Software developer, cyclist, photographer, hiker, reader.I work for the Library of Congress but all opinions are my own.Email: chris@improbable.org
5367 stories
·
65 followers

Racial Disparities In Wages Boil Down To One Thing: Discrimination

1 Share

The discrimination that weighs down black people's wages begins before they're hired and continues long after.

rukxstockphoto

Racial discrimination, it seems, is like the salt that's left in a pot after water boils away — much easier to identify in the absence of the other things.

That was one of the big takeaways from a report released this week by the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Researchers were studying the longstanding black-white wage gap, and their findings were grim: The distance between what white Americans and black Americans earn is larger than it's been in almost 40 years.

I talked to Valerie Wilson, who analyzes race and the economy for the institute. She told me that the wage gap has grown and shrunk over the years and has lingered in both boom and lean times. While it once varied by region — smallest in the Midwest and largest in the South — the gap is now more or less uniform across the country. It's been a chronic blemish on our economy.

And the major reason, Wilson said? Not education. Not work experience. Not whether you live on a farm or in a downtown apartment complex. It's discrimination, and it's borne out in the data.

I was curious when she said this. How would you even measure discrimination when the people doing it don't tend to advertise it, and the people being discriminated against often don't know it's happening? How do you detect something that is essentially invisible?

"The way that we measure discrimination in this report," Wilson said, "is that it's the portion of the gap that remains after we control for all the other factors that would reasonably influence one's earnings."

Here's the crux of the matter via the report:

"During the early 1980s, rising unemployment, declining unionization, and policies such as the failure to raise the minimum wage and lax enforcement of anti-discrimination laws contributed to the growing black-white wage gap. During the late 1990s, the gap shrank due in part to tighter labor markets, which made discrimination more costly, and increases in the minimum wage. Since 2000 the gap has grown again."

The researchers didn't try to describe the ways widespread discrimination caused the wage gap, but we have some ideas. There's the much-cited 2003 study where applicants with resumes boasting "black-sounding" names — Lakisha, say, or Jamal — were less likely to get callbacks for jobs. And then there's this2014 study by three prominent economists that analyzed the job searches of nearly 5,200 newly unemployed people in New Jersey:

"First, black job seekers were offered significantly less compensation than whites by potential new employers. Second, blacks were much more likely to accept these lower offers than their white counterparts."

Interestingly, the economists also found that the racial gap in pay narrowed over time if employees stayed at the same company; that is, once the company became more comfortable with those black hires. But that also means that black folks have to stay with one employer longer to catch up with the wages of their white coworkers.

That finding dovetails with data from the EPI study, which pointed out that black college graduates enter the workforce making less than white college graduates. Taken together, black people are starting their work lives with potential employers deciding whether their names disqualify them, with fewer job prospects and with lower entry-level wages. Discrimination, then, is part of the experience of black workers long before and long after they're hired.

Wilson said that the degree of wage discrimination in the labor market fluctuates. In harder times, she said, it's easier for employers to offer black people less.

"When the economy is in a weakened state, quite frankly, discrimination is less costly [to the employer] because there are more available workers than there are available jobs," she said, "and plenty of [people] employers could hire for lower pay," Wilson said.

But in a flush economy like that of the mid-1990s, discrimination actually worked against employers. When the competition for hiring workers was steeper, Wilson said, the wages for everyone, including black folks, had to creep up. Perhaps not coincidentally, the researchers noted that anti-discrimination laws were being enforced more consistently when the economy was stouter and the wage gap was at its smallest.

Wilson told me that some recent proposals meant to reduce the gender wage gap, which has been a recurring subject in the current presidential election cycle, would also make a dent in racial disparities. She pointed to a recent proposal from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that would require employers to report what they pay workers by race, ethnicity and gender.

That idea wouldn't be nearly enough to end all the ways discrimination dampens pay, but it might give us a much clearer sense of of just how much salt is in the water.

Copyright 2016 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.
Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

My Childhood Was Appropriate For Children

3 Shares

VOYA Magazine, a publication for youth librarians, recently said some really gross and bigoted things about bisexuality and the queer community. Bisexual Books has a good run-down.

