Hackers Release 1 Million Apple Device IDs Allegedly Stolen From FBI Laptop

Found on Wired on Tuesday, 04 September 2012
Browse Internet

In a lengthy post online, the hackers wrote that last March, they hacked a laptop belonging to an FBI agent named Christopher K. Stangl from the bureau’s Regional Cyber Action Team and the New York FBI office’s Evidence Response Team.

The file, according to the hackers, contained a list of more than 12 million Apple iOS devices, including Unique Device Identifiers (UDID), user names, names of devices, types of devices, Apple Push Notification Service tokens, ZIP codes, cellphone numbers, and addresses.

Apple has been criticized for hard-coding the ID’s in devices, since they can be misused by application developers and others to identify a user, when combined with other information, and track them.

Of course the FBI has already stated that there is no evidence about the hack although others have already found their UDID's on the leaked list. That leaves three possible explanations: the hack is a fake and everybody collaborates to discredit the FBI. The hack happened, but the FBI just cannot figure out how. The hack happened, but it's a weather balloon. It will also be very interesting to know why the FBI is in possession of this data anyway. Either they stole if from Apple, or Apple handed it over to the FBI.

EBay Bans Magic Potions, Curses, Spells

Found on ABC News on Friday, 17 August 2012
Browse Internet

Beginning Aug.30, the online auction site will ban the sale of curses, spells, hexes, magic, prayers, blessing services, magic potions, healing sessions and more.

“Disgusted” wrote: “Ebay bans alternative religious items. But! Not for Christians. Holy water and other sundry ‘holy’ items are discriminately allowed. … Hm. Let me get this straight. Some guy in Rome wearing long robes can wave his hand over some water and imbue it with something, and then it’s very ‘powerful?’ How is that different from any other magical item previously sold on ebay?…”

Actually that's a very good question.

Germany: Facebook must destroy facial recognition database

Found on Ars Technica on Wednesday, 15 August 2012
Browse Internet

German data protection officials today accused Facebook of “illegally compiling a vast photo database of users without their consent” and demanded that the social network destroy its archive of files based on facial recognition technology, the New York Times reported.

Facebook claims it doesn’t have to do that, in part because the data collection is legal in Ireland, where Facebook’s European operations are based. “We believe that the Photo Tag Suggest feature on Facebook is fully compliant with EU data protection laws,” Facebook said in a statement issued to the Times.

So what if it is legal in Ireland? Ireland does not represent the EU and we have learned before that, when the sides are exchanged, the local law suddenly is very important. Remember AllOfMp3? It was perfectly legal under russian law. Or Rojadirecta. Legal under spanish law. What about Megaupload? The company has been killed, probably without ever being in front of a court.

Kim Dotcom pressing on with Megabox music service plans

Found on The Register on Monday, 13 August 2012
Browse Internet

In a pair of Twitter posts on Monday, Dotcom suggested that both Megabox and an unnamed additional service would launch "this year."

Last December, Dotcom described Megabox in a guest post for TorrentFreak as a service that would allow recording artists to sell music downloads direct to consumers and keep 90 per cent of the earnings.

If that happens, and if the rumours about being raided because he planned such a service are true, the entertainment industry's plan to stop artists from being independant has failed.

How YouTube Will Escape Google’s New Pirate Penalty

Found on Search Engine Land on Sunday, 12 August 2012
Browse Internet

Google has announced that it will soon penalize sites that are repeatedly accused of copyright infringement. But one site in particular doesn’t need to worry: Google’s own YouTube. It has a unique immunity against the forthcoming penalty.

Since Google doesn’t seem to disclose the number of YouTube takedown requests it has acted upon (I have asked for a figure), there’s no way to assess YouTube against the other sites on the strikeout list above.

There’s no way to treat YouTube — or Blogger — like any other site in the search rankings, when those sites have special takedown forms that don’t allow their alleged infringing activity to measured up against other sites.

As expected. Google of course won't do anything which harms the ranking of sites owned by them. Claiming that Youtube is different is in no way a valid excuse; if that's the case, just remove Youtube completely and let users search directly on the video site. Right now Google is just dancing around because with the undoubtly large amount of takedown requests, Youtube (and probably Blogger too) would be on top of the list, facing a removal from the search results (yes, pages are "only" ranked down, but people rarely go past page 4 or 5, so it's effectively a removal).

Privacy snafu as TOPLESS Mark Zuckerberg picture leaks online

Found on The Register on Saturday, 11 August 2012
Browse Internet

It appears to have leaked online after it was uploaded to Facebook by the director of engineering Andrew Bosworth and (presumably mistakenly) set to allow for public viewing. It was deleted "seconds later," according to the anonymous donor, but not before they had scraped a copy and published it online via Imgur.

As we often hear from Facebook itself, users must take responsibility for what they share online.

Oh the irony. Not even Facebook engineers can use the privacy controls correctly.

An update to our search algorithms

Found on Google Inside Search on Friday, 10 August 2012
Browse Internet

Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results.

In fact, we’re now receiving and processing more copyright removal notices every day than we did in all of 2009—more than 4.3 million URLs in the last 30 days alone.

Yeah, I can see no way in which this could go wrong. Just watch the news and you'll stumble over invalid DMCA notices which are issued to fight competitors or to execute a form of censorship. There's really something wrong with the whole business that has grown around the topic of copyrights when over the last three years, removal notices have grown by a factor of at least 365. Oh and I am sure that Google will happily kick Youtube off the search results since that page receives tons of valid DMCA takedown requests every single day.

Facebook bans Selena Gomez

Found on CNet News on Sunday, 05 August 2012
Browse Internet

A girl in New Mexico with the same name tried to sign in to her Facebook account on Wednesday and was denied with the following message: "Disabled - Inauthentic Account." She believes Facebook thinks she is breaking the rule "Impersonating anyone or anything is not allowed."

It's not clear how long Gomez was using her account before she was denied access. This is not the first time Facebook has run into such problems.

I wonder if anybody at FB has put enough thoughts into the problem of different people having the same name, or if they honestly expect that everybody on earth has a unique name.

Zynga's big collapse: Is the social gaming fun over?

Found on CNet News on Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Browse Internet

The company behind Farmville, Words With Friends and other games distributed mostly via Facebook reported a second quarter net loss of $22.8 million, or 3 cents a share, on revenue of $332.5 million.

Zynga CEO Mark Pincus said that the company faced "new short-term challenges," but was "optimistic about the long-term growth prospects on mobile." Pincus noted that Zynga has a window of opportunity to drive the social gaming revolution.

You cannot even call those products games. Zynga only created applications to waste time and it looks like people begin to realize that

Which HTML5? - WHATWG and W3C Split

Found on I Programmer on Saturday, 21 July 2012
Browse Internet

In plain terms this means that the W3C will continue to work on the HTML5 specification. WHATWG on the other hand will continue its work with HTML5 as a "Living Standard". The idea of a living standard is that it never settles down and is always being added to and refined. The task of the browser makers and the programmers using HTML5 is to try to keep up.

Overall this doesn't seem to be a good development. It will no longer be possible to say exactly what HTML5 is - the W3C's snapshot or the living standard of WHATWG.

What a dumb idea. You need a defined standard so that developers know what to work with; and what will still work next week. It will turn into a total mess when suddenly HTML is constantly changing.