two brutal hurricanes? Or maybe the question was actually about Russia and the election. Or DACA. Or Ted Cruz masturbating. Or, well… In fairness, there’s a lot going on.

Which is why Apple's ability to cut through the noise and din is so remarkable. Of all the ways the world has changed since Steve Jobs rolled out the first iPhone a decade ago, our frenzied public sphere seems the loudest and most unrecognizable. We're louder, courser, more unpredictable; the radio is at full volume, stuck between stations, forever.

Thanks to the power and success of the company he leads, boring Tim Cook may be the one human alive better able to make news break through than Donald Trump, at least on occasion. And so, on Tuesday, the big question on everyone's mind was ultimately about iPhones. (Don't take our word for it, here's what Twitter's trending topics looked in the United States after Apple's presser. Worldwide trends were similar.)

No other person or entity, no politician or even Hollywood franchise is so able to so fully peel away the layers of our daily reality in service to engineered desire. This is Apple's specialty. Its entire purpose is to make you pay attention to it; to make you want it. And it is very, very good at that. This was so fully on display Tuesday that it's worth examining, and understanding.

Apple doesn't have press conferences, it has “events.” On Tuesday, the event was in Apple's new home, a vast new 175 acre campus that, as Cook said, “fuses buildings with an open parkland.” It's a stunning place, with rolling hills and — according to Apple — some 9,000 newly planted trees. The landscaping neatly conceals Cupertino's nearby suburban clutter of strip malls and cookie-cutter apartment homes. Everything is utterly new, so much so that there was a strong scent of manure fertilizing all those freshly-planted trees and grasses. And forever looming in the distance, across the park, is Apple's new headquarters building. It's spaceship.

Apple's new campus, under California clouds.

Mat Honan

As the media floated in on waves of warm California air, we were greeted by handlers, standing every 30 feet or so directing us to where they want us to go; directing us to have a nice day. They were almost reinforcing the notion that we would have a nice day.

They ushered us into the Steve Jobs Theater, which is buried like a bunker in the earth and topped with a great glass shrine. There we were fed quail eggs on polenta, and salmon with creme fraiche for breakfast. The portions were small, but there seemed to be a limitless supply. And at the appointed hour, they directed everyone through the glass emptiness of that upstairs reception hall, through the white emptiness of a downstairs lobby, and into the theater below, all leather seats and rumbling speakers. The stage was set, very literally, for a show in which the venue itself played a large supporting role.

Ahhhhhh…. And then off went the lights. The international press, ostensibly there to disseminate news of the newest Jesus Phone throughout the world, was asked to shut their laptops so as not to muck up the show. And in the darkness, there came the Voice of Steve. The press conference itself began with Steve's words to Apple the company, telling it what it was and what it would be after he was gone. “What’s going to keep Apple, Apple, is if we keep us, us,” said the voice in the darkness.

View Video ›

video-player.buzzfeed.com

It was an emotional scene, one that left both a visibly affected Cook, and several of the employees seated in the audience choking back tears. The theater erupted in applause. This is something that people watching from livestreams nearly always comment on: the applause in the theaters at these events. You could be forgiven for thinking the press is howling in appreciation. Although some certainly do, the clapping is largely driven by Apple employees, who were seated (or seeded) throughout the audience, and broke into applause

But the real show began when Cook called Angela Ahrendts, the former Burberry CEO who left to run Apple's retail efforts, onstage. As a part of her update on the company's retail efforts, she told the audience that “we don’t call them stores anymore, we call then town squares, because they’re gathering places.”

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

Sneer at this statement if you want, but it is key to understanding precisely how the company engineers desire. Apple isn't in the phone business, or the computer business. It is in the business of selling you the person you want to be. And very often this is the work of branding language.

Why would anyone go to a store, when they could gather in a square? One comes to the Apple Town Square not to do something as gauche as commerce, but to associate and wander and learn.

From here, there were a slew of product announcements. Watches. Apple TVs. Phones. We were told that Apple Watch is number one. (At what? Who cares.) The chip that powers several of these devices would have no pedestrian numeric designation, rather it is the A11 Bionic. There was Animoji and face unlock and “one more thing.” The presentation that began with an address from the former Burberry CEO, ended with a phone that can only be described as a luxury device.

What's really surprising is that exactly none of the announcements were surprising. This year, thanks to a barrage of leaks, everyone knew what was coming, more or less, but we all watched anyway. Rapt.

And then its up and out of the theater and back into the hall, where it's time to get hands-on with the devices — of which there are always just slightly too few, which encourages crowding around the tables, jockeying, shoving to get the perfect shot. Like every other moment at these events, this is not an accident. Apple knows precisely how many people will attend each event, and clearly thinks carefully about how the hands-on area is laid out.

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

The next phase of this strategy is about access. Some publications — typically bigger ones, or ones with an audience Apple particularly wants to reach — will get review units. (In recent years, this has included BuzzFeed News.) Others will not. Just as significantly, no one gets them exclusively. This creates an incentive for the outlets that do get review units to make a big splash with them, and to heavily promote their review coverage.

Of course, Apple also has to deliver. And historically it has done this. Even antenna-gate, by far the biggest flaw in a phone it shipped, was not a big deal. Its attention to detail makes sure it doesn't ever fall on its ass. Your opinion may differ as to whether or not the iPhone is the best handset on the market — there are certainly cases to be made for other devices — but it's pure nonsense and an indicator that a person should not be take seriously if they argue that it's not among the very best.

These new phones appear to be pretty wonderful. There was some teeth-gnashing about how the late-arriving, very expensive iPhone X will affect Apple's historically strong fourth quarter sales and, subsequently, its earnings. And maybe rightfully so, but ultimately, the company will sell a bazillion of these super high margin devices and reap incredible profits from them.

And so this is what Apple does now, consistently. It rolls out wonderful devices, drapes them in superlatives and its own branded language, and creates an air of exclusivity around them, both by making them hard to get a hold of in advance, and casting them as luxurious but accessible items. People clamor for them, and the press clamors to serve up the news, which makes people want them all the more. And so the cycle of engineered desire goes.

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

Do you remember when the first iPhone came out? One thing I remember, strongly, is that it was a replacement for a lot of other stuff. Before the iPhone, perfectly reasonable people who had no more pockets then we do today often carried around a cell phone, an iPod (or other MP3 player) and sometimes even a camera too. More than a decade ago, I wrote of the original iPhone that it “brings together several features of the iPod, digital camera, smart phones and even portable computing to one device, with a widescreen display and an innovative input method.” It genuinely offered more convenience and a better way of doing things. It went on to redefine not just the marketplace for cell phones, but also computers, communication, the economy and our very culture. It was, to put it mildly, utterly wild.

It seems extremely unlikely that Apple will repeat that trick. The iPhone X, despite the language around it, is simply a better version of an already very nice thing at the end of the day. But what is repeatable, even bankable, is Apple's corporate myth-making. That is a product unto itself.

It was 90 degrees when we walked blinking, up out of Steve Jobs Theater, and back into the sunlight, surrounded by all that flowing grass, and those freshly planted 9,000 trees. It was a gorgeous, and exquisitely designed space, there's no denying it. But also, come on. You could still smell the bullshit.

Quelle: <a href="Apple's Best Product Is Its Media Strategy“>BuzzFeed

Here’s What Security Experts Think About The iPhone X’s New Face ID Feature

Josh Edelson / AFP / Getty Images

Of the smorgasbord of features stuffed into Apple's new thousand-dollar iPhone X, one of the most intriguing is Face ID — a new feature that lets you unlock your iPhone with your face, after the system has learned your facial features using Apple’s first-ever neural engine. “How do you unlock your phone with iPhone X?” asked Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing, onstage at today’s iPhone event. “In the iPhone X, your phone is locked — until you look at it, and it recognizes you. Nothing has ever been simpler, more natural, and effortless.”

Here’s how it works: Apple deploys various sensors working in tandem to recognize your face in an instant, using what it calls the TrueDepth camera system. First, a dot projector beams more than 30,000 invisible dots onto your face to build a face map, while a “flood illuminator” helps confirm your face with what little light is available, even in the dark. Then an infrared camera reads the dot pattern and sends this information over to the secure A11 Bionic chip embedded in the iPhone X to process and confirm that your face is a match. The whole system works only when you look directly at the camera without closing your eyes or angling your face away. With Face ID, Apple says, your face becomes your secure password.