The short version is that they said a book was for ‘mature readers’ because it had a bisexual character and foul language (the section on the maturity rating neglected to mention the actual heterosexual sex in the book. Just the existence of a bi character). When criticized, they issued a series of increasingly bizarre and hostile statements, then eventually deleted everything and locked down their social media accounts.

I want to focus on something VOYA said in one of its now-deleted non-apologies:

“I simply did not recognize that including bisexual and ‘bad language’ in one sentence was effectively ‘lumping them together.’ I saw it as two pieces of factual information that led to the age recommendation.”

They use the existence of a bi character as a contributing factor when labeling the book as ‘mature.’ They’ve doubled down on this repeatedly, in spite of being told—repeatedly—that it is offensive, insulting, and harmful to children.

They don’t seem to understand how their actions could possibly be harmful. They claim to support our ‘lifestyle’ (yes, that’s right, they called bisexuality a ‘lifestyle’ in this, the year two thousand and sixteen). We must be overreacting, or ‘looking for enemies to destroy’ (yup, they said that too), because they have said repeatedly that they are not bigots, and saying it makes it so.

I thought perhaps an example might help them out.

When I was in middle school, I was outed as bisexual against my will.

I knew I was bi before I even started sixth grade. In fact, I had the good fortune of growing up in a faith community that loved and affirmed same-sex couples, so until I started middle school I thought everyonewas bi.

Reality caught up with me pretty fast. I learned that any deviation from heterosexuality was considered wrong and gross, and bisexuality was particularly bad because even gay and lesbian folks didn’t hesitate to let the hatred directed their way roll downhill to us. I found myself a safe enough closet and I stepped inside.

Until I trusted someone who didn’t deserve it, and suddenly the whole school knew.

I was not a quiet kid. I was used to advocating for myself to authority figures. But when it came to being bullied for being queer, most of the adults I sought help from were useless. They didn’t even want to discuss it with me. They couldn’t look me in the eye and have a conversation about what was happening, because they considered bisexuality an inappropriate topic for a middle schooler to be discussing.

So they let the whole school go right on discussing it around me, rather than acknowledging that my childhood was a perfectly normal and appropriate childhood, and that it was perfectly normal and appropriate for me to be discussing it, and for me to ask  for help when I was being bullied because of it.

When you tell people that even acknowledging the existence of bisexuality renders a book ‘too mature’ for kids, you’re contributing to a hostile environment for bi and other queer kids. By treating their stories as dirty, you’re treating themas dirty. You’re not just denying the lived reality of bi kids; you’re depriving them of support they desperately need at a time when they’re trying to figure themselves and the world out. You’re normalizing the shameful cowardice I experienced when I needed help and couldn’t get it.

There is nothing shameful about being bi, and kids need to hear that. Not just bi kids—straight kids need to hear it too. In fact, they might need to hear it even more, because they’re the ones bullying queer kids to death.

And if you’re trying to warn parents that a book contains bisexual characters in case the parents find it offensive—why? Why are you choosing to help parents pass their bigotry on to their children? Why are you placing their feelings of discomfort at having to justify their bigotry to their kids over the feelings of fear, pain, and alienation that bi kids face growing up in a world that treats them as dirty?

Bisexuality is a perfectly appropriate for children, because many children are bisexual. Treating bisexuality as an ‘adult’ topic? As if it’s a deviation kids couldn’t possibly understand? That’s what’s not appropriate for children. It’s not appropriate for anyone, really, but it’s especially not appropriate to leave that toxic waste of an opinion in the middle of a library, where kids will trip over it on the way to the information desk.






Read the whole story
paulkruchoski
6 hours ago
reply
Washington, DC
pfctdayelise
17 hours ago
reply
Melbourne, Australia
Share this story
Delete

Senators To Wells Fargo CEO: Don’t Strip Wronged Customers Of Their Day In Court

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Now that Wells Fargo is in the hot seat for allegedly pushing its employees to meet sales goals and quotas by opening millions of bogus accounts in customers’ names, will the bank use the anti-consumer terms of its customer contracts to get out of the inevitable class action lawsuits? A coalition of U.S. senators have written the bank’s CEO asking him to please not strip customers’ of their day in court.

Customers have already filed at least one class action against Wells Fargo over these fraudulent accounts, but as we noted in our story about that case, the bank’s contracts include a clause that not only allows Wells to force lawsuits out of the court system and into private arbitration, but also bars harmed customers from joining their complaints together as a class.

