Serendipity35 - ISSUES

The Canvas Hack

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Mon, 11 May 2026 18:30:00 +0000

This month, colleges and universities across the country postponed final exams and due dates for assignments after Canvas, a learning management system used by 41 percent of North American higher ed institutions, temporarily went offline due to a hack. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign postponed “all final exams and assignments, including papers, projects, etc., scheduled for Friday, Saturday, or Sunday,” provost John Coleman wrote to students and employees, and that, for “consistency and clarity,” the postponement affects all classes—even those that don't use Canvas.

Cybercrime group ShinyHunters identified itself as the hackers.

Message that appeared to Canvas users

ShinyHunters first emerged in 2020 and claims to have successfully attacked 91 victims so far. The group is primarily after money, but has also been willing to cause reputational damage to their victims. In 2021, ShinyHunters announced they were selling data stolen from 73 million AT&T customers. ShinyHunters received global attention in 2025 after Google urged 2.5 billion users to tighten their security following a data breach via Salesforce, a customer management platform.

Unlike data breaches where hackers directly break into databases holding valuable information, ShinyHunters – and several other groups – have recently targeted major companies through voice-based social engineering, which is also known as “vishing,” for voice phishing. Social engineering is when a person is tricked or manipulated into providing information or performing actions that they wouldn’t normally do.

Your AI Is Not Free

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 08:49:00 +0000

The phrase that if an app is free, you are the product means that when an app doesn’t charge you money, it usually makes money from you instead. They do that mainly by collecting your data or selling your attention to advertisers.

If that is true, then how is AI changing what that means? It is a question that deserves several posts here to really answer.

Your behavior, preferences, and time become what is being monetized. Your data becomes the product. Free apps often gather your demographics, browsing or in-app behavior, location, interests, and habits. This information is then used to target ads or sold to third parties.

The addictive nature of app design keeps you scrolling, tapping, or watching so they can show you ads. You pay with time, not dollars. “Free” is a business model, not a gift.

I will give these companies a nod that running an app costs money (servers, engineers, storage). If you are not paying, the company must earn revenue another way. Ad-free options are becoming more common as a premium. You have probably noticed that on apps and also on video streaming services. You thought that paying for Amazon Prime meant no ads on the videos. Wrong. Free is often an illusion.

In the world of AI, the difference between free and paid tiers is more than a matter of convenience. It is also about identity and privacy.

Privacy becomes the hidden cost. Data is currency. Companies track you across apps and devices, build detailed behavioral profiles, and use algorithms to influence what you see. This raises concerns about autonomy and consent.

Is there no stopping them? As long as you agree to their terms, they have a lot of power. BUT you can read those terms and privacy settings more carefully. (They rely on the fact that many users don't read the terms or adjust their settings at all.) Educate yourself and understand how digital ecosystems make money. You can choose paid or privacy-focused alternatives. And you can remove the app entirely from your life.

I see comparisons of using AI to using social media platforms. I don't think AI data is the same as social media data. Social media platforms monetize your attention. The longer you scroll, the more ads they can show. AI chatbots operate on a different axis. Your prompts aren’t just content; they’re training signals. They reveal how people think, what they struggle with, what they’re curious about, and how they phrase questions. Maybe it is anonymized (a good thing) but it is still valuable and often sensitive data.

Alarmist articles will remind you that many free AI chatbots use your prompts, your corrections, and your uploaded files. They have that photo of your family that you let them enhance. What will they do with what you give them? I can't answer that as of now, and certainly not for the future. I know that your conversation history is used to train or fine-tune future versions of the model. Hey, you are part of the product pipeline - but don't expect to be paid for your contributions.

I also concede that the business model matters and that different AI companies monetize differently. For example, Microsoft provides its own privacy commitments and policies, and those govern how your data is handled. For details, they always direct users to their Privacy Statement.

Here are 4 business models currently out there:
Ad-supported = Your attention is monetized.
Freemium = Free tier gathers usage; paid tier subsidizes development.
Enterprise licensing = Your data may be isolated; the company earns from businesses.
Open source = The model is free; the company may sell hosting or support.

So "if an app is free, you are the product" still applies, but not always in the same way. When an AI tool is free, you’re not just the product — you’re also the collaborator. You’re an unpaid teacher, tester, and a source of fuel for improvement.