Apple claims Face ID is more secure than the previously used Touch ID in old iPhones — which Schiller said had become, before today, the “gold standard in consumer device biometric protection” — and even said there is only a one in a million chance for a nefarious actor to fool the system and break into your phone. Face ID learns your face and who you are, and adapts to you even if you wear glasses or grow a beard, the company says. And it isn’t tricked by photographs.

But how secure is Face ID? Security professionals and AI experts say it’s hard to know this early on. Still, that “one in a million” statistic Apple brags about? “It’s meaningless,” Matthew Green, a John Hopkins University cryptographer, told BuzzFeed News. “The threat with Face ID is that someone with a picture of your face might be able to fool the camera. We leave pictures everywhere.”

The threat of this happening is very real, as reports recently circulated that mere photographs could fool the facial recognition security feature in another new top-shelf phone, the Samsung Galaxy Note 8. Apple seems to be positioning itself as more secure, given the additional “depth sensing” capabilities it says live inside the new iPhone X (which confirms that your face is indeed three-dimensional, and not a flat photograph). But without any independent testing of the iPhone X conducted as of yet, it’s impossible to know this for sure.

Meanwhile, Bruce Schneier, an internet security expert and chief technology officer at IBM’s cybersecurity arm, said Apple’s “one in a million” failure claim may well hold up — but that it doesn’t matter if people are still able to break into your phone. “That’s why [security] professionals don’t unlock phones that way,” Schneier wrote to BuzzFeed News in an email.

‘Better than a security guard sitting at a desk’

The problem, according to Chris Nicholson, the CEO and founder of a deep learning startup called Skymind, is that it isn’t immediately clear whether Face ID is more secure than the Apple’s biometric Touch ID. But that doesn’t mean it’s useless. “It does introduce another factor” when you talk about the two-factor authentication of accounts and devices, Nicholson said. Even if a bad actor managed to fake one of your identifying “factors,” or passwords, it’s less likely that actor could fake multiple ones.

As Nicholson explained, AI is getting very good at recognizing faces nowadays — and it’s entirely believable Apple is deploying state-of-the-art technology in its devices. “Facial AI and deep learning is at the heart of computer vision, and AI can recognize people better than even people can,” Nicholson said. “In a sense, it’s even better than having a security guard sitting at a desk.”

But as others point out, Face ID will never be totally secure. What if a cop stops you and points the phone at your face, one Twitter user asked, while they have you in handcuffs — then he or she proceeds to look at your phone without a warrant?

This doesn’t exactly tread new territory, as security analyst Will Strafach, pointed out. “If someone were willing to violate the law and threatened you not to look down or close your eyes, then at that point the same could occur as with Touch ID — your finger could be pressed onto the sensor,” he told BuzzFeed News. “If it’s true that Face ID has a much lower false positive rate than Touch ID, Apple could update its security white paper and independent researchers would be able to confirm this.”

The Privacy Tradeoff

Bolstering that idea of security is the additional detail that Apple says authentication happens instantly on your phone using its new A11 Bionic chip, and that your information (i.e., your face) is never sent to the cloud. In fact, Apple has a long history of aggressively positioning itself as a company that is more privacy- and security-minded than its competitors — and that it is less interested in collecting user data, because it sells devices, not advertising. (As it turns out, this is also great PR for Apple.)

“This reflects Apple’s commitment to privacy, and I respect that,” Nicholson told BuzzFeed News. At the same time, he warned that this hampers Apple from building more powerful AI: “Apple isn’t allowing the data from all the users of its phone to go to a central AI brain and make the AI smarter. That makes everyone feel nice and safe, but it means Apple’s AI isn’t learning as fast as, say, Google” — which puts Apple at a disadvantage as the AI race heats up among tech giants.

Still, whether or not Face ID does have improved security, it doesn’t guard against one-off flukes of the feature failing onstage, as happened during the event on Tuesday. Apple has until October 27, when the iPhone X pre-orders begin, to address the issue.

Quelle: <a href="Here’s What Security Experts Think About The iPhone X’s New Face ID Feature“>BuzzFeed