Wells already used this tactic — employed by a growing number of businesses — to get out of a related lawsuit filed last year by a customer in California, and consumer advocates are concerned the bank might pull the forced arbitration lever again to minimize its total liability.

At a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was asked about his plans to use arbitration, but his response was non-committal, saying only that he would need to discuss the matter with his legal staff, and “I have instructed my team to do whatever it takes, within reason, to take care of these customers.”

Today, a group of six lawmakers, led by Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT; Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee) and Sherrod Brown (OH; Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee), sent a letter to Stumpf, contending that the bank’s forced arbitration clauses are actually partly to blame for this mess.

“A major reason that these outrageous practices continued for at least five years is that Wells Fargo’s customer account agreement includes a forced arbitration clause,” reads the letter [PDF]. “These clauses eliminate consumers’ ability to bring a claim in open court or to band together in a class action, before any dispute has arisen. Forced arbitration clauses deny access to the courts even when consumers are seeking to enforce their rights under fundamental state and federal laws. Instead, consumers must seek justice individually, on a case-by-case basis in closed-door arbitration proceedings that are often stacked in favor of the corporate defendant.”

Unlike court proceedings, the results of arbitration cases are not made part of the public record. This lack of transparency, argue the senators, “helps hide fraudulent schemes such as the sham accounts at Wells Fargo from the justice system, from the news media, and from the public eye.”

What would make the use of arbitration particularly galling in this case, explains the letter, is that it involves the use of real customer accounts to “deny customers access to the court system to challenge Wells Fargo’s creation of sham accounts.”

If, as Stumpf proclaimed in his testimony before the Banking Committee, he accepts “full responsibility for all unethical sales practices,” the senators say he should show he really means it by pledging to not use the arbitration clauses to avoid lawsuits.

The senators have asked Wells to respond with information about its customer agreements, complaints about the fake accounts, and the bank’s use of arbitration.

For example, they want to know when it first started hearing allegations of bogus accounts (Stumpf admitted this week that he learned of the practice back in 2013), how many allegations it received through Sept. 2016, and how many of these were compelled into arbitration? And is the bank’s policy to put a gag order on arbitration results?

“What percentage of these allegations were heard by the same arbitrator or arbitration provider?” continues the line of questions. “Did Wells Fargo disclose to its investors allegations concerning the unauthorized creation of accounts?”

The senators also want to know who at Wells was responsible for setting legal strategy with regard to these bogus accounts.

“Specifically, who decided that your legal strategy would be to deny people access to the courts and force people to submit to mandatory arbitration on fraudulent accounts?” asks the letter.

In addition to Senators Leahy and Brown, the letter was signed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Sen. Richard Durbin (IL), Sen. Al Franken (MN), and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT).





Read the whole story
stefanetal
1 day ago
reply
This is where some of the real meat is/could be. Changes to the 1926 FAA scope and implementation would be useful. I'm not up on current developments, but the use of the FAA to avoid the courts is longstanding (and I don't understand why it took so long to get to this stage, given that Southland Corp. v. Keating is 1983 -- my first contact with this issue as an intern was trying to explain that this happened to state law scope).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southland_Corp._v._Keating

Actually, this is one of the topics that made me a Democrat, after having been more of a Hayek reading proto-Republican in my youth, seeing GOP judicial activism preempting state level regulatory competition on what Germans call 'allgemeine Geschaftsbedingung', basically the consumer version of ISDAs. Not something you want to take into arbitration...thought the analytics are difficult. A good paper topic...
stefanetal
1 day ago
Might as well add this link, just googling around to see the current state of play on this topic: http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/341/moses.pdf
stefanetal
1 day ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepcion in 2011 is the immediate cause of this issue here.
Share this story
Delete

Don’t Blame Millennials for This Scarily Close Election. Blame Baby Boomers.

1 Comment and 3 Shares

Sixteen years since Bush v. Gore, Florida still looms large in the liberal imagination as the epicenter of the vote-counting crisis that wrongly handed an election to one of the worst presidents in American history—a symbolic reminder of the importance of vigilance in campaign combat. The state is no longer the bellwether of the Democratic Party’s political fortunes it once was, but in this election, it is part of a firewall that will make it very hard for Donald Trump to become president even if national polls remain close. Maintaining a healthy lead in Florida, in other words, is critical to liberal sanity.

