Gecko inundates people with phone calls at Kailua-Kona animal hospital



KAILUA-KONA (KHON2) – Something mysterious happened at a monk seal hospital in Kailua-Kona this week, leaving many people confused.

Dr. Claire Simeone of Ke Kai Ola Marine Mammal Center was on her lunch break when she started getting inundated with calls from work. 

“I picked [my phone] up and it was silence, but it was coming from our hospital Ke Kai Ola,” Dr. Simeone said. 

Worried it was a monk seal emergency, she rushed back to work. 

“When I got there, everyone was relaxed and I said, ‘Why have you been calling me so much?’ and they said ‘We haven’t been calling you,” she said. 

She says people began calling the hospital asking why the hospital kept calling them. 

“I called Hawaiian Telcom and talked to them, they said maybe it’s a problem from one of the phones, something shorting out and they’re all coming from this line but they didn’t know which one,” she said. 

Dr. Simeone said it wasn’t coming from the office or the main hospital room, so she went to check the laboratory.

“And I saw there was a gecko on the touch screen making calls,” she said laughing. 

She tells us the gecko was in the middle of a phone call when she walked in.

“He called everyone on our recent calls list,” she added. 

As for catching the culprit?

“He was super fast, but he was able to be located and he’s on a plant outside,” she said. 

Read More

Silicon Valley’s congressman introduced a bold—if still unimaginable—internet bill of rights

It’s easy to tear down bold declarations of principles. It’s also worth stepping back to admire the chutzpah of what Ro Khanna, the Democratic representative from the heart of Silicon Valley, proposed for the US on Oct. 4.

Khanna’s Internet Bill of Rights, drafted at the behest of Congressional minority leader Nancy Pelosi and endorsed by the creator of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee, would enshrine sweeping new rights and reshape America’s relationship with technology. More than a dozen groups, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook and non-profits such as Free Press, weighed in, as well as Obama Administration officials who crafted an early proposal in 2015.

The proposal is below. If enacted, it would entrust people with ownership of their own data, force companies to relinquish it when warranted, and ensure personal data is neither abused nor mishandled. Companies would need to secure permission to collect and share data about you.

The implications are enormous. Data portability, for example, would allow anyone to transfer their social graph to new competitors, one of the central proposals by activists studying how to break Facebook’s hold over social media. The prohibition on exploiting personal data, and requiring consent for its collection, meant the Equifax fiasco might have played out quite differently, and could transform how Google operates.

Don’t expect this to happen anytime soon, of course. “This is a 15-year fight, but I do not think tech is immediately primed against it and Congress is more willing to be strong on regulation,” Khanna told The New York Times (paywall). “Tech is amoral—it is great in many ways but not as great in others, and they need to now spend the next 10 years thinking about how they shape that tech for public good.”

Under the proposed principles, you should have the right:

(1)       to have access to and knowledge of all collection and uses of personal data by companies;

(2)       to opt-in consent to the collection of personal data by any party and to the sharing of personal data with a third party;

(3)       where context appropriate and with a fair process, to obtain, correct, or delete personal data controlled by any company and to have those requests honored by third parties;

(4)       to have personal data secured and to be notified in a timely manner when a security breach or unauthorized access of personal data is discovered;

(5)       to move all personal data from one network to the next;

(6)       to access and use the internet without internet service providers blocking, throttling, engaging in paid prioritization, or otherwise unfairly favoring content, applications, services, or devices;

(7)       to internet service without the collection of data that is unnecessary for providing the requested service absent opt-in consent;

(8)       to have access to multiple viable, affordable internet platforms, services, and providers with clear and transparent pricing;

(9)       not to be unfairly discriminated against or exploited based on your personal data; and

(10)   to have an entity that collects your personal data have reasonable business practices and accountability to protect your privacy.

Read More

Some Amazon Workers Fear They’ll Earn Less Even With a $15 Minimum Wage

When Amazon announced Tuesday that it was raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour for all employees, even vocal critics of its labor practices like Senator Bernie Sanders praised the company. The retail giant’s decision will undoubtedly put more money into the hands of its workers—especially the some 100,000 temporary US employees Amazon plans to hire in the coming months for the holiday season. But some Amazon workers, including one who spoke with WIRED, think they will earn less under the new policy—even though they are receiving an hourly raise.

The reason is that in addition to raising wages, Amazon is also slashing some performance bonuses and its restricted stock unit program. In total, workers say losing the benefits may amount to thousands of dollars in lost pay annually. The median salary for Amazon employees in the US, including stock and bonuses, is $34,123, according to the company. (That figure takes into account white collar workers at Amazon’s Seattle headquarters.)

During the holiday season in particular, the soon-to-be cut bonuses can be worth upwards of $300 per month, says the employee WIRED spoke with. “The timing of this; I don’t think it’s that much of a coincidence,” says the worker, who is employed at an Amazon fulfillment center on the East Coast. “November and December were the months where they would double the attendance and productivity bonuses.” (WIRED is granting the worker anonymity to protect them from reprisal from their employer.)

It’s not just bonuses that are being cut. Amazon is also ending its lucrative restricted stock unit program (RSU), which allows employees to vest stocks in the company after two years. In recent years, Amazon has steadily decreased the number of RSUs it has given employees as its stock price more than doubled. Warehouse workers were typically given several RSUs per year, though the number has shrunk as Amazon’s shares have soared in value, according to the employee.

Amazon said in its blog post announcing the $15 minium wage that it was choosing to phase out RSUs because “we’ve heard from our hourly fulfillment and customer service employees that they prefer the predictability and immediacy of cash.” The company says it will replace the program with a direct stock purchase plan before the end of next year and that hourly raises are meant to help compensate for the loss in RSUs. But Amazon has still been vague about how it plans to account for the lost productivity bonuses, which leaves some workers worried.

“There are a lot of people who are upset,” says the Amazon worker. “[Employees] got a bigger raise, but it still didn’t make up for the shares plus the bonuses.”

There is also still confusion about whether Whole Foods employees, some of which are reportedly trying to form a union, may still be offered an equity program, according to Gizmodo. (Amazon acquired the high-end grocery chain last year.)

Amazon disputes that any employees will make less as a result of the RSU program and incentive bonuses being cut. “The significant increase in hourly cash wages more than compensates for the phase out of incentive pay and RSUs,” a spokesperson for the company said in a statement. “We can confirm that all hourly Operations and Customer Service employees will see an increase in their total compensation as a result of this announcement. In addition, because it’s no longer incentive-based, the compensation will be more immediate and predictable.”

The employee who spoke with WIRED maintains they will lose at least $1,400 per year as a result of the benefits being cut, despite factoring in a $1 raise in hourly pay. When WIRED provided Amazon with the employee’s calculations, the company did not dispute their accuracy.

In one sense, Amazon has good reason to cut the benefits it previously offered and instead provide employees with more cash. One of the soon-to-expire bonuses, for example, was given based on whether an employee’s entire warehouse met its productivity goals—a factor no single worker can control. RSUs also aren’t vested for two years; many warehouse employees don’t work at the company long enough to claim them, causing millions to be forfeited each year.

“It’s not fair to offer [Amazon workers] compensation that most of them won’t get,” says Valerie Frederickson, the CEO and founder of Silicon Valley human resource firm Frederickson Partners. “In a way, it’s false compensation.”

But raising hourly wages and cutting the aforementioned benefits may still hurt some Amazon workers—particularly those that perform well at their job and have stuck around long enough to claim equity in the company. Amazon’s new compensation structure appears designed more to attract new employees in today’s tight labor market, rather than to keep loyal workers at the company for longer. After all, in the next several weeks, Amazon will need to begin competing against other retailers who are also hiring extra holiday season help.

Amazon likely also raised its minimum wage to stave off criticism from politicians like Sanders, who last month introduced legislation literally called the Stop BEZOS Act, which is designed to hold large employers financially accountable when their low-wage workers need to rely on public benefits like food stamps to make ends meet. The bill was introduced after Amazon spent months responding to negative reports about its grueling low-wage labor practices.

By raising wages, Amazon may also be attempting to ensure its employees don’t choose to collectively organize. Late last month, Gizmodo published excerpts from a training video the company distributed to Whole Foods managers that appears to teach them how to identify and dissuade employees who may be forming a union. Amazon workers have also repeatedly tried to organize for years. But by introducing a compensation structure that could hand some long-term employees the short end of the stick, Amazon’s plan to cool the desire for collective bargaining may have backfired.


More Great WIRED Stories

Read More

Could spies actually insert malicious chips into computer circuit boards? A manufacturing expert says it’s possible

Could Chinese spies covertly insert malicious chips into computer circuit boards sold in the United States to the military, Apple, and Amazon?

It’s a wild possibility to think about — but that’s exactly what Bloomberg reported in a deeply reported investigative story this week. It claimed that a supplier named SuperMicro, which manufactures the motherboards, was infiltrated by the spies several years ago.

Muddying the waters, all parties involved vigorously deny the report even as Bloomberg stands by its reporting. Amazon said the inaccuracies are “hard to count.” Apple published a rare 750-word statement in response, calling the report untrue.

It’s not surprising that the situation is unclear. The story touches on matters of international spying, high-tech manufacturing, and the world of information security — three of the most secretive realms in the entire world.

Ultimately, we may never know with a high degree of certainty what actually happened in the past three years, in regards to SuperMicro’s supply chain.

But according to one high-tech manufacturing expert, it’s entirely realistic to think that one bad actor could change the design on a circuit board, and that it wouldn’t be caught until the finished product is out in the wild.

“There’s so much complexity in these products,” Anna-Katrina Shedletsky told Business Insider in a phone interview. “I think what’s really great about that Bloomberg GIF that’s the top of that at the top of their article.”

“See how tiny that chip is? There’s no way human inspector is going to notice that there when it wasn’t supposed to be. Even the engineer who is intimately familiar with the layout of that design may not notice that,” she continued.

Shedletsky would know about detecting issues in contract manufacturing. She’s a cofounder of Instrumental, a company that uses machine learning to head off manufacturing defects, and she estimates she’s spent 500 days in factories in China and around the world, first as a product design engineer at Apple for six years, and later in her role as Instrumental’s CEO.

“I think based on the methodology in which these parts are designed and manufactured, whether it’s a nation-state actor or even just someone else, I don’t actually think it’s hard to inject stuff that the brand or design team didn’t intentionally ask for,” she said. She believes that easily searchable, high-resolution digital photos of circuit boards, one Instrumental’s main products, will become increasingly important as companies implement more controls on the supply chain.

All electronics have a circuit board

Instrumental cofounders Anna Shedletsky and Sam Weiss.
Instrumental

Shedletsky doesn’t have any direct knowledge about the Bloomberg report or how SuperMicro does its manufacturing, and doesn’t know what to think given the strong and detailed denials provided by the companies involved.

“I don’t know what to believe, but at the same time it doesn’t really matter, because it’s possible, and we have to act like it is true to solve the problem,” she said.

After all, Bloomberg alleges that spies were able to put an unwanted chip on a printed circuit board. All electronics have a circuit board in them, she said. And often, one person can change the computer file that has the design.

“The manufacturer doesn’t even need to be nefarious,” she explained, speaking generally. “You just need one person who is going to change the reference design and hit save. Now it’s going to go on any customer that pulls that reference design, for something like a server that’s pretty generic.”

These parts go through an inspection before they’re packed and shipped, but these kind of inspections aren’t set up to detect things that have been added — they’re often more concerned with common issues like whether the solder was properly applied. And if the design document was altered, then these tests wouldn’t pick it up either.

“It would be very easy to get by one of those tests. Those tests are based on what’s called the ‘Gerber file’ or the computer aided design of what’s supposed to be on the board,” she explained.

One problem that has come up in her experience is counterfeits. Sometimes, she said, factories can replace one chip on a circuit board with cheaper, counterfeit alternatives and the company that built the product doesn’t realize until it’s shipping.

Reuters Pictures Archive

“A friend of mine built a product and their batteries started smoking,” she said. “The root cause was that the power chip was a cheaper version that was not on the design. It had less circuitry, but it looked like a power chip and kind of functions like one, but it was a ‘cost-down’ model, like it was a cheaper chip.”

There’s also a range of different levels of security at different factories, she said. In some, everything is locked down and controlled. At others, circuit boards and other parts are seen as less critical than stuff like the enclosures, which can be considered super-secret.

In general, though, she doesn’t worry about consumer devices like smartphones from big, well-resourced brands like Apple being vulnerable to hardware attacks like the one Bloomberg alleges — there are simply too many people looking at the design and finished product.

But that still leaves a lot of vulnerable products out there.

“Even regardless of whether it’s true or not, if you were a SuperMicro customer for the last four years, five years you might be thinking, ‘do any of our server boards have problematic stuff going on?'” Shedletsky said. “I would be asking myself if I was a customer. Because it’s so plausible, there could be more we don’t know about.”

Read More

Mega Millions results for 10/05/18; did anyone win the $420M jackpot?

Posted October 06, 2018 at 09:27 AM | Updated October 06, 2018 at 09:27 AM

Read More

Bubble trouble? Seltzer maker LaCroix sued over ‘all-natural’ label

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

A lawsuit popped open this week in Chicago accuses the popular sparkling water brand LaCroix of lying about its “all-natural” ingredients.

The filing in Cook County, Illinois, circuit court, on Monday against the National Beverage Corporation, LaCroix’s parent company, by the law firm Beaumont Costales LLC on behalf of plaintiff Lenora Rice.

“Much of LaCroix’s popularity stems from the American consumer’s perception that LaCroix water is ‘all natural,’ or otherwise comprised entirely of natural substances,” reads a copy of the complaint obtained by NBC News. “Unfortunately for all parties involved, Defendant’s representations regarding the naturalness of LaCroix water are false.”

Image: LaCroix Sparking Water
LaCroix Sparking Water on display during Hilarity for Charity’s 5th Annual Los Angeles Variety Show: Seth Rogen’s Halloween at Hollywood Palladium on Oct. 15, 2016 in Los Angeles, California.Randy Shropshire / Getty Images

The lawsuit claims LaCroix uses a number of synthetic ingredients, including ethyl butanoate, limonene, and linalool propionate.

The lawsuit then goes on to claim that the company has not only mislabeled its products, but contains ingredients that are used for other purposes like linalool, which the suit claims is used in insecticides.

All three ingredients are in fact naturally occurring in fruit. Ethyl butanoate is found in natural fruits, including apples and tangerines, according to the chemistry database PubChem maintained by the National Institutes of Health. Linalool and limonene also occur naturally in fruit. They help give citrus peels their distinctive aroma.

In a statement published online, the law firm says it wants LaCroix to relabel its packaging and award damages to customers who bought the beverages thinking it was “all-natural.”

The National Beverage Corporation strongly refuted these allegations in a statement saying they were made “without basis in fact or law.”

“Natural flavors in LaCroix are derived from the natural essence oils from the named fruit used in each of the flavors,” the company wrote, citing the United States Food and Drug Administration’s definition of “natural.”

“There are no sugars or artificial ingredients contained in, nor added to, those extracted flavors,” seltzer the company said.

The company said it will be seeking damages resulting from the publication of the lawsuit’s allegations.

Read More