Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
-----Original Message-----
From: Subscriptions from Posterous Spaces
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:07:51 To:
Subject: Your Daily Posterous Spaces Update
Your Daily Posterous Spaces Update November 16th, 2011
How to hide your Wifi from Google's location database
Posted 1 day ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
How to hide your Wifi from Google's location database
via Android Central - Android Forums, News, and Help by Phil Nickinson on 11/15/11
This one's a tad off the beaten Android path but is something you should know about. You might well have heard that Google, in an effort to speed up a number of things involving location, has built a database of Wifi access points. The idea, of course, is that if your phone is in range of one or more APs, it'll have a pretty good idea of where you are, thus speeding location services.
The flip side is that it's not just public access points that have been cataloged. Your home Wifi might well be recognized, too (and Google's gotten in a little bit of hot water for accidentally collecting more data than it should have).
But you can now opt out of having your Wifi included in Google's database. To do so is simple enough. Just change your SSID (that's the name of your hotspot) and add _nomap to the end of it. (See our example above.) Takes about 30 seconds to do, though you'll have to reconnect your phones and what not.
Google's hoping that other location providers will also start to use the _nomap string, and it's got some helpful instructions, should you need a hand with your router.
Source: Google
Windows 8 gets automatic updates, enforced restarts after 72 hours of polite...
Posted 1 day ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
Windows 8 gets automatic updates, enforced restarts after 72 hours of polite harassment
via Engadget by Daniel Cooper on 11/15/11
Windows 8 is renaming the second week of every month. After "Patch Tuesday" comes "Gentle reminder Wednesday," "Polite yet firm suggestion Thursday" and "Automatic restart Friday". In order to keep everyone's system secure, Windows Update will download patches in the background before adding a notification on your lock screen that you're due a restart. If you haven't managed it within 72 hours, you'll be given a 15 minute warning to save your work and close up before it forces the shutdown -- unless you're watching a movie or conducting a presentation, it'll lie in wait for your next idle period to do it. With this system, you'll only have to complete the procedure once a month and can plan your schedule accordingly. The only time the system will deviate is when a security threat like a blaster worm appears, at which point Microsoft will ensure you're restarting as soon as a fix is available. What, you didn't know that "keeping end-users on their toes" was a feature?
Windows 8 gets automatic updates, enforced restarts after 72 hours of polite harassment originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:33:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds .
Permalink WM Power User | source MSDN | Email this | Comments
Viacom: Pass SOPA Or Spongebob Dies
Posted 1 day ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
Viacom: Pass SOPA Or Spongebob Dies
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/15/11
It's the most unintentionally hilarious video of the year... Viacom has put out one of the most ridiculous "anti-piracy" propaganda videos yet , complete with debunked stats, ridiculous claims, ominous music... and lots and lots of Viacom employees admitting that they're too clueless to adapt to a changing marketplace, and begging you to give them money so they can keep their jobs. Seriously. As the video goes on, the claims get more and more ridiculous, to the point where someone even threatens that if you don't keep buying Viacom products, Spongebob might no longer exist. And, really, that's the hilarious part. So much of the video is just people begging others to save them. They beg people to give them money. They beg the government to save their jobs. Nowhere, however, do they talk about actually adapting. Nowhere do they talk about making use of what the internet provides to build bigger audiences, to promote better, and to better monetize. Because that's the kind of stuff that Viacom just doesn't do. It just begs others to cover up for its own business failures.
Remember, this is the same company where the CEO made $84.5 million last year (a $50 million raise). I'd embed the video here, but remember that Viacom is trying to sue YouTube out of existence, so they didn't put it up on YouTube... in fact, they didn't put it up in a manner that lets you embed it anywhere. So you'll just have to go to Viacom's website and watch the video directly there yourself... costing Viacom's bandwidth. They could have gotten that bandwidth for free if they'd just posted the video to YouTube... but, as we're told in the video, "free" is "stealing." And it destroys jobs. Except for Viacom's CEO. He's doing okay.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
VP Joe Biden Explains Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Are Anti-American & A Bad Idea
Posted about 24 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
VP Joe Biden Explains Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Are Anti-American & A Bad Idea
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/15/11
A couple of weeks ago, Joe Biden gave a perfect, if unintended, explanation for why SOPA and PROTECT IP are such terrible ideas. Since his speech included a bunch of other things, we thought it would be good to highlight Biden's specific arguments that explain why SOPA and PROTECT IP are bad, and to give him kudos for making such statements, since they contradict the statements from Hollywood on this bill. Embedded media -- click here to see it. Unfortunately, even with Biden's clear and incontestable statements that show the massive harm that SOPA and PROTECT IP would cause for innovation in the US, this bill still has tremendous momentum in DC, thanks to a strong lobbying push from the legacy entertainment industry. In fact, don't be surprised if Biden totally contradicts himself in a few weeks and pretends that he's all for censoring the internet, harming innovation, and "fixing" what isn't broken on the internet. That's why we're urging folks to support American Censorship Day tomorrow, as the House holds its first hearings ever on how best to censor the internet. Biden's clear explanation of why SOPA & PROTECT IP are so bad should give pause to anyone supporting it -- and will certainly raise serious eyebrows if/when Biden (and the White House) later change positions on these bills. Oh, and if Biden does change positions, let's hold him to it, and make it clear that the American public doesn't appreciate flip flopping politicians, who completely contradict themselves, based on who's supporting what legislation.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
New Malware Signed With Stolen Government Certificate
Posted about 21 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
New Malware Signed With Stolen Government Certificate
via Slashdot by samzenpus on 11/15/11
Trailrunner7 writes "Security researchers claim that malware spreading via malicious PDF files is signed with a valid certificate stolen from the Government of Malaysia, in just the latest evidence that scammers are using gaps in the security of digital certificates to help spread malicious code. The malware, identified by F-Secure as a Trojan horse program dubbed Agent.DTIW, was detected in a signed Adobe PDF file by the company's virus researchers recently. The malicious PDF was signed using a valid digital certificate for mardi.gov.my, the Agricultural Research and Development Institute of the Government of Malaysia. According to F-Secure, the Government of Malaysia confirmed that the certificate was legitimate and had been stolen 'quite some time ago.'"
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
SOPA And Its Broad Regulation Of VPNs, Proxies And Other Important Tools
Posted about 19 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
SOPA And Its Broad Regulation Of VPNs, Proxies And Other Important Tools
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/15/11
There are so many scary parts to SOPA, it's taking some time to pull out all the pieces. One of the scarier parts of SOPA that isn't found in PROTECT IP, is the addition of a form of an "anti-circumvention" rule, which makes it illegal to try to get around any blockade on the US government's blacklist. Like the DMCA's dreadful anti-circumvention clause, this one is also vague and overly broad -- and would create problems for all sorts of legal services. The EFF is listing out some perfectly legal services that would suddenly be in legal crosshairs : In this new bill, Hollywood has expanded its censorship ambitions. No longer content to just blacklist entries in the Domain Name System , this version targets software developers and distributors as well. It allows the Attorney General (doing Hollywood or trademark holders' bidding) to go after more or less anyone who provides or offers a product or service that could be used to get around DNS blacklisting orders. This language is clearly aimed at Mozilla , which took a principled stand in refusing to assist the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to censor the domain name system, but we are also concerned that it could affect the open source community, internet innovation, and software freedom more broadly:
* Do you write or distribute VPN, proxy, privacy or anonymization software? You might have to build in a censorship mechanism - or find yourself in a legal fight with the United States Attorney General.
* Even some of the most fundamental and widely used Internet security software, such as SSH , includes built-in proxy functionality . This kind of software is installed on hundreds of millions of computers, and is an indispensable tool for systems administration professionals, but it could easily become a target for censorship orders under the new bill.
* Do you work with or distribute zone files for gTLDs ? Want to keep them accurate? Too bad - Hollywood might argue that if you provide a complete (i.e., uncensored) list, you are illegally helping people bypass SOPA orders.
* Want to write a client-side DNSSEC resolver that uses multiple servers until it finds a valid signed entry? Again, you could be in a fight with the U.S. Attorney General.
This is how the Great Firewall of China works as well -- by threatening service providers who don't help block with the idea that they might be liable if they don't figure out "some way" to block things. Then everyone scrambles to censor well beyond what is required under the law, just to avoid liability. The end result of this will make the internet significantly less secure. VPN providers will go out of business or be severely limited. This is exactly the opposite of the direction we should be moving in.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Do Tons Of Sprint And Verizon Phones Contain A Rootkit, Potentially Tracking...
Posted about 19 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
Do Tons Of Sprint And Verizon Phones Contain A Rootkit, Potentially Tracking All Sorts Of Info?
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/15/11
Security researcher Trevor Eckhart has put out a report suggesting that a ton of Sprint and Verizon Wireless mobile phones have what is effectively a rootkit installed on them. Specifically, he's talking about CarrierIQ, a bit of software intended to monitor device usage, supposedly for the purpose of understanding problems that a user might be having and helping to troubleshoot remotely. The description of the software seems mostly innocuous: Carrier IQ is used to understand what problems customers are having with our network or devices so we can take action to improve service quality.
It collects enough information to understand the customer experience with devices on our network and how to devise solutions to use and connection problems. We do not and cannot look at the contents of messages, photos, videos, etc., using this tool However, in digging into the details of the software, Eckhart realized that it can easily track all sorts of info, including what websites people are visiting and what keypresses they make. The software can also surreptitiously report where the phone is located. He further notes that the software is purposely hidden on a bunch of devices, and on many it appears that you simply can't turn it off.
Now, I don't think anyone is suggesting anything nefarious here. There are reasons why operators like to collect this kind of data and, in the aggregate, it seems useful. But, as Eckhart looked in more detail at training materials for the software, he realized it could easily be used to track at a much more granular level, down to individuals. The potential for abuse seems pretty high. Again, it's obvious why this software is installed, but it raises questions about what carriers are doing to make sure the software isn't being abused. It's also somewhat troubling that the carriers aren't all that straightforward about how this software is monitoring their users...
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
SOPA Hearings Stacked In Favor of Pro-SOPA Lobby #stopSOPA
Posted about 5 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
SOPA Hearings Stacked In Favor of Pro-SOPA Lobby
via Slashdot by Unknown Lamer on 11/16/11
Adrian Lopez writes "Techdirt reports that 'apparently, the folks behind SOPA are really scared to hear from the opposition. We all expected that the Judiciary Committee hearings wouldn't be a fair fight. In Congress, they rarely are fair fights. But most people expected the typical "three in favor, one against" weighted hearings. That's already childish, but it seems that the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the ridiculousness to new heights. We'd already mentioned last week that the Committee had rejected the request of NetCoalition to take part in the hearings. At the time, we'd heard that the hearings were going to be stacked four-to-one in favor of SOPA. However, the latest report coming out of the Committee is that they're so afraid to actually hear about the real opposition that they've lined up five pro-SOPA speakers and only one "against."' Demand Progress is running an online petition against such lopsided representation."
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
#stopSOPA A Look @ The Testimony Given @ Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional...
Posted about 4 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
A Look At The Testimony Given At Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings... With A Surprise From MasterCard
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/16/11
We already know that today's SOPA hearings for the House Judiciary Committee are totally stacked in favor of the bill. But with the hearings getting underway, we wanted to dive in and look at what's about to be said. Most of the testimony leaked out yesterday, allowing us to spend some time going through it -- it's all embedded below. However, here's a taste of what's going to be said... with some additional commentary (of course).