Cue panic. As if liberals needed more sources of anxiety, the polls are particularly close in Florida right now. A New York Times Upshot poll, which was based on voter records in the same way campaigns conduct their internal polls, finds Hillary Clinton leading 41-40 in a four-way race, and tied 43-43 in a head-to-head race against Trump.

Even if it proves fleeting, the mortifying resemblance to 2000, provides a backdrop for Clinton’s increasingly warm and concerted courtship of young voters and of an increasing sense of alarm among Trump foes that millennials, through apathy or self-satisfied third-party voting, could tip the presidency into his hands.

I will address at another time the millennial generation’s role in keeping this election uncomfortably close. But as long as we’re going to play generational blame games for the possible destruction of American democracy, the Upshot’s data makes clear who bears it. Looking at the graph below, I see only one generation so selfish and entitled that they’d disappoint their parents, children, and grandchildren—and it isn’t millennials.

There’s a lot of area in this graph where Clinton leads Trump, and much less area where Trump leads Clinton. If everyone voted, Clinton would be destroying Trump with a coalition of young and middle-aged voters, even if Florida is a disproportionately old state. Trump, by contrast derives nearly all of his strength in this race from baby boomers. He really begins to pull away from Clinton with voters 65 and over and maximizes his support with voters in their mid-seventies, only to collapse again into a deficit with 90-plus voters, old enough to remember the last time American democracy was under threat from authoritarian movements.

The Republican Party has thrived with boomers for decades now, but in the Trump era, when they are settling into retirement, the nature of their designs for the country seem particularly odious.


In 2012, the disproportionately old, white Republican electorate banded together in an attempt to take away young and poor people’s health insurance and devolve Medicare, the public health care guarantee for retirees, to private insurance companies—but only for younger generations. One of Romney’s central promises was to leave the safety net completely untouched for the old and near-old. This time around, they’re essentially attempting the same thing—Republicans in Congress support Trump largely based on the assumption that he will sign bills to cut taxes and cut safety net programs—but with white nationalist fascism as the real lasting legacy.

In Florida, at least, Boomers want to leave Trump to millennials as a parting gift before they shuffle out of God’s waiting room into eternity. And if they push Trump over the top in Florida, his path to the presidency will suddenly become very wide. If you’re a liberal who spent the past week sleeping fitfully at the thought Trump might eke out a victory in November, go to Florida and thank your nearest Baby Boomer. Apparently they’re everywhere down there.

Read the whole story
paulkruchoski
13 hours ago
reply
Washington, DC
zipcube
3 days ago
reply
Dallas, Texas
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
acdha
15 hours ago
reply
“But as long as we’re going to play generational blame games for the possible destruction of American democracy, the Upshot’s data makes clear who bears it. Looking at the graph below, I see only one generation so selfish and entitled that they’d disappoint their parents, children, and grandchildren—and it isn’t millennials.”
Washington, DC
zipcube
14 hours ago
booomers have systematically pulled up the ladder behind them on every social institution they used to get ahead and its so infuriating when they are like "well why dont you just do x (work to pay for college for example, when a year of college was paid for by 4 months at a summer job when they went to school) like i did"
acdha
13 hours ago
One bit of trivia I keep in mind in those discussions: the University of California didn't start charging tuition at all until the 1980s! There are quite a few people who talk as if that's still the case and today's college students are just whining about being able to afford their frapuccinos.

Glenn Reynolds should not be disciplined

1 Comment

Glenn Reynolds is a piece of work. Much of his blogging is in the ambiguous borderland between right wing hackery and active depravity. Even so, I was disturbed to see this in Inside Higher Ed:

The University of Tennessee at Knoxville says it’s investigating a law professor’s tweet suggesting that motorists “run down” protesters blocking traffic following a fatal police shooting in Charlotte, N.C. The professor, a popular blogger with the Twitter handle @Instapundit, says he hasn’t been contacted by the university directly … On Thursday, Melanie D. Wilson, dean of Tennessee’s College of Law, posted a statement to the university website saying that she was “aware of the remarks” and of the “serious and legitimate concerns expressed by members of the [law college] family and the University of Tennessee community, as well as concerned citizens across the country.”Wilson said Reynolds’s comments “do not reflect my views and opinions, nor do they reflect the values of the college and university,” and that she, administrators and faculty members are “investigating this matter.”