Unplugging From Online Addiction

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:24:00 +0000

This week, you probably saw headlines like "Meta and YouTube designed addictive products that harmed young people," as a jury in Los Angeles awarded the plaintiff damages of $6 million, with Meta to pay 70% and YouTube the remainder

We are all plugged in to the electronic web around us that is far larger than the World Wide Web. That feeling of being unable to unplug is incredibly common and results from a powerful combination of psychological triggers, clever product design, and the essential role technology plays in modern life. "Addiction" is a strong word in this context, but it is the operative word in these kinds of cases.

Don't feel like you are "weak" or lack willpower if you find it difficult to disconnect. These systems are scientifically optimized to maximize your engagement. The core reason for compulsive checking is a chemical reaction in your brain centered on dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with pleasure, motivation, and reward-seeking.

Social media and even email platforms use the same psychological principle that makes slot machines and video games addictive. You don't know when the next "win" will appear. That could be a "like," a validating comment, an alert, or an email from someone "important." Are any of these really important? Maybe - and that possibility mixed in with that famous Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) is powerful. It compels you to keep checking.

Designers know they need apps and websites to be addictive. I can list some of these techniques, and you can take them as things to be conscious of and avoid. You could also use it as a designer to create an addictive app or website. These things are intentionally engineered as features that make it easy to lose track of time and difficult to stop.

One of those techniques is using infinite scroll, which eliminates natural stopping cues (like the bottom of a page). The content just keeps loading, encouraging endless consumption. |

Push notifications hijack your attention and create a sense of immediate urgency or curiosity, pulling you back into the app regardless of what you were doing.

Autoplay on videos and content streams automatically transitions you to the next item, removing the moment you would have had to make a conscious choice to continue or stop.

As I said earlier, many techniques used in gaming are used in the gamification of other apps. You might not think of things like streaks, badges or LinkedIn profile completeness bars create a feeling of required daily attendance to avoid losing progress or status.

Most of these are psychological traps. FoMO and the social validation of likes and shares, and positive comments tap directly into our fundamental need for social acceptance and validation.

Do you ever find yourself waiting in line, standing on the train, or during a commercial break, checking your phone? That instant, low-effort stimulation. is a form of addiction.

It's true that technology is no longer optional. We need it for much of our communication and work. We crave constant connectivity. Some jobs demand constant email and instant messaging availability. The lines between work and personal time have been blurring for at least two decades. We need directions (maps), banking, tickets, appointments, and emergency communications from our digital devices. That new reality seems to make a complete disconnect feel irresponsible, unsafe, and maybe impossible.

But I don't think it is hopeless. The solution is not to throw away devices or turn off your cell service and WiFi or have more willpower. Advice from "experts" is to create friction between yourself and the addictive features. Only allow notifications for direct calls, texts, and genuinely critical applications. Designate specific times (like the first hour of the day, mealtimes, or the hour before bed) and locations (the bedroom, the dinner table) as completely device-free. Remove the most addictive social media apps from your phone, or move them off the home screen and turn off those badges and notification sounds that remind you that there are 3 new somethings on Instagram.

The Rite of Privacy

trkellers@cloudlocal.us (Tim Kellers) — Sat, 10 Jan 2026 16:14:00 +0000

Privacy is a cornerstone of personal freedom, yet its meaning and importance have evolved over centuries.

Aristotle viewed the public sphere, or polis, as the space where true freedom and civic life were possible. For him, public life was about participating in politics and achieving lasting accomplishments, while private life was more concerned with household affairs and personal needs. This distinction meant that privacy was often seen as secondary to public engagement, but it also laid the groundwork for later debates about the value of personal space and autonomy. Even the Romans also drew a line between public and private spheres. Public life was where individuals could gain honor and recognition, while private life was associated with family, home, and personal matters. Fast-forward a millennium or two, and thinkers like Rousseau saw privacy as a retreat from the pressures of society—a necessary space for self-reflection and authenticity. Hannah Arendt later argued that privacy is essential for forming personal identity and exercising political rights.In 1890 Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis published in the Harvard Law Review an essay on the right to privacy By the early part of the 20th century, courts began interpreting the U.S. Constitution to protect an expansion of privacy to include personal freedom and dignity.

The history of privacy reveals that it has always been closely tied to personal liberty and the boundaries between the individual and society. From ancient debates about public and private life to modern legal protections, the concept of privacy has continually evolved in response to new challenges. Privacy remains a vital issue today, shaping debates about technology, freedom, and the rights of individuals in a rapidly changing world. As concerns escalated, privacy was recognized as a fundamental human right, and laws and regulations were created to address the concerns caused by the spread of computers and data collection and storage.

Then came Edward Snowden.

The scale and scope of government surveillance was exposed. The global debate about privacy was joined with personal data security. A full five years after surveillance and data collection concerns were exposed, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation claimed to set a new global standard for data protection and user rights. Even California, with its trove of data-driven companies, took the GDPR seriously and enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act.

Personal data has become a valuable commodity in the digital economy. Companies collect, analyze, and sell user information to drive advertising, product development, and business strategies.

This shift has made privacy a key economic issue, as individuals must navigate the trade-offs between convenience and control over their data.

As surveillance and data collection become more widespread, concerns about personal liberty and autonomy have grown. When every action can be tracked, individuals may feel less free to express themselves or make independent choices. These issues are at the heart of modern privacy debates, reminding us that protecting privacy is essential for maintaining freedom in a digital society. Privacy in the modern era is shaped by rapid technological change, new legal frameworks, and the growing power of data. As personal information becomes more valuable and vulnerable, understanding how privacy has evolved is crucial for protecting autonomy and freedom.

Privacy is not just a right of the past—it’s a challenge for the future. We all must stay vigilant and informed. Freedom depends on it.

Can a Font Be 'Woke'?

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Tue, 23 Dec 2025 09:35:00 +0000

My posts on the blog are about education and technology and often about where those two topics cross. It is rare for politics to enter these posts, but obviously,y politics plays a role in education and technology.

In this ever-crazier federal administration, we find that the Department of State has recently declared a move away from so-called "woke" fonts.

WTF does this mean? The translation of "woke" in this context is "accessible." Apparently, Times New Roman is the preferred "unwoke" font.

The US government has long provided a whole suite of accessibility recommendations for its agencies. These include accessible design and universal design. They're all under Section508.gov. This past summer. The website said, "Accessibility is about more than compliance with standards. It’s about developing solutions to meet the needs of all users, with and without disabilities. Universal design, a concept now widely used in the private sector, provides a path for federal agencies to shift to this broader focus."

In December 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a formal directive to revert the Department’s official font from Calibri back to Times New Roman.

While the "woke" terminology comes largely from media headlines and social commentary describing the move, Rubio's official memo explicitly linked the font change to the administration's broader push to dismantle DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) programs.

In a memo titled "Return to Tradition: Times New Roman 14-Point Font Required for All Department Paper," the Department argued that the previous switch to Calibri was a "wasteful" and "radical" initiative. Rubio stated the change was necessary to "restore decorum and professionalism" to official work products, arguing that Calibri was too "informal" and clashed with official letterheads.

The memo cited statistics showing that the number of accessibility remediation cases remained nearly identical before and after the change. A spokesperson stated the return to a serif font aligns with "President Trump’s One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations directive," emphasizing a unified, traditional image for the U.S. government.

More likely, the reverals has more to do with the fact that the Biden Administration in 2023 made the change because sans-serif fonts (Arial, Helvetica, Calibri et al) are generally easier for people with dyslexia or low vision to read on screens.

The current State Dept. labels the Biden change as a "wasteful DEIA program. Supporters of the reversal argue that government communications should look formal and authoritative, and that the previous administration's focus on "inclusive typography" was performative bureaucracy.

Critics (including disability advocates and typography experts) argue that the move ignores the technical benefits of sans-serif fonts for digital accessibility and that labeling a typeface as "woke" is an unnecessary politicization of basic office tools.

I care far less about what the default font might be, but I do care that in the time of war in the Ukraine, Israel and Gaza battles and other hotspots getting hotter around the globe, mass shootings, ICE raids on imigrants, and the U.S. economy continuing to fall, that the administration has the time and budget to care about fonts and reversing almost everything done by the previous aministration.

The Australia Social Media Ban

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 21:29:00 +0000

Australia implemented a world-first nationwide ban on social media access for children under 16, effective December 10, 2025. The law, passed in November 2024 under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill, requires major platforms to take "reasonable steps" to prevent users under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. This includes age verification methods like behavioral inference (analyzing online activity), facial age estimation (e.g., via selfies), ID uploads, or linking bank details.

Millions of accounts are expected to be affected as companies, such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, and X, face fines of up to $33M for serious or repeated noncompliance. The law places responsibility on companies rather than families, and platforms must demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps,” such as implementing age checks and removing suspected underage accounts.

The measure is cast as a child-protection and mental health safeguard, citing research showing 96% of 10- to 15-year-olds use social media, with many encountering harmful content, grooming, or cyberbullying. Critics say the law is difficult to enforce. It may even push teens onto harder-to-monitor platforms. Another criticism is that it may pose privacy risks.

Read the research from Australia used to create this ban
https://www.esafety.gov.au/research/the-online-experiences-of-children-in-australia/report-digital-use-and-risk-among-children-aged-10-to-15

Other countries have taken similar steps, such as strict youth modes or time limits.
https://studyinternational.com/news/countries-social-media-ban-children/

Atlas (browser) Shrugged

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:49:00 +0000

OpenAI, maker of the world’s most popular chatbot, ChatGPT, launched a web browser, Atlas, this week. Will it make surfing the Internet smarter?

Atlas is available only for computers that run Apple’s MacOS operating system. The company plans to introduce a version for Microsoft Windows and mobile operating systems, including Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS.

I tried it out on my iPad. It doesn't have a traditional address bar. You type the address into the chat window. That essentially removes competing search engines from the process. Google did something similar more than a decade ago with Chrome by integrating the browser and their search engine.

Atlas is very light on using your device's resources because all the heavy lifting is done in the cloud.

The biggest criticism, or maybe it's a fear, that I've seen early on is that Atlas allows OpenAI to directly gather all user data that can train their future AI technologies. Microsoft (who clearly have a horse in this race) cautions that in exchange for this AI and lighter load, ChatGPT wants permission to watch and remember everything you do online. They say it "out-surveils even Google Chrome, and that’s saying something."

It not only keeps track of which websites you visit. It also stores “memories” of what you look at and do on those sites. It can even control your mouse and browse for you. It could complete an online order for you. (more on that tomorrow)

It is still early to evaluate whether Atlas’s AI capabilities outweigh its data gathering, but the privacy concerns are real and huge. Does OpenAI offer sufficient controls for managing what Atlas remembers? That's unclear.

This has been the appeal of other browsers, especially DuckDuckGo, which emphasizes its privacy and is also a lighter browser than Chrome or Opera. (I consider Firefox to be somewhere between.) After all, your default browser is your entry point to almost all of your online surfing. (Yes, apps can bypass it.) But Duck Duck Go has a small percentage of the browser market.

Adding AI to browsers is not a new thing that OpenAI invented. Another lesser-known search engine, Perplexity, makes a browser called Comet. Google has added its Gemini bot to Chrome and will soon add "agent" capabilities that let AI do tasks for you, and Atlas has an“Ask ChatGPT” button that lets you chat with the bot about pages you’re viewing. You can ask it to summarize an article, analyze data, or revise your email draft.

OpenAI's response to concerns about privacy and data collection? So far, just a shrug.

Australia’s Nationwide Ban on Social Media for Children Under 16

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Fri, 17 Oct 2025 14:54:00 +0000

Australia’s nationwide ban on social media use for children under 16 takes effect today, making it the first country to prohibit underage users from major platforms outright. It is a noble and probably necessary thing, but I cannot believe it is doable.

Millions of accounts are expected to be affected as companies, such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, and X, face fines of up to $33M for serious or repeated noncompliance. However, the law places responsibility on companies rather than families, and platforms must demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps," such as implementing age checks and removing suspected underage accounts.

I suspect the companies will say these things have already been put in place. (Have you noticed the increase in ads on TV and in your Instagram feed about their teen accounts?) And how will Australia monitor this? Critics say the law is difficult to enforce. It might push teens onto harder-to-monitor platforms. Enforcement may pose privacy risks. We know that many children who create accounts have already lied about their age. Can that be determined?

The research shows 96% of children aged 10 to 15 had used social media, and a majority had used a communication platform to chat, message, call, or video call others (94%). Anecdotally. many of them report encountering harmful content, grooming, or cyberbullying.

Australia may have been the first country to pass a social media ban bill to stop children under 16 from accessing the platforms, but 7 other countries have taken similar steps, such as strict youth modes or time limits.
https://studyinternational.com/news/countries-social-media-ban-children/
Read/download the Australian research report
https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-07/Digital-use-and-risk-Online-platform-engagement-10-to-15.pdf