Bigmouthmedia Search Engine News: /privacy-security/

Court rules Pirate Bay to be blocked by UK ISPs

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:00:00 GMT

The High Court has ruled Swedish file-sharing website The Pirate Bay must be blocked by internet service providers in the UK. This means that TalkTalk, O2, Sky, Everything Everywhere, and Virgin Media will have to stop their users from accessing the site.

Launched in 2003, Pirate Bay hosts download links to free music and video that has been mostly pirated. In November 2011 the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) asked UK ISP's to block the site voluntarily. The ISP's refused to do so unless a court order was made.

"The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale," said the BPI's chief executive Geoff Taylor in an interview with the BBC.

"Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them.

"This is wrong - musicians, sound engineers and video editors deserve to be paid for their work just like everyone else."

The ISP's will now comply with the ruling. Talking to the BBC, Virgin Media confirmed it will honour the high court judgement.

However, the company was keen to stress that the blocking of Pirate Bay is only part of the solution: "As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Security-risk websites to be 'named and shamed'

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:24:00 GMT

A list of good and bad websites is to be published regularly by non-profit security watchdog group Trustworthy Internet Movement (TIM) in an effort to highlight sites that are either failing or excelling in security.

The group have carried out a survey and found above half of the sites reviewed were using compromised security measures. The group will test the websites in order to see if basic security measures have been implemented.

Frustration at the slow movement of online safety improvements has led to security experts and entrepreneurs setting up the group.

"We want to stimulate some initiatives and get something done," TIM's founder Philippe Courtot, serial entrepreneur and chief executive of security firm Qualys, told the BBC.

TIM is currently focussing its attentions on SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) technology used to protect credit card numbers and valuable data as it moves across the net.

"SSL is one of the fundamental parts of the internet," said Mr Courtot.

"It's what makes it trustworthy and right now it's not as secure as you think."

The group will be taking a double-edged initiative to test SSL. Firstly, automated tools will be used against websites to test their implementation of SSL, the results of which will be made public.

"We'll be making it public," said Courtot.

"Everyone is now going to be able to see who has a good grade and who has a bad grade."

According to early tests, around 52 per cent of sites had a compromised version of SSL.

Secondly, the group will try to work with the Certificate Authorities that guarantee a sites safety and ensure that these CA's are well run and without compromise.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Google faces fines over Street View

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:12:00 GMT

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has slapped Google with a $25,000 (£15,749) fine after finding the internet giant deliberately stalled an investigation into its Street View feature.

The FCC said Google had collected personal information without permission for its Street View maps feature, and then refused to cooperate with the FCC investigation into whether the company had violated the Communications Act and broken eavesdropping laws.

"Google refused to identify any employees or produce any emails. The company could not supply complaint declarations without identifying employees it preferred not to identify," an FCC order stated.

"Misconduct of this nature threatens to compromise the commission's ability to effectively investigate possible violations of the Communications Act and the commission's rules."

According to the FCC, Mountain View did not respond to requests for information and documents when an inquiry began in 2010 after reports emerged Google Street View cars had logged unsecured Wi-Fi data inadvertently.

Information gathered by passing Street View cars between 2007 and 2010 included passwords, emails, internet usage history and other information not needed for the project, all transmitted over unprotected routers.

Google has challenged the finding the company was uncooperative, arguing it turned over information to the agency as asked.

"As the FCC notes in their report, we provided all the materials the regulators felt they needed to conclude their investigation and we were not found to have violated any laws," the company said in a statement.

"We disagree with the FCC's characterisation of our cooperation in their investigation and will be filing a response."

The FCC was unable to find sufficient evidence that Google had broken the law, however, according to the LA Times, privacy watchdogs are now calling for the US Attorney General to launch a new investigation.

"By the agency's own admission, the investigation conducted was inadequate and did not address the applicability of federal wiretapping law to Google's interception of emails, user names, passwords, browsing history and other personal information," EPIC's Executive Director Marc Rothenberg - the advocate group which prompted the initial FCC investigation - said in a letter.

"Given the inadequacy of the FCC's investigation and the law enforcement responsibilities of the attorney general, EPIC urges you to investigate Google's collection of personal Wi-Fi data from residential networks."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Facebook lets users 'Download Your Information'

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:01:00 GMT

Facebook has announced updates to its 'Download Your Information' tool which allows users to download even more information on their past activity on the social networking site.

Originally introduced in 2010, the tool allows Facebook users get a copy of everything they have shared on the site, including photos, posts, messages, friend lists and chat conversations.

The new updates mean data such as previous names, friend requests and IP addresses from where the user has logged on can now also be accessed.

"Starting today, you will be able to download an expanded archive of your Facebook account history," Facebook wrote in a blog post.

"This feature will be rolling out gradually to all users and more categories of information will be available for download in the future."

Experts speculate Facebook's latest move may be an effort to address the recent criticism of its privacy policies, however privacy campaigners are claiming the data shared does not go far enough.

"We welcome that Facebook users are now getting more access to their data, but Facebook is still not in line with the European Data Protection Law," University of Vienna student Max Schrems told the New York Times.

"With the changes, Facebook will only offer access to 39 data categories, while it is holding at least 84 such data categories about every user."

Schrems requested his own data from Facebook in 2011 and received files with information in 57 categories. Schrems concluded the social networking site was holding information he had previously deleted, and were gleaning information on his whereabouts based on his IP address.

Ulrich Börger, a Lawyer from Latham and Watkins, said sites will eventually be required to simplify their consent policies, but it is unlikely they will be legally prevented from using information provided by individuals who sign up to their sites.

"At the end of the day, it comes back to the question of consent," he said. "They cannot go so far as to prohibit things that people are willing to consent to. That would violate an individual's freedom to receive services they want to receive."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Microsoft Blocks Pirate Bay Links in Windows Messenger

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:48:00 GMT

Microsoft has confirmed that it no longer allows users to send Pirate Bay links via its Windows Live Messenger. Links to the popular bittorrent site are now met with a warning message that reads: "The link you tried to send was blocked because it was reported as unsafe."

Though Microsoft didn't make a public announcement about the new security measure, it did confirm the ban after it was discovered and reported by the website TorrentFreak.

Microsoft told the BBC that user protection was main motivation behind blocking Pirate Bay links, saying:

"We use Smartscreen technology to protect our customers from malicious and unwanted content including phishing, malware and spam.

"We block instant messages if they contain malicious or spam URLs based on intelligence algorithms, third-party sources, and/or user complaints. Pirate Bay URLs were flagged by one or more of these and were consequently blocked."

The Pirate Bay was also in the news last month after its web host, Swedish company Binero, was asked to provide the Swedish Authorities with information about the site's owner. The website allows its 5.5 million registered users to share and download copyrighted files, such as films, music and computer software.

Online copyright infringement has been a major talking-point in recent months, from the controversial SOPA, PIPA and ACTA bills, to the official shutdown of file-hosting site Megauplaod in January. As authorities from across the globe seek new ways to combat illegal downloading, Microsoft's decision to ban high-profile bittorrent site Pirate Bay, while still allowing links to similar sites, may be more of a symbolic move than a mere security measure.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

MPs Urge Google to Self-Censor Search Results

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:48:00 GMT

In a report published yesterday, Parliament's Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions concluded against introducing new privacy laws, but urged Google to censor its search results in accordance with existing privacy regulations.

The committee concluded: "Google and other search engines should take steps to ensure that their websites are not used as vehicles to breach the law and should actively develop and use such technology."

The report comes amid a growing global debate over how to best balance freedom of expression with the right to privacy, particularly on the Internet. Parliament was pressed to review the UK privacy laws after the 2011 super-injunction controversy, wherein footballer Ryan Giggs was repeatedly identified on Twitter and other social media sites as the 'anonymous' public figure that allegedly had an extra-marital affair with model Imogen Thomas.

Though they decided that new privacy laws would be unnecessary, the committee did urge the Attorney General to be stricter with web users who breach privacy laws. However, there remains uncertainly over how to go about prosecuting such offenders, particularly in cases like the Giggs super-injunction where he was 'illegally' tweeted about over 75,000 times.

While the individual behaviour of Internet users is discussed in the report, the activity of search engines and online media outlets was the primary focus. The Committee Chair, John Whittingdale MP, said in the report:

"It is clear that media self-regulation under the PCC did not work. We therefore wish to see a stronger self-regulatory system that is seen to be effective and commands the confidence of the public."

"The PCC's successor must have teeth; it must be truly independent of the industry; it must incorporate all major news publishers. Parliament should have a central role in scrutinising the process of media reform."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Facebook Rights and Responsibilities say no to password-sharing

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:36:00 GMT

Facebook have released a statement reminding users of their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities in an effort to prevent any breech of privacy.

Social media policy has been called into question in recent months, following reports that employers are requesting the login details of potential employees who have private Facebook settings.

Concerns have been raised both for the privacy of Facebook users, and for the potential employers who could expose themselves to discrimination claims if they do not hire someone, upon seeing their Facebook page.

"Employers also may not have the proper policies and training for reviewers to handle private information. If they don't - and actually, even if they do - the employer may assume liability for the protection of the information they have seen or for knowing what responsibilities may arise based on different types of information (e.g. if the information suggests the commission of a crime)," Chief Privacy Officer Erin Egan wrote on the company's blog.

Originally created by Mark Zuckerberg at Harvard University, Facebook has acquired 845 million users since February 2004 - as modern networking has become an integral part of the working environment, so must regulations to protect the privacy of these users.

Often used as a marketing tool, social media offers a platform upon which the user can share personal information like their interests, phone number and even relationship commitments.

"Facebook takes your privacy seriously. We'll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action, including by shutting down applications that abuse their privileges," Egan said.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Flickr says 'do-not-pin' to Pinterest

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:12:00 GMT

Pinterest users now have one less source for their virtual pinboards, as Yahoo-owned Flickr confirms it has added Pinterest's new 'do-not-pin' tag to copyrighted or protected images across its photo-sharing site.

The move by Flickr to automatically add the opt out code to all pages with protected or copyrighted images - including images that users haven't made available for public sharing - reinforces that the site is committed to protecting users against piracy.

"Flickr has implemented the tag and it appears on all non-public/non-safe pages, as well as when a member has disabled sharing of their Flickr account," a Flickr spokesperson told VentureBeat.

"This means only content that is 'safe,' 'public' and has the sharing button enabled can be pinned to Pinterest."

Since its debut in March 2010, the social sharing site has gained momentum - attracting a loyal fanbase and becoming one of the web's biggest traffic-drivers after being named the fastest growing referral site on the internet, a distinction that has been garnering a lot of attention.

As users assemble virtual pinboards using images they have found and 'pinned' from the net, there have been increasing concerns over piracy and copyright issues. Once an image has been added to a user's pinboard, other users can like and re-pin the image to their own pinboards.

According to CNET, to help avoid this, Pinterest released an opt-out code for website owners. When enabled it prevents users from pinning an image, displaying this message instead: "This site doesn't allow pinning to Pinterest. Please contact the owner with any questions. Thanks for visiting!"

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Facebook strongly denies reading Android text messages

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:13:00 GMT

Facebook is not pleased with the Sunday Times.

The social network is firmly hitting back at the Sunday newspaper, after they ran a report this weekend claiming Facebook "admitted to reading text messages" of the users of its Android app.

The allegations stem from little read terms and conditions which grant Facebook "read/write" permission to access texts on its apps.

The article claimed: "Companies ranging from Facebook and Apple to small operations run by individuals gain access to the treasury of data when people agree to the terms and conditions of downloading an app."

The paper also stated Facebook was "accessing [SMS messages] as part of a trial to launch its own messaging service."

Facebook claims the Sunday Times misunderstood the context of the policy, and accused the newspaper of creating conspiracy theories.

A Facebook spokesperson said: "The Sunday Times has done some creative conspiracy theorizing but the suggestion that we're secretly reading people's texts is ridiculous.

"Instead, the permission is clearly disclosed on the app page in the Android marketplace and is in anticipation of new features that enable users to integrate Facebook features with their texts.

"However, other than some very limited testing, we haven't launched anything so we're not using the permission. If we do, it will be obvious to users what's happening. We'll keep you posted on our progress."

The official, though clearly combative, statement followed a somewhat feistier blog post by Facebook's European communications manager, Iain MacKenzie.

However, according to The Sunday Times-commissioned YouGov poll, 70 per cent of the respondents do not read the terms and conditions - and the permissions granted in them - for the apps they install on their smartphones.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Google agrees to "do-not-track" initiative

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:24:00 GMT

Google has agreed to allow a "do-not-track" button to be embedded in its web browsers - giving internet users a little more control over the amount of data that can be collected about them.

Google joins with other web companies who have agreed to support an anti-tracking initiative that will prevent an individual's browsing history from being used for ad targeting.

The move is seen as a step closer to a one-click, one-touch process where users can tell internet companies whether they want their online search activity tracked.

"We are pleased to join a broad industry agreement to respect the 'do-not-track' header in a consistent and meaningful way that offers users choice and clearly explained browser controls," said Susan Wojcick, Google senior vice president of advertising, in a statement.

Mountain View joined the initiative as the Obama administration in the United States set out a framework for a new "Consumer Bill of Rights."

President Obama said in a statement yesterday: "American consumers can't wait any longer for clear rules of the road that ensure their personal information is safe online.

"By following this blueprint, companies, consumer advocates and policy makers can help protect consumers and ensure the Internet remains a platform for innovative and economic growth."

As such, companies responsible for nearly 90 per cent of online advertisements that appear on a user's screen based on their browsing and buying habits have agreed to comply when consumers choose to control online tracking.

Though the "Consumer Bill of Rights" is a U.S.-based privacy code, it is believed it will have broader implications on online behavioural advertising practices worldwide.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia