An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: T-Mobile caused a bit of a stir earlier this month when a leak revealed it planned to move people from older, cheaper plans to pricier ones starting with their November bill cycle. On Wednesday, the carrier officially walked back the changes with CEO Mike Sievert confirming that they would not happen. “We tend to do tests and pilots of things quite a bit to try to figure out what’s the right answer,” Sievert said on a company earnings call, in response to a question about industry pricing and how it could raise its average revenues per user, a key industry metric. “In this case, we had a test sell to try to understand customer interest in, and acceptance of, migrating off old legacy rate plans to something that’s higher value, for them and for us.”

Sievert noted that the company was doing training around this test and said it wasn’t planned to be a “broad, national thing.” In its statement confirming the leak, the company told CNET earlier this month that the notices it was sending out was going to “a small number” of its users, but the carrier never clarified what a “small number” actually meant and didn’t respond to that question when asked. At the time, the carrier said that the switch would generally see customers pay “an increase of approximately $10 per line” per month.

With the “plenty of feedback” the company received following the leak, Sievert said that T-Mobile has learned that this “particular test sell isn’t something that our customers are going to love.” He mentioned that no migrations of plans have actually rolled out. As for what will happen going forward, the carrier will continue to do tests and pilots for different changes, Mike Katz, T-Mobile’s president of marketing, strategy and products, said on the call.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – T-Mobile Walks Back Forced Plan Migration, Won’t Make People Switch Plans After All

“Privacy advocate Alexander Hanff has filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) challenging YouTube’s use of JavaScript code to detect the presence of ad blocking extensions in the browsers of website visitors,” writes long-time Slashdot reader Dotnaught. “He claims that under Europe’s ePrivacy Directive, YouTube needs to ask permission to run its detection script because it’s not technically necessary. If the DPC agrees, it would be a major win for user privacy.” The Register reports: Asked how he hopes the Irish DPC will respond, Hanff replied via email, “I would expect the DPC to investigate and issue an enforcement notice to YouTube requiring them to cease and desist these activities without first obtaining consent (as per [Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)] standard) for the deployment of their -spyware- detection scripts; and further to order YouTube to unban any accounts which have been banned as a result of these detections and to delete any personal data processed unlawfully (see Article 5(1) of GDPR) since they first started to deploy their -spyware- detection scripts.”

Hanff’s use of strikethrough formatting to acknowledges the legal difficulty of using the term “spyware” to refer to YouTube’s ad block detection code. The security industry’s standard defamation defense terminology for such stuff is PUPs, or potentially unwanted programs. Hanff, who reports having a Masters in Law focused on data and privacy protection, added that the ePrivacy Directive is lex specialis to GPDR. That means where laws overlap, the specific one takes precedence over the more general one. Thus, he argues, personal data collected without consent is unlawful under Article 5(1) of GDPR and cannot be lawfully processed for any purpose.

With regard to YouTube’s assertion that using an ad blocker violates the site’s Terms of Service, Hanff argued, “Any terms and conditions which restrict the legal rights and freedoms of an EU citizen (and the point of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive is specifically to protect the fundamental right to Privacy under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) are void under EU law.” Therefore, in essence, “Any such terms which restrict the rights of EU persons to limit access to their terminal equipment would, as a result, be void and unenforceable,” he added.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Privacy Advocate Challenges YouTube’s Ad Blocking Detection Scripts Under EU Law

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Max Tegmark, a professor of physics and AI researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the world was “witnessing a race to the bottom that must be stopped.” Tegmark organized an open letter published in April, signed by thousands of tech industry figures including Elon Musk and the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, that called for a six-month hiatus on giant AI experiments. “We’re witnessing a race to the bottom that must be stopped,” Tegmark told the Guardian. “We urgently need AI safety standards, so that this transforms into a race to the top. AI promises many incredible benefits, but the reckless and unchecked development of increasingly powerful systems, with no oversight, puts our economy, our society, and our lives at risk. Regulation is critical to safe innovation, so that a handful of AI corporations don’t jeopardize our shared future.”

In a policy document published this week, 23 AI experts, including two modern “godfathers” of the technology, said governments must be allowed to halt development of exceptionally powerful models. Gillian Hadfield, a co-author of the paper and the director of the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society at the University of Toronto, said AI models were being built over the next 18 months that would be many times more powerful than those already in operation. “There are companies planning to train models with 100x more computation than today’s state of the art, within 18 months,” she said. “No one knows how powerful they will be. And there’s essentially no regulation on what they’ll be able to do with these models.”

The paper, whose authors include Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio — two winners of the ACM Turing award, the “Nobel prize for computing” — argues that powerful models must be licensed by governments and, if necessary, have their development halted. “For exceptionally capable future models, eg models that could circumvent human control, governments must be prepared to license their development, pause development in response to worrying capabilities, mandate access controls, and require information security measures robust to state-level hackers, until adequate protections are ready.” The unrestrained development of artificial general intelligence, the term for a system that can carry out a wide range of tasks at or above human levels of intelligence, is a key concern among those calling for tighter regulation. Further reading: AI Risk Must Be Treated As Seriously As Climate Crisis, Says Google DeepMind Chief

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Humanity At Risk From AI ‘Race To the Bottom,’ Says MIT Tech Expert

iFixit has started selling genuine replacement parts for Microsoft Surface devices. From a report: The company now offers SSDs, batteries, screens, kickstands, and a whole bunch of other parts for 15 Surface products. Some of the devices on that list include the Surface Pro 9, Surface Laptop 5, Surface Go 4, Surface Studio 2 Plus, and others. You can check out the entire list of supported products and parts in this post on Microsoft’s website. In addition to supplying replacement parts, iFixit also offers disassembly videos and guides for each product, as well as toolkits that include things like an opening tool, tweezers, drivers, and more.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – iFixit Now Sells Microsoft Surface Parts For Repair

The UK’s oil and gas regulator is coming under fire from environmental groups for using lawyers to try to prevent the publication of five key documents relating to the environmental impact of Shell’s activities in the North Sea. From a report: At a hearing in December, a legal representative for the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) is expected to argue against the publication of documents that contain details about the risk of pollution as a result of decommissioning the Brent oilfield, which was operated by Shell for more than 40 years. It says it opposes publication “on a matter of process basis.” Shell has applied for an exemption from international rules that require all infrastructure to be removed from the field and the UK government is deciding whether it will allow the oil company to leave the 170-metre-high oil platform legs in place for the three platforms known as Bravo, Charlie and Delta.

A total of 64 concrete storage cells are contained in the leg structures, 42 of which have previously been used for oil storage and separation. Most of the cells are the size of seven Olympic swimming pools, and collectively still contain an estimated 72,000 tonnes of contaminated sediment and 638,000 cubic metres of oily water. Environmental groups believe the documents held by the NSTA would reveal new information about long-term environmental dangers that is relevant to other North Sea oil developments, including Equinor’s plans to develop Rosebank, the UK’s largest untapped field.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – UK Regulator Trying To Block Release of Shell North Sea Documents