The reason is straightforward. As Chris, Alex Gourevitch and Corey have argued at length, the lack of job security across much of the US means that employers can threaten your job to discipline you for things they don’t like, including punishing activities that have nothing to do with one’s employment. I don’t like Reynolds being investigated for a tweet that doesn’t have anything obvious to do with his employment as a law professor. If he were to be punished for it, it would be seriously problematic.

To be clear – this is not a matter of academic freedom. Reynolds isn’t, as far as I can tell, acting as a scholar when he blogs or tweets, and I don’t think anyone with two braincells to rub together could mistake his blogging and tweeting for scholarship. It’s opinionating – often extremely nasty opinionating in my opinion – but that’s it. Unless Reynolds puts it down as part of his employment activity in his annual report, I can’t see how it’s connected to his role at the University of Tennessee, and even if he did, it would seem to me a stretch.

The real issue is broader and more straightforward – people should not be punished on the job for stuff they do off it. Unless there is evidence that Reynolds is biased against black people or people with different politics in the classroom, I don’t see how his tweeting or blogging, however nasty, is relevant. I understand that Reynolds has been suspended for a month from his op-ed column at USA Today – here there is arguably more of a case, given that they are both forms of opinionating but it’s a case that I’m still skeptical of. I can’t help but think that USA Today knew exactly what they were getting when they hired him – he hasn’t changed much over the years. It seems to me a bit rich that they should be getting skittish now.

It could be argued that Reynolds was using the tweet to incite other people to commit violence. For sure, Reynolds has been eager to accuse others of advocating violence in the past, including his ridiculous claim that Erik Loomis was using “eliminationist rhetoric” for saying that he would like to see Wayne LaPierre’s “head on a stick.” Yet this doesn’t seem to me like direct incitement (although it’s closer than Loomis’s metaphor) – it’s more plausibly a nasty way of saying that he doesn’t particularly care about the lives of the black protestors, and personally wouldn’t be perturbed if they got hurt or killed. That says some very unpleasant things about Glenn Reynolds (who I believe is, rather surprisingly, the son of a genuine civil rights activist), but it doesn’t say that he is specifically trying to encourage people to kill others.

Finally, there’s a temptation to see this as just deserts. After all, Reynolds helped start the ball rolling on the Erik Loomis affair, and despite his angry protestations that he “never called for Prof. Erik Loomis to be fired,” seemed very happy to approvingly quote a correspondent arguing that “at a minimum, some people at URI should occasionally monitor [Loomis’s] class or question his students to find out whether he brings anywhere close to that amount of venom to discussions with students who disagree with him.”

The temptation ought to be vigorously resisted. Glenn Reynolds may be a despicable and mendacious hypocrite but again, this doesn’t change the facts of the case – we shouldn’t use people’s jobs and livelihoods to punish them for things they do in their personal lives that aren’t connected to their jobs.

I can’t imagine that Reynolds will be particularly enthused by this intervention – it certainly hasn’t been written in a fashion calculated to please him. Furthermore, he detests me personally (given what he is, I’d be worried if he didn’t; to misquote someone much better than me, I welcome his hatred). Even so, I specifically and strongly urge the University of Tennessee to drop this investigation. There is an important general principle of employers not punishing people for what they do off the job, which needs to be defended, and to the greatest extent possible, extended. That Reynolds, both in his personal conduct and political beliefs isn’t committed to this principle, is entirely and completely irrelevant.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
acdha
15 hours ago
reply
Even he does not deserve to be treated according to his values
Washington, DC

Why the silencing of KrebsOnSecurity opens a troubling chapter for the ‘Net

1 Share

For the better part of a day, KrebsOnSecurity, arguably the world's most intrepid source of security news, has been silenced, presumably by a handful of individuals who didn't like a recent series of exposés reporter Brian Krebs wrote. The incident, and the record-breaking data assault that brought it on, open a troubling new chapter in the short history of the Internet.

The crippling distributed denial-of-service attacks started shortly after Krebs published stories stemming from the hack of a DDoS-for-hire service known as vDOS. The first article analyzed leaked data that identified some of the previously anonymous people closely tied to vDOS. It documented how they took in more than $600,000 by knocking other sites offline. A few days later, Krebs ran a follow-up piece detailing the arrests of two men who allegedly ran the service.

On Thursday morning, exactly two weeks after Krebs published his first post, he reported that a sustained attack was bombarding his site with as much as 620 gigabits per second of junk data. That staggering amount of data is among the biggest ever recorded. Krebs was able to stay online thanks to the generosity of Akamai, a network provider that providd a DDoS mitigation service to him for free. The attack showed no signs of waning as the day wore on. Some indications suggest it may have grown stronger. At 4 pm, Akamai gave Krebs two hours' notice that it would no longer assume the considerable cost of defending KrebsOnSecurity. Krebs opted to shut down the site to prevent collateral damage hitting his service provider and its customers.

"It's hard to imagine a stronger form of censorship than these DDoS attacks because if nobody wants to take you on then that's pretty effective censorship," Krebs told Ars on Friday. "I've had a couple of big companies offer and then think better of offering to help me. That's been frustrating."

Until recently, a DDoS attack in excess of 600Gb was nearly impossible for all but the most sophisticated and powerful actors to carry out. In 2013, attacks against anti-spam organization Spamhaus generated headlines because the 300Gb torrents were coming uncomfortably close to

Internet-threatening size

. The assault against KrebsOnSecurity represents a much greater threat for at least two reasons. First, it's twice the size. Second and more significant, unlike the Spamhaus attacks, the staggering volume of bandwidth doesn't rely on misconfigured domain name system servers which, in the big picture, can be remedied with relative ease.

Instead, the attacks against KrebsOnSecurity harness so-called Internet-of-things devices—think home routers, webcams, digital video recorders, and other everyday appliances that have Internet capabilities built into them. Manufacturers design these devices to be as inexpensive and easy-to-use as possible. Consumers often have little technical skill. As a result, the devices frequently come with bug-ridden firmware that never gets updated and easy-to-guess login credentials that never get changed. Their lax security and always-connected status makes the devices easy to remotely commandeer by people who turn them into digital cannons that spray the Internet with shrapnel. On Thursday, security firm Symantec cataloged 11 different families of IoT malware that do just that.

"The current IoT threat landscape shows that it does not require much to exploit an embedded device," Symantec researchers wrote in the report, which was headlined "IoT devices being increasingly used for DDoS attacks." "While we have come across several malware variants exploiting device vulnerabilities—such as Shellshock or the flaw in Ubiquiti routers—the majority of the threats simply take advantage of weak built-in defenses and default password configurations in embedded devices."

The growing supply of IoT malware is creating a tipping point in the denial-of-service domain that's giving relatively unsophisticated actors capabilities that were once reserved only for the most elite of attackers. And that, in turn, represents a threat to the Internet as we know it.

"The biggest threats as far as I'm concerned in terms of censorship come from these ginormous weapons these guys are building," Krebs said. "The idea that tools that used to be exclusively in the hands of nation states are now in the hands of individual actors, it's kind of like the specter of a James Bond movie."

Krebs said he has explored the possibility of retaining a DDoS mitigation service, but he found that the cost—somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 per year for the type of always-on protection he needs against high-bandwidth attacks—is more than he can afford. For the past four years, he received pro bono help from Prolexic, which was later acquired by Akamai. Over that time, the service has defended KrebsOnSecurity against what he estimates are hundreds of attacks. The latest round has brought that relationship to an end. Krebs said he hopes to be back online later Friday with the help of a service he declined to discuss on the record. Still, he said, he's not sure how long the new arrangement will last.

Of course, if a ragtag band of pseudo-hackers can disrupt KrebsOnSecurity, they can disrupt plenty of other sites, too. And this should concern not just the Googles, Apples, and Microsofts of the world but their everyday users as well. Krebs said the threat "screams out" for the kind of industry-wide collaboration that's come together to counter previous threats, including the DNS spoofing bug researcher Dan Kaminsky disclosed in 2008, the Conficker worm that infected huge swaths of the Internet the same year, or the GameOver botnet from last year. Sadly, Krebs said he sees no signs of such cooperation now.

"Free speech in the age of the Internet is not really free," he said. "We're long overdue to treat this threat with a lot more urgency. Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening right now."

Story corrected to change gigabytes to gigabits.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories