Please try the URL privacy information feature enabled by clicking the flashlight icon above. This will reveal two icons after each link the body of the digest. The shield takes you to a breakdown of Terms of Service for the site - however only a small number of sites are covered at the moment. The flashlight take you to an analysis of the various trackers etc. that the linked site delivers. Please let the website maintainer know if you find this useful or not. As a RISKS reader, you will probably not be surprised by what is revealed…
FAA Bulletin Addresses Aspen Display Resets According to the Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), affected systems will repeatedly reset themselves at five- to ten-minute intervals, resulting in the temporary loss of all flight display information for up to one minute during each reset. "The cause of this safety issue is currently under investigation; however, preliminary information suggests that the cause of the continuous reset is related to the ADS-B In interface" said the FAA. https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAA-Bulletin-Addresses-Aspen-Display-Resets-231918-1.html ADS-B is a data link protocol for weather, traffic and other flight related information. It seems that certain Aspen Primary Flight Displays (PFD) and Multifunction Displays (MFD) have issues with ADS-B data, and are reseting in flight. PFDs display attitude, altitude, speed and other flight information. Loss of a PFD can lead to loss of control of an aircraft. MFDs display charts, weather engine and other information. Loss of an MFD in cruise is a minor issue, but during an approach can cause a loss of situational awareness if on an instrument approch.
Very interesting story. Los Altos Planning Commission chair was asleep at wheel of his Tesla in auto mode going 70 on 101. CHP pulled him off the road by forcing the car to stop by putting enough police cars in front of and next to him, and slowing down. He didn't wake up until they all had stopped. No accident, no one hurt, but not clear why the autopilot didn't shut down. [PGN-ed From a note from Ray Perrault.] https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/11/30/los-altos-planning-commissioner-arrested-for-tesla-dui
https;//www.wired.com/story/tesla-sleeping-driver-dui-arrest-autopilot/ There are two issues with this event, neither of them particularly new. *Overtrust*. People often worry a lot about *undertrust*: how do we convince people to trust a new system. They seldom worry about over trust. Well, the recent incidents (e.g., Uber and Tesla indicate that overtrust is a real danger. See the UrL above). *System design.* Tesla (and all OEMs) claim to be able to detect when the driver is not paying attention. Obviously, Tesla failed. *Safety driver*. The notion of a safety driver is fundamentally flawed, as the Uber situation demonstrates. The Human-Systems Integration folks (which includes me) have been demonstrating for many decades now that people can not take over rapidly enough when there has been nothing to do for many hours, and where the system has performed quite well for weeks, months or years. (My paper on this topic was about 4 decades ago, and I was nit the first.) The one lesson we have learned from the recent events is that people do not learn. Each new field of ap[lication ignores all the findings of the previous other fields. In my opinion, the levels of automation argument is fundamentally flawed. Take the 0 - 5 levels described by SAE. (0=fully manual. 5 = perfect, full-time automation, so no controls are required). https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf (See page 10 of the PDF). At best we are today at level 2 for commercial vehicles. (We are at level 5 for special cases, such as transporting materials on factory floors.) Here are my opinions. We should permit levels 0, 1, and 2; prohibit levels 3 and 4, and allow only level 5. And place restrictions on advertisements of vehicle capability. Makes great scientific sense, but fails politically and in today's competitive environment, it fails the marketing test. Autonomous vehicles are rapidly advancing in capability. Their most dangerous issues will be overtrust once we hit levels of 3 and 4 (we already see overtrust at level 2). And the next major problem facing us is the complexity of the transition when some vehicles that are truly at level 5 intermix with vehicles at level 1 or 2—to say nothing of level 0 vehicles. (Levels 0 and 1 are apt to game the system, assuming that level 5 systems are programmed not to hit them, so they can ignore them. Among the many RISKS this presupposes is the difficulty of knowing what level of automation a car is using. (Caveat I do research for numerous automobile companies on several continents: however, none of them have been asked to review this email.) Don Norman, Prof. and Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/world/middleeast/saudi-khashoggi-spyware-israel.html A Saudi dissident based in Canada claims the Saudi government planted spyware in his phone to eavesdrop on his talks with Jamal Khashoggi.
The Hill quotes Secretary of Defense Mattis that the Russians tried to "muck around" the U.S. midterm elections. https://thehill.com/policy/international/419282-mattis-russia-interfered-in-2018-midterms Mattis: Russia tried to interfere in 2018 midterms John Bowden, 1 Dec 2018 Defense Secretary James Mattis said Saturday that Russian operatives attempted to interfere in the 2018 midterm elections, apparently confirming for the first time that Moscow attempted to meddle in last month's elections. Mattis spoke of the relationship between the Trump administration and Russian President Vladimir Putin during an interview Saturday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. "There is no doubt the relationship has worsened. He tried again to muck around in our elections this last month," Mattis said. "We are seeing a continued effort around those lines."
Peter Singer and Emerson Brooking explore how harmless apps become an arsenal of war. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-trump-isis-and-russia-have-mastered-the-internet-as-a-weapon/2018/11/29/5a6e44c8-c58e-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html
John P. Carlin details the many destructive incursions into U.S. networks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-creative-foreign-hackers-crack-into-a-vulnerable-us/2018/11/29/053ecca2-f126-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/us/politics/china-trump-cyberespionage.html China's practice of breaking into American computers has become a core grievance of the Trump administration as leaders of the two nations prepare to meet.
According to a newly unsealed indictment, the targets included the cities of Atlanta and Newark and the port of San Diego. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-charges-iranian-hackers-with-attacks-on-us-cities-companies/2018/11/28/cad313d0-f29b-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html
Tension has existed for decades between law enforcement and privacy advocates over data encryption. The United States government has consistently lobbied for the creation of so-called backdoors in encryption schemes that would give law enforcement a way in to otherwise unreadable data. Meanwhile, cryptographers have universally decried the notion as unworkable. But at a cybercrime symposium at the Georgetown University Law School on Thursday, deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein renewed the call. "Some technology experts castigate colleagues who engage with law enforcement to address encryption and similar challenges," Rosenstein said. "Just because people are quick to criticize you does not mean that you are doing the wrong thing. Take it from me." https://www.wired.com/story/rod-rosenstein-encryption-backdoor/ [The UK and Australians are still barking up this tree, although one of them has a caveat that suggests they don't want to weaken the protection. Considering that no systems are adequately secure in the first place, the Keys Under Doormats report still gets to the heart of the matter. There is really no such thing as a sufficiently secure backdoor that can be used *only* by the supposed "good guys". https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/97690 PGN]
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/27/18115176/drivesavers-locked-iphone-break-in-unlock
[From Geoff Goodfellow] Here's what you can do to stop cyber criminals *Airport Wi-Fi can be a security nightmare. Here's what you can do to stop cyber criminals* https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-spot-cyber-security-threats-20181202-story.html You may find an evil twin out there—not your own but one that still can do great harm. That nasty double often awaits you at your airport, ready to attack when you least expect it. That's just one of the findings in a report that assesses the vulnerability of airport Wi-Fi, done not to bust the airports' chops,but to make airports and travelers aware of the problems they could encounter. Of the 45 airports reviewed, the report by Coronet said, two we might use could pose a special risk: San Diego and Orange County's John Wayne, which rated No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, on the “Top 10 Most Vulnerable Airports.'' Airports, said Dror Liwer, chief security officer for Coronet, a cyber-security firm, are a fertile field because there's a concentration of “high-value assets,'' which include business travelers who may unwittingly open themselves up to an attack, he said. That's where the evil twin comes in. Let's say you're sitting in an airport lounge or maybe right outside the lounge. You see a Wi-Fi network that says, “FreeAirportWiFi.'' Great, you think. Most airports do have free Wi-Fi. They may make you watch a couple of commercials (or you may pay a bit to skip those), but otherwise, the connectivity is there for you. “I always say that in the balance between convenience and security, convenience always wins,'' Liwer said. And you lose. Because if you take the bait and log in, that evil twin posing as the airport Wi-Fi then has access to your closely held secrets. In some cases, Liwer said, the person creating this trap may be sitting next to you, which means the signal is strong and attractive. It takes only some inexpensive equipment and know-how for a thief to succeed, and presto, you're in the cyber-security soup. “Most attackers are trying to get your credentials, and if they have those, they have the keys to the kingdom. If I know your password, I own your life.'' Chilling. It is as sinister as it sounds. Liwer said. For theives, it's a business, he said. “What they are looking for is something that will make them money.'' What makes it worse: You're getting on a plane and won't be checking your bank balance any time soon. The sites that will do you harm are hard to detect with the naked, inexperienced eye. How do you protect yourself? Here are ways to keep your data safe, with help from Liwer; Vyas Sekar, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon's College of Engineering; Jake Lehmann, managing director of Friedman CyZen, a cyber-security consulting service; and Michael Tanenbaum, executive vice president North America cyber practice for Chubb Ltd. [...]
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-the-law-with-a-github-pull-request I wonder if Washington DC's git repository is subject to regular audit against an authenticated reference to ensure content integrity to show that the revision history aligns with legislative approval/voting processes? Is there an off-site hardcopy backup in case github suffers a permanent outage? The Federal Register (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register) embodies the official publication of Federal Laws, Presidential Documents, Administrative Regulations and Notices. When a bill passes the legislative processes in both houses, and the President signs it, the law becomes enforceable *after* Federal Register publication. Technology certainly advances convenience for accessibility: no more treks to the library or City Hall to look up zoning ordinances, birth certificates, real estate transactions, etc. Surreptitious and untraceable modification to regulations or legal guidance elevates the risk of civil disruption. Strict revision control oversight is essential create and preserve unrepudiated content integrity. Risks: Digital storage reliability issues (see https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/28/52%23subj11.1 ex-legislative system of record changes (revision log deletion, untraceable provisions inserted or exceptions appended, etc.) revise laws and regulations to suit special interests. A soft Constitution is easier to revise than a hard one!
On the Internet, there are certain institutions we have come to rely on daily to keep truth from becoming nebulous or elastic. Not necessarily in the way that something stupid like Verrit aspired to, but at least in confirming that you aren't losing your mind, that an old post or article you remember reading did, in fact, actually exist. It can be as fleeting as using Google Cache to grab a quickly deleted tweet, but it can also be as involved as doing a deep dive of a now-dead site's archive via the Wayback Machine. But what happens when an archive becomes less reliable, and arguably has legitimate reasons to bow to pressure and remove controversial archived material? https://gizmodo.com/when-the-internet-archive-forgets-1830462131
But the prank also points to a reality about the human mind: Consumers are not capable of discerning the quality and value of the things they buy, said Philip Graves, a consumer behavior consultant from Britain. Slap a fancy-sounding European label on $30 shoes, and you have an illusion of status that people will pay an exorbitant amount of money for. ... After attendees purchased overpriced shoes – some for $200, $400 and $600 – they were taken toward the backroom, where the prank was revealed. "You've got to be kidding me," said the woman who had gushed about the pair of floral stiletto heels, her eyes wide as she stared down at the overpriced shoes in her hands. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/30/they-had-us-fooled-inside-paylesss-elaborate-prank-dupe-people-into-paying-shoes/ ...but, of course—could never happen online—people are too cautious and well-informed. Wait, what?
*Removing misinformation is too big a job for any single company. Facebook and others should enlist users to help.* https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-30/facebook-should-enlist-its-users-to-clean-up-fake-news EXCERPT: A recent New York Times investigation described how Facebook has bungled its response to the misinformation that has proliferated on its platform. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged in an interview that the problems his company is grappling with “Care not issues that anyone company can address.'' He's right: The problem of fake news has become too big for any social network to address on its own. Instead, the company should call on its users for help though crowdsourcing. Misinformation is rife on Facebook and other social networks: Russia attempted to interfere in the U.S. midterm elections, the Saudis employ hundreds of trolls to attack critics, fake activists in Bangladesh have been promoting nonexistent U.S. women's marches, to sell merchandise, there was a huge disinformation campaign during last month's general election in Brazil, and fake news has triggered episodes of violence in countries including India, Myanmar and Germany. Facebook has created a War Room, where staffers try to identify misinformation, but they're clearly outnumbered and unable to keep up with fake news from the platform. Part of the problem is the team is relying on artificial intelligence, but, as experts recently explained in *The Times* keywords often can't effectively identify misinformation. Human intelligence is needed. To combat fake news, Facebook needs to ask the public for help identifying false reporting. The best way to handle a project too large for any one organization is to ask lots of volunteers to help. That's how the Oxford English Dictionary was created: The editors asked members of the public to search the books they owned for definitions of particular words and mail in their findings. Thousands participated. As James Surowiecki argued in *The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations*, large groups tend to accurately answer questions, even if most of the individuals in the group aren't very rational or well-informed. In this case, Facebook should add buttons that appear prominently below any purported news stories posted on its site, asking members of the public to weigh in on whether an article is true or false. Of course, some people would report news as fake simply because they disagree with it, while others might be genuinely duped by false reports. But Facebook has reportedly already assigned their users internal reputation scores that would help the company discount false or gullible reporters. And the number of flags on a truly false story would be expected to rise above the typical number of complaints that merely polarizing posts engender. Facebook staff would then monitor and investigate in real time any posts that are being disproportionately flagged... [...] [If you want the huge collection of URLs that I have removed, please go to the original. They completely cluttered up our RISKS ASCII READER. PGN]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/world/europe/terrorist-question-scottish-traveler.html Putting aside the question of why we ask people if they are terrorists -- when will we design systems that account for human foibles. It's far too easy to click the wrong box and even worse on touch systems with parallax. How much worse will these get with AI system that can't explain why they reach their conclusions? [Mark Thorson noticed a similar item at http://loweringthebar.net/2018/11/scottish-grandpa-visa.html
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/11/26/ai-thinks-like-a-corporation-and-thats-worrying 'David Runciman, a political scientist at the University of Cambridge, has argued that to understand AI, we must first understand how it operates within the capitalist system in which it is embedded. "Corporations are another form of artificial thinking-machine in that they are designed to be capable of taking decisions for themselves," he explains. '"Many of the fears that people now have about the coming age of intelligent robots are the same ones they have had about corporations for hundreds of years," says Mr Runciman. The worry is, these are systems we "never really learned how to control." 'After the 2010 BP oil spill, for example, which killed 11 people and devastated the Gulf of Mexico, no one went to jail. The threat that Mr Runciman cautions against is that AI techniques, like playbooks for escaping corporate liability, will be used with impunity. 'Today, pioneering researchers such as Julia Angwin, Virginia Eubanks and Cathy O'Neil reveal how various algorithmic systems calcify oppression, erode human dignity and undermine basic democratic mechanisms like accountability when engineered irresponsibly. Harm need not be deliberate; biased data-sets used to train predictive models also wreak havoc. It may be, given the costly labour required to identify and address these harms, that something akin to "ethics as a service" will emerge as a new cottage industry. Ms O'Neil, for example, now runs her own service that audits algorithms.' Risk: Ethics as a service (EAAS) platforms evolve into profit-seeking services via corporate acquisition. EAAS, given sufficient public trust and independent reputation, might serve to police corporate entities that illegally capture profit by intentionally exploiting biased data-sets. EAAS can become an autonomous public arbitration service if proven bias-free. Data-set bias is a long-standing issue that challenges AI deployment for profit or specific purpose. Prior technology deployments that hinged on bias were clumsy, led by carbon, and relatively easy to detect given the volume of affected subjects: (a) home loans (BofA redlining in Detroit. http://www.michiganradio.org/post/data-analysis-modern-day-redlining-happening-detroit-and-lansing (b) Wells Fargo's phony account creation (https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/29/76%23subj9.1 illustrate two examples. Note that https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16/41%23subj9.2 discusses credit redlining from neural networks in 1994. How best to excise data-set bias? How to quickly test and detect AI platform bias before go-live? Can EAAS reliably detect and characterize data set bias or an algorithm's bias via access to a commercial website or service (say amazon.com or ebay.com) using fictitious, but random and bias-free customer profiles and input data? To become a trusted arbiter, an EAAS must be demonstrated to be optimally unbiased to serve as a bias detection reference standard. How does one create an optimally unbiased baseline standard? A bias-free algorithm oracle, the equivalent of a standard kilogram, volt, or second is needed for reference comparison. It appears that to end data bias, and demonstrate bias-free AI capabilities, true random data generation capability is required. This requirement has been a long-standing challenge for cryptography and other fields. See "Spooky Action" By Ronald Hanson and Krister Shalm, Scientific American, DEC2018 on mechanisms to generate seed-free, true random numbers using quantum entangled tests of Bell's Inequality.
He Jiankui says he is "proud" that his work on genetically altering babies could help save lives. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/chinese-genomics-scientist-defends-his-gene-editing-research-in-first-public-appearance/2018/11/28/b99b5eba-f2e1-11e8-9240-e8028a62c722_story.html
There's a right way and a wrong way. This is an example of the latter. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/19/google_fake_court_orders/
THERE I (RISKS reader) WAS, fumbling with my cellphone, as the monkeys got closer and closer. I was poking around a trail in the westernmost part of Heping District, Taichung, Taiwan, when I encountered a group of 30 macaques in the bamboos. I thought it might be cool to record their grunts, but for some reason I couldn't find the Sound Recorder app in the Launcher of my cellphone. As they had come down from the bamboos and were inching closer and closer, now at about 10 meters from me, I waved my orange folding saw at them while making some firm sounds, thinking it would buy me some more time to find the app. But they only retreated about a meter. OK, I finally found the app and recorded three minutes before having had enough (they were now in a semi circle around me. Me in the meadow, they in the bushes, at seven meters, still inching closer...) Never letting them know that we humans (merely twice their size) were actually scared of them (30 / 2 = 15 humans), I closed my cellphone and retreated with dignity. Phew.
*The Telegraph*,25 Nov 2018 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/11/25/chinese-businesswoman-accused-jaywalking-ai-camera-spots-face/ Chinese police have admitted to wrongly shaming a famous businesswoman after a facial recognition system designed to catch jaywalkers mistook an advert on the side of a bus for her actual face. ["Big Brother is always watching you..."]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/11/24/eu-data-rules-have-not-stopped-spam-emails-nesta-survey-finds/ Hannah Boland, *The Telegraph*, 24 Nov 2018 More than half of Brits think European data regulations have not given them more control over how many junk emails they receive, with one in five saying they are getting more spam since General Data Protection Rules were brought in. GDPR was rolled out earlier this year as a set of standards for how companies could gather and use people's data. Many had hoped the rules, which came into effect across the EU on May 25, would bring an end to junk emails, as consumers would have to opt in to receiving marketing emails from companies, whereas previously many businesses had only given people the option to opt-out. [I'd always understood that most junk e-mail comes from fake addresses in other parts of the world, i.e., difficult to trace and outside EU (or US or wherever) jurisdiction, so regulations wouldn't really help.]
Toby—By posting that objectionable quote, I intended to elevate attention to employee hardship, and promote occupational sympathy. The ghastly imagery mentioned by the content reviewer graphically resonates. The Cleaners immersive work environment is fraught with severe psychological consequences. Social media services are free to the consumer, but a severe emotional price is exacted on the employees who attempt to scrub it free of divisive and horrifying content. Employees experience significant trauma from repeat and continuous exposure to depraved and inhumane, nihilistic images. Their effort helps sustain a service and brand that might otherwise drown from digital content pollution without deliberate intervention. Employment laws and occupational health and safety rules in the EU and North America prohibit exposure to toxic content in the workplace. I do not know if Philippine employment law stipulates mandatory psychological service assignment in this workplace scenario. Are these employees subsidized to engage in group therapy to help combat and diminish the emotional toll they experience? That 'Internet Cleaning' roles are sourced to a location where strict workplace employment rules are either poorly enforced or overly tolerant is not surprising. Corporations are well known for their regulatory arbitrage practices, and have become especially adept at their exploitation to dispose of toxic substances: lead, plastic, toxic waste, and now, the objectionable digital content which threatens a brand's very existence.
I may be completely wrong, but I think this is an information problem, and it is the problem identified by Hayek, namely, the more information is processed, and the further it moves from its origin, the more misleading the information is, and the more the interests of the person who will act upon that information deviate from the interests of those who experience the consequences of their action. This problem is inherent and it would appear unavoidable within hierarchical management structures, such as companies. A company can be imagined as an information pyramid. At the base are the ordinary workers, who generate information. As we climb the pyramid, we ascend ever less populous layers of management, with ever more executive power. Inherently, each layer being more populated than that above generates more information than the layer above can handle. Information is necessarily then aggregated on the way up - so we have a team of software developers, who report to their team lead, who reports to his lead, and so on. Aggregation qualitatively changes the meaning of information. Additionally, bad news never travels more than one layer up the pyramid, to a significant extent from human factors. How do you tell your boss' boss that he's incompetent and making not just wrong, but profoundly wrong decisions? you do not. In fact, of course, said boss is an intelligent and sensible man, who given the qualitatively distorted information he receives, and given the entirely different set of incentives placed upon him, makes decisions are for him in his position absolutely rational and correct. He is competent, but he is effectively incompetent by the structure he is placed within. We then must also factor in the law of unintended consequences, which makes a mockery anyway of all high-level decisions imposed upon complex structures or organizations. The hierarchy is invested with executive power, and so there is nothing or almost nothing those lower down the pyramid can do about this. In all things, there are factors which encourage, and there are factors which discourage, and in the end, you get what you get. In my experience, only very small companies are efficient and effective in their decision making. This is then is in larger companies a significant factor discouraging success. Such companies however have other factors, which encourage success, and so they often do well for long periods. What's needed really is a different form of company. I suspect they may already exist, it's just they are not common knowledge. You can only have a form of governance that is understood by those who are governed by it.
David Alexander wrote, in part: >I would just like to point out that, just because a card is EMV enabled, it >does not mean it cannot be attacked by other means such as compromising the >POS device. David's statement is true, but is worthy of expansion. The POS device may or may not be the terminal, which is the little box where you swipe the card. The POS may be the actual cash register. In cases like the Target hack, the POS was what was compromised, not the terminal. In any case, EMV says nothing about encryption: the card information is NOT encrypted between the terminal and the POS, nor between the POS and the processor, unless something else does so. All EMV protects against is cloned magstripe cards made using stolen magstripe data (since the CVV on the magstripe does not match the CVV printed on the card, you can't even clone a magstripe card using a picture of a card). Furthermore, fraud has, as expected, shifted from card-present to card-not-present since EMV was introduced in the U.S., as it has in every other market. Was EMV introduction a failure? No, it did what the issuers wanted it to do: - calmed down consumers - let them shift liability to the merchants Did it reduce fraud? Not so much. Was it expected to? Not so much. A better way to reduce fraud is to encrypt the data in the terminal, so a compromised POS is unable to exfiltrate useful data. There are products that provide this. The POS is relatively immune from compromise, since it's a relatively dumb device and usually needs physical access for update. Of course that happens too, but it's typically on a smaller scale (skimmers, for example).
Not only is GMail's spam filter vicious, it doesn't learn from mistakes.
GMail has tagged Risks Digest as spam dozens of times over the last few
years. Just as many times, I've told GMail it's not spam.
Of course, the Digest with Rob Slade's complaint was tagged as spam.
I'm glad Google gave their spam filters a sense of irony. Wish they'd work
on the other problems now.
[Rob Slade comments: Maybe this is caused by using the name "Rob", the
spam filter might think it has something to do with robbery... RS
[In which case this issue will be spam-filtered as well. PGN]
[Toby Douglass added: I have had this problem for a few years. Filtering
is variable, over periods on the order of months. Sometimes for a while
emails will get through. Other times, silence - all going to spam, or, I
speculate, sometimes not being delivered at all. Linus Torvalds once
complained about a 30% false positive rate for Gmail on the Linux kernel
mailing list. TD]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/29/inside-futuristic-restaurant-where-robot-has-replaced-bartender Risk: Commiserating with a robot bartender after a tough day at work is bad for mental health.
[A friend forwarded this:] A QA engineer walks into a bar. Orders a beer. Orders 0 beers. Orders 99999999999 beers. Orders a lizard. Orders -1 beers. Orders a ueicbksjdhd. First real customer walks in and asks where the bathroom is. The bar bursts into flames, killing everyone.
Please report problems with the web pages to the maintainer