Google's Latest Privacy Woes

Google has been drawing a lot of attention to itself over privacy issues, from a new privacy policy, to offering users the option to essentially sell their privacy.  The new privacy policy goes live as of March 1st, if everything goes as Google plans and although the reaction to it is almost entirely negative, I don't find it particularly surprising.  According to Google it is intended to unify all its services more, rather than maintaining a privacy policy for each individual service, which makes sense.

At about the same time, Google unleashed a much quieter offering that essentially pays users to give up their privacy so that they can be monitored and so Google can "learn more about its users to enhance its services."  This offering gives users the option to be paid a total of $25 in instalments for running a browser extension to track them online, or significantly more if they allow Google to install a piece of hardware on their network that tracks everything.  Although this is voluntary, it is a vast departure from Google's motto of "do no evil," and has understandably been met with significant disapproval.  Google's goals for this research may be to improve their services, but it is nothing short of invasive and an extreme violation of privacy and it is difficult to see why it is necessary given Google's huge ability to track people online as it is.  As a Google user, I have a personal problem with using their services if they intend to improve them by removing the people's privacy entirely, no matter how voluntarily it may have been given up.

Google has had a bad few months with privacy issues as it is, but its week has taken another downward turn with regards to how it tracks users.  Generally, companies that reach even half of Google's size make headlines if they are penetrated by hackers. Even Google has had issues in the past with cross-site scripting to steal Google Apps domains and other information.  This time around, it appears to be Google doing the hacking.  Earlier this week, Google and a few other advertising companies were caught using workarounds to bypass the privacy controls of Apple's Safari web browser in order to track users and serve ads.  Not long after, Microsoft accused Google of doing the same with Internet Explorer.  This is not only an unquestionable violation of privacy, but a violation of Internet standards as well, which is unlike Google considering their status as a web company.

Unfortunately, given how widely Google is used- they serve ads across the Internet along with other advertisers, there is no good way to escape any of this, other than turning off cookies, turning off Javascript, and installing browser extensions such as Ghostery to block tracking (even I use their tracking service to monitor my blog, a choice I am reconsidering).  Given Google's control over the Internet, these privacy and standard violations impact a much wider audience than just Google users.  Officially, it seems that nothing can be kept secret from Google anymore no matter who you are and what services you use.  It is well known that the Internet provides very little, if any privacy at all, and with a company as pervasive as Google working to bypass what little privacy control web users have, the Internet becomes a very scary place.

If you liked this, you might also like...
What's up with Secure Boot 
Google+ Takes on Facebook 
What Site to Trust Next 

The Internet Speaks Up About SOPA

Anyone looking to quickly look something up on Wikipedia, flip through Reddit, or grab a quick read from the front page of Wordpress today will be sorely disappointed.  Those, among with many other sites are currently working to educate users about the dangers that SOPA and PIPA would bring if passed.

On the surface, the two bills are looking to solve the huge issue of Internet piracy.  However, much removed from that, the ramifications of them would be felt globally, destroying an open Internet all around the world.  Both bills have one thing in common: censorship.  They would permit the U.S government to take down any website - and by take down I mean take down and make it completely non-existent in the U.S - on small copyright claims.  Both bills have support from the MPAA as well as other huge corporations who are willing to pay for senators to vote in favour of it.

SOPA/PIPA (Stop Online Privacy Act and Protect IP Act) will be voted on on January 24th, 2012.  If passed, they would allow the U.S. to censor the Internet, pave the way for other countries to pass similar laws, and destroy the security and neutrality of the Internet.  If passed, the world as we know it could end in 2012, just as the Mayan calendar predicts.  Call, email, or send a letter to your senator and make sure they know you oppose SOPA/PIPA to keep the Internet an open place and to preserve freedom of speech around the world.

This is big enough that Wikipedia, Reddit, Cheezburger, and other huge online presences are willing to go dark for it, and others considered doing the same (Google, Amazon, Microsoft...).  This is a big deal- speak up and don't let the Internet go dark.

More information about these acts:
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more
List of SOPA Supporters

If you liked this, you might also like...
How an Online Scam Works 
Ad Blocking Ethics 
What Site Leaked your Data 

What's up with Secure Boot

If not for the Microsoft/Linux rivalry, Microsoft's new Secure Boot would probably not have made a huge splash in headlines until it was advertised as a feature of Windows 8 certified hardware.  However, the implications of Secure Boot could be much farther reaching than Microsoft likes to admit, should it be implemented in a - and the Linux fan in me comes out - typical Microsoft fashion as far as Linux is concerned.

The advertised idea of Secure Boot is to eliminate some of the security issues with not locking down the boot process of Windows, as some malware takes advantage of this time to get itself past other security.  This takes a very similar approach as a lot of mobile devices (think- iPhone), which makes said devices extremely difficult to hack since the software is locked down on a hardware level.  Secure Boot enabled systems would do something very similar, by only allowing software with keys that have been whitelisted (the installed operating system), to run at boot.  There is nothing that would prevent alternative operating systems from also being whitelisted by the user, in theory, but if Microsoft has its way then that will likely not be an option.

While unquestionably improving security, Secure Boot has some concerning aspects, particularly with Microsoft's typical practices with competing software.  Windows 8 will require hardware manufacturers to lock down systems before selling them, which would lock the future owner of the system out of changing any aspect of the system outside of Windows.  This would prevent owners from installing any Windows alternative, either in place of or in addition to Windows, such as Linux, Mac OS X (for those who like to run it on PC hardware), and the like.  This lock-in may not concern the majority of people, who likely won't change anything drastic about their PC, but for those who do, it could be extremely bad news.  It also brings about a new situation in the tech world as the average consumer is put at the mercy of Microsoft; made worse by the fact that Secure Boot could drive up the cost of computers since the new system could require individual attention for each system shipped.

With that said, Secure Boot could, if done right, significantly improve security without screwing over any consumers.  Canonical (Ubuntu), Novell, and Red Hat are taking on Microsoft's Secure Boot not to make sure it never sees the light of day, but to instead change some of its specifications.  Ideally, Secure Boot would solve some security issues without completely locking hardware owners into Windows 8, giving more control over what happens at boot.

If you liked this, you might also like...
Linux 3.0 is a Big Deal (kind of) 
What Google+ Means for Facebook 
Losing the Cursor 

Aaandd We're Back!

Just a quick note before any real posts go up!

Since I'm now a college student at RIT, time is a little bit limited between classes and the rest of my life, but I haven't forgotten about anything.  So, excuse my extremely erratic posting- college, much to the disappointment of my readers, does actually have more importance than my blog.

With that said, there are some new posts coming up soon, so stay tuned.  If you're new, welcome!  Stick around, it's worth it!

Linux 3.0 Is A Big Deal (Kind Of)

The release of kernel 3.0 in the Linux world was effectively downplayed by a good portion of the Linux world as "just another update."  And they're right- the version was going to be 2.6.40, until Linus Torvalds switched it to 3.0 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Linux.  In that sense, no, Linux 3.0 was not a big deal as far as the 44 million lines of code in the kernel were concerned.  It only added the usual collection of drivers and bug fixes.

However, 3.0 is, from a publicity standpoint, a huge milestone for Linux in a lot of ways.  It shows, among other things, that Linux is continuing to grow and evolve and is a viable piece of software.  The fact that the version number was bumped to 3 could have made much more of an impact on the non-Linux world than it actually did- understandably, few people would care to hear that Linux hit version 2.6.40, but jumping a whole number is considered a big deal.  Windows has moved to that scheme- Windows 7, Windows 8- as has Firefox, jumping from 3.x to 4, then 5, and now 6, with 7 to be released at the end of September.  It makes for good marketing when users can brag about using a higher number, whether or not that number means a lot technologically.  Even someone such as myself, who is aware of the marketing and its use, is affected by it.  As soon as Linux 3.0 was released, I spent a long, impatient week or so waiting for it to show up on my own computer.

Kernel 3.0 even makes some waves in the software world where the change is known to be (from the developer standpoint) fairly insignificant.  Due to version numbers, developers and hardware manufacturers have been able to claim Linux compatibility to the latest version without actually updating the Linux side of their software.  "Supports Linux 2.x.x" has appeared on software support information for some time now even if that particular software was made 5 years ago or more.  The version number jump breaks that scheme, not only from the packaging standpoint, but from a programming standpoint as scripts that check kernel versions will be met with a shiny, new, confusing "3.0.2" (as it stands now in Arch) rather than 2.x.x.

So what was the deal with 3?  Technically, nothing out of the ordinary (though it now has drivers for the Kinect!).  Out in the world, it was a different story and could have made for some great news from the world of the kernel.  It's hard not to be interested when you hear "Linux 3.0 is out- with Kinect support!"

If you liked this, you might also like...
How to Run an Online Scam 
What's Up with Linux
Reviewing Gnome 3