Congress Wants Americans to Stop Using Chinese Routers

A U.S. congressional committee is asking Americans to stop using Chinese internet routers over ongoing cybersecurity concerns.

Tensions between the U.S. and China have been on the rise, driven by an ongoing trade war, the AI race, and concerns over the activities of China-sponsored hacking groups. One such group, Salt Typhoon, recently perpetrated the “worst telecom hack” in U.S. history, compromising at least nine U.S. telecom companies and gaining access to the calls and text messages of millions.

As a result, U.S. lawmakers have been looking with a critical eye at Chinese network companies, including TP-Link, which is the most popular brand of network routers in the U.S. Lawmakers have considered banning the company’s equipment altogether.

In the meantime, the House of Representatives Select Committee on China is urging U.S. consumers to avoid TP-Link, according to Reuters.

“We need to all take action and replace those devices so they don’t become the tools that are used in the attacks on the U.S.,” Rob Joyce, former NSA Director of Cybersecurity, told the committee.

Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi agreed with Joyce’s assessment. Pointing to a consumer-grade TP-Link router, he said: “Don’t use this.

“I don’t have one at home either. It’s not a good idea,” Krishnamoorthi added.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/BtfUOr7

Identifying the Driving Forces Behind the Spread of STIs in America

In the United States, 1 in 5 people have a sexuality transmitted infection (STI). This number is staggering, and it can be scary and uncertain to live with one of these diseases. Because of this, it is important to understand the factors that contribute to one’s likelihood of contracting these infections and what we can do to prevent them in our own lives. Where one lives, what they do, who they are and who they love are primary drivers in the spread of STIs in the US.

Different areas and metros are at risk for different types of STIs in the United States. For example, those living in southern regions or in and around larger metropolitan areas are at a greater risk for contracting an STI. Additionally, diseases like HIV are more common in the northeast, while syphilis is more common on the west coast.

One’s lifestyle choices are also a major factor in the spread of STIs. Having unprotected sex or using ineffective methods of contraception are a major driving force behind the spread. In fact, the risk for syphilis is over 50% per 10,000 sexual acts when having unprotected sex. Having several sexual partners can also increase risk, as this changes one’s likelihood of not knowing their partner’s sexual history or testing habits. Dating app users are also at risk, as they are 1.3x more likely to test positive for an STI despite being 1.8x more likely to get STI screening. Substance abuse also plays a role, as impaired decision making has been positively associated with risky sexual behaviors leading to STI diagnoses.

One’s background and identity also provides explanation as to why one might be more at risk for an STI. For example, black people are more susceptible to gonorrhea than other groups. Factors like income, age, and overall background have also been found to contribute. Those that have an income below the poverty level are more likely to report an STI, as are younger people. Additionally, research has shown that women are more likely to suffer from an STI compared to men, and that graduating from college may reduce one’s risk of an STI. Overall, studies show that young adult males between the ages of 15 and 24 are the most susceptible to these infections.

Who one loves and the type of sex being had are significant factors in the spread of STIs. Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples experience intimacy differently, which determines which types of infections they are most susceptible to and to what degree. Overall, STI positivity is the highest amongst gay and bisexual cisgender men at 35%. Additionally, type of sex also matters, as vaginal sex often carries less risk than anal intercourse.

Although abstinence is the only true way to avoid STIs, there are several other methods one can use to practice safe sex when actively intimate with others. Proper testing before a new relationship, using protection, and vaccines or post-exposure medications are widely available and should be used to promote healthy sexual relationships. 

eNationalTesting.com

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/jYUfwOK

Australia Bans Kaspersky for Government Use

Australia has joined the U.S., banning Kaspersky security products for government use, citing “unacceptable security risk to Australian Government.”

Kaspersky provides some of the world’s most popular cybersecurity products, but the company’s roots in Russia have become a growing concern, both as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and because of Russia’s support of various hacking groups.

The U.S. banned Kaspersky in June 2024—following a government-specific ban in 2017—citing the company’s close ties with the Kremlin, including accusations the company has repeatedly cooperated with Russian authorities, including the FSB.

“The case against Kaspersky Lab is overwhelming,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen said at the time. “The strong ties between Kaspersky Lab and the Kremlin are alarming and well-documented.”

Australia is now following suit, although only banning Kaspersky for government use, as opposed to the more full-scale ban implemented by the U.S.

Stephanie Foster, Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, outlined concerns regarding continued use of Kaspersky products.

After considering threat and risk analysis, I have determined that the use of Kaspersky Lab, Inc. products and web services by Australian Government entities poses an unacceptable security risk to Australian Government, networks and data, arising from threats of foreign interference, espionage and sabotage. I have also considered the important need for a strong policy signal to critical infrastructure and other Australian governments regarding the unacceptable security risk associated with the use of Kaspersky Lab, Inc. products and web services.

The directive leaves the door open for specific exemptions, although any such exemptions would require secure mitigations to be in place.

The Accountable Authority may seek an exemption for a legitimate business reason, limited to national security and regulatory functions, for the use of Kaspersky Lab, Inc. products and web services on Australian Government systems and devices and must ensure that appropriate mitigations are in place.

Kaspersky has continued to maintain its innocence, saying its products can be trusted and are secure.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/ItB5QEU

AI Chatbots Are Devastating Website Traffic

Contrary to promises made by AI companies, AI chatbots are proving to be a poor substitute for web search when it comes to driving traffic to sites.

Web search has been the driving source of traffic to websites, large and small, for decades. Once of the major concerns many publishers had with AI is whether it would devastate publishers by not directing internet users to sites to the same degree as search engines. AI companies tried to address the issue with a variety of factors, including attestation links to the websites whose data served as the basis for a chatbot’s response.

Unfortunately, according to Forbes, a new report by TollBit proves things are not panning out the way AI companies promised, despite AI chatbots being responsible for significantly higher demand on websites.

“We are seeing an influx of bots that are hammering these sites every time a user asks a question,” CEO Toshit Panigrahi told Forbes. “The amount of demand for publisher content is nontrivial.”

At the heart of the issue is a change in how AI companies interact with content, as opposed to traditional search engines. Search engines specialize in sending internet users to websites. In contrast, AI chatbots hoover up data from websites to present to users without them ever visiting the site. In some cases, users may have absolutely no idea where the answers to their questions are coming from.

Nathan Schultz, CEO of Chegg, the edtech firm that sued Google as a result of its AI agents causing a loss of traffic, highlighted the importance of this understanding between websites and search engines.

“It’s time to say no,” Schultz told Forbes. “When you break that contract, that is not right.”

As Forbes goes on to highlight, none of this even begins to address the issues with AI companies not respecting sites’ efforts to block AI scrapers, with ones like Perplexity accused of ignoring site preferences and continuing to scrape content, including paywalled content, without permission.

All told, the report highlights the ongoing issues that remain with the rise of AI and underscores the challenges publishers are facing in the current market upheaval.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/hefscnJ

Pests, Wildfires, and Tree Removal

According to the USDA Forest Service, there are around 300 billion trees in the U.S. supporting the country’s ecosystems. Currently, West Virginia has 79% tree coverage, New Hampshire has 83% tree coverage, and Maine has 89% tree coverage, making them the states with the most tree cover. At the other side of the spectrum, South Dakota has 4% tree coverage, Nebraska has 3% tree coverage, and North Dakota has 2% tree coverage, making them the states with the least tree cover. 

The most famous tree species in the U.S. include the coastal redwood, Douglas fir, pond cypress, and southern live oak. Hyperion is a coastal redwood tree that is considered the tallest known living tree with a height of about 379 feet. The Doerner Fir is considered the world’s tallest Douglas fir with a height of about 327 feet. The Old Senator pond cypress is considered to be one of the oldest living trees, estimated to be more than 600 years old. The Emancipation Oak southern live oak, which has a diameter of at least 100 feet, is a tree with a significant connection to the nation’s history. 

Nature controls tree volume through invasive pests and wildfires, but deforestation has disturbed the natural balance between forests and tree removal. Georgia has lost more than 3 million hectares (Mha) of its 15.10 million hectares of total land and Alaska has lost more than 6 million hectares of its 147.97 million hectares of total land. 

Invasive insects and plant diseases, which are being spread wider due to deforestation, are resulting in at least $40 billion in damages to plants annually while 15% of the U.S.’s forest cover (about 50 million acres) is affected by both native and non-native insects each year. The problem with pests is further exacerbated by the spread of foreign pests, non-sustainable logging, fire suppression, and other substandard land management practices. 

Wildfires have become more severe as well due to deforestation. During last year’s wildfire season, 7,124,554 acres were burned in the U.S. an area equal to about the size of Massachusetts and Puerto Rico combined. Within the last 24 years, Alaska, California, and Idaho have experienced the greatest tree cover loss due to wildfires with 264,000 Kha, 92,100 Kha, and 36,600 Kha lost respectively. The resulting economic impact of these wildfires is $89 billion in output loss. 

Nonetheless, there are ways to remove trees without causing further distress to the country’s forests and ecosystems. Professional tree removal services can safely remove trees more than 20 feet tall without creating further risk of injury or death while owning all the necessary equipment to get the job down safely and effectively. The cost of tree removal is also cheaper with professional tree services because there is reduced risk of expensive damage and even if damage does occur, it is covered by insurance. 

Professional tree removal experts have the necessary equipment to remove tree branches and foliage quickly with their heavy-duty machinery. These experts will make sure the trees they remove are unable to regrow to prevent any future damage while offering a thorough assessment before even starting the task. 

Removing dead, diseased, and damaged trees is good for the environment, and having it done professionally can have positive effects in the long term. 

Tree Service Expert

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/x5fghEA

Microsoft Is Shuttering Skype

Microsoft is shuttering Skype, putting an end to one of the longest-running chat and videoconferencing platforms on the market.

Skype was first released in 2003, with its ease of use leading to skyrocketing popularity. The service was acquired first by eBay, before Microsoft purchased it in 2011. Now, 14 years later, Microsoft says it is shuttering the service.

The company made the announcement in a blog post, saying it will focus all its efforts on Teams instead.

The way we communicate has evolved significantly over the years. From instant messaging to video calls, technology has continuously transformed how we connect with each other. 

In order to streamline our free consumer communications offerings so we can more easily adapt to customer needs, we will be retiring Skype in May 2025 to focus on Microsoft Teams (free), our modern communications and collaboration hub. 

Microsoft touts Teams as having the same core functionality as Skype, while offering more advanced features.

With Teams, users have access to many of the same core features they use in Skype, such as one-on-one calls and group calls, messaging, and file sharing. Additionally, Teams offers enhanced features like hosting meetings, managing calendars, and building and joining communities for free.

Over the coming days, Microsoft plans to enable logging into Teams with Skype credentials, making it easy to transition. ALternatitely, users who don’t want to migrate to Teams can export thir Skype data for import into another service.

Users with Skype Credit have until the shutdown date to use it.

Skype’s shutdown marks the end of an era, the demise of one of the oldest communication apps from the early days of the internet.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/7WUOEAb

Former Intel CEO Says to Fire the Board and Rehire Gelsinger

Pat Gelsinger, the recently fired CEO of Intel, has received a major endorsement, with former CEO Craig Barrett saying he should be rehired and the board fired.

Pat Gelsinger announced his “retirement” in December 2024, but news soon surfaced that he was forced out of Intel, given the option to be fired or “retire.” Gelsinger chose the latter and went on to launch a startup of his own. Since forcing Gelsinger out, Intel’s board has considered a number of dramatic options to turn the company around, including splitting it in two and selling it off.

In an op-ed for Fortune, Barrett makes the case that “Intel is back” and the board needs to abandon any thought of chopping it up and selling it off. That doesn’t mean Intel isn’t still facing challenges, but Barrett says the company has the technology it needs to compete with, and even best, rival TSMC.

Intel is back—from a technology point of view. They are still struggling to attract independent chip designers, but they have the technology and manufacturing know-how to compete with the likes of TSMC. So, if Intel is back from a technology standpoint, what is the advantage of splitting up a company with 100,000-plus employees spread over several continents?

The former board members think that because Intel also makes and sells chips, no other chip designers will want to trust Intel to make their products. This thought process ignores the fact that the best technology wins in the semiconductor industry. All the independent designers currently use TSMC because TSMC has the best technology, so they don’t have any process technology advantage over each other. They are all using the same manufacturing technology to compete with each other and to compete with Intel chips. If Intel has equivalent or better technology than TSMC, then the game changes.

Intel failed in its previous efforts in the foundry business for the simple reason it did not have a competitive technology. The best technology wins, as you are at a disadvantage if you use an older version. Of course, Intel has to provide good customer service, fair pricing, guaranteed capacity, and a clear separation of chip designers from their foundry customers, but there is no disputing that the best technology wins. Intel used to lead in technology and chip design. They still struggle in chip design with the move to AI applications, but they are certainly back in manufacturing technology.

Intel’s Current Leadership Woes

Barrett goes on to make the case that Intel’s current leadership lacks the experience to help turn the company around, and that it needs to hire a CEO that will build on the progress Gelsinger made.

I ran Intel with 100,000-plus employees, and I think I know the challenges if Intel were to be split up. If we want semiconductor manufacturing leadership in the U.S., then build on the current resurgence of Intel, don’t tear it apart. The conversation should be who the next CEO should be to build on Pat Gelsinger’s accomplishments over the last few years. Currently the company is being run by a CFO and a product manager. The challenge for Intel is to get someone who understands the business of making chips, not someone who spends their time splitting the company into two pieces. Along the way, you might also worry about the Intel board. They bear ultimate responsibility for what has happened to Intel over the last decade.

Barrett closes his op-ed by calling for the board’s removal and the rehire of Gelsinger.

The moment you announce you are splitting up Intel you’ll lose the momentum and resources you need to succeed. In my opinion, a far better move might be to fire the Intel board and rehire Pat Gelsinger to finish the job he has aptly handled over the past few years.

Barrett’s op-ed is a damning indictment of Intel’s board and a major boost to Gelsinger’s legacy. There has been a growing consensus that Gelsinger’s actions were exactly what Intel needed, and it was the board who pulled the plug prematurely, before Gelsinger’s plan could fully reach fruition.

Apple’s Example

In many ways, Intel is in a similar position as Apple before the return of Steve Jobs. Like Intel, Apple had all the technology it needed to compete effectively, but it had a board that lacked the vision to help the company execute well.

Upon his return, Jobs asked for the resignation of most of the board, appointing replacements that had a better understanding of the company and the computer industry, as well as the vision necessary to support Jobs’ efforts.

Without specifically mentioning Apple and Steve Jobs, Barrett is essentially making the case for a Jobs-like solution to Intel’s problems.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/XE2tkhR