First up, the most troubling of all: Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights (aka, Head of the US Copyright Office). She should be here to defend the public and to make sure that massive regulatory capture by a couple of stagnant industries doesn't happen. But, that's not how the Copyright Office rolls. Instead, her testimony is basically the US Chamber of Commerce's key talking points (perhaps not a surprise, since the main lobbyist at the US Chamber who's in charge of shepherding this bill into law only recently worked at the US Copyright Office ). If you had hoped for some reasoned argument about pushing back on the massive excesses of SOPA and the broad definitions, you're not going to get it from Pallante. It is my view that if Congress does not continue to provide serious responses to online piracy, the U.S. copyright system will ultimately fail. The premise of copyright law is that the author of a creative work owns and can license to others certain exclusive rights - a premise that has served the nation well since 1790. Congress has repeatedly acted to improve enforcement provisions in copyright law over the years, including in the online environment. SOPA is the next step in ensuring that our law keeps pace with infringers....
[....]
The response provided by SOPA is serious and comprehensive. It requires all key members of the online ecosystem, including service providers, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks, to play a role in protecting copyright interests - an approach I endorse. Combating online infringement requires focus and commitment. It should be obvious that we cannot have intermediaries working at cross-purposes. In other words, the successful tech industry should be hindered and shackled because my friends in Hollywood are too clueless to adjust their business models. Really? SOPA is also measured. It appropriately provides much broader tools and flexibility to the Attorney General than it provides to copyright owners. This is a sound policy choice at this time. The Department of Justice has experience fighting online infringers, will use resources carefully, must exercise prosecutorial discretion in bringing actions, and must plead its case to the court and obtain a court-issued order before proceeding. Put another way, while the copyright industries are extremely important (and certainly a point of pride with respect to the U.S. economy), SOPA recognizes that many sectors rely on, invest in, and contribute to the success of the Internet. Almost none of that is accurate. It is not measured. It is vague, broad and dangerous. The Justice Department's "experience" going after infringers has been to take down websites with no notice based on false info from copyright holders... and then to threaten those who seek to appeal with criminal charges. This is not "using resources carefully," it's government sponsored censorship. It is for this reason that SOPA puts only limited tools in the hands of copyright owners, and provides the Attorney General with the sole authority to seek orders against search engines and Internet service providers. This is not to say that we should not continue to assess Internet piracy and the impact of SOPA or whether additional measures or adjustments may be needed. Indeed, SOPA assigns ongoing studies to the Copyright Office and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for these very purposes. But I do think SOPA provides the right calibration at this time. First off, the "limited tools" include the ability to completely cut off funding to any website based solely on accusations. Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."
Furthermore, how the hell can she say that this is "the right calibration," when even she admits this issue has not been studied yet? The bill is completely "shoot first, measure later," with no details on how it's effectiveness -- or harmfulness -- will be measured. As with any legislation, SOPA deserves and can only benefit from a robust discussion. As the Committee works to further improve and refine the bill, I know it will fully consider a variety of perspectives and suggestions, including from my fellow witnesses. This said, I believe that Congress has a responsibility to protect the exclusive rights of copyright owners, and I urge the Committee to move forward with this in mind. Yes, a robust discussion that leaves out nearly everyone opposed to the bill, and only allows a single party -- one easily dismissed -- to speak about concerns on the bill. A robust discussion that leaves out public interest groups, despite Copyright's entire purpose being for the benefit of the public. This is a shameful bit of testimony from the Head of the Copyright Office, and one that guarantees her a tarnished legacy in her role.
From there, she goes on to defend the US blacklist of sites the Attorney General decides are dedicated to infringement by (1) repeating the US Chamber's debunked talking points, (2) praising ICE's highly questionable domain seizures, which are currently being litigated (a fact she conveniently ignores) and (3) quoting (of course) Floyd Abrams, leaving out that he was paid by the MPAA to give that opinion. Even worse, she quotes the really questionable part of his claim: It also bears repeating that injunctions are not at odds with the First Amendment. As noted First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams has observed, they are "a longstanding, constitutionally sanctioned way to remedy and prevent copyright violations." This is true, but highly misleading. Injunctions are allowed against those infringing. But that's not what SOPA is about. SOPA is about issuing injunctions on innocent third parties. That's what we're concerned about. And for Pallante to ignore that point is really unfortunate.
She then goes on to defend the private right of action to kill off websites based on a single accusation. She claims, laughably, that because the private right of action only leads to injunctions, rather than monetary rewards, there's little incentive to abuse. Wait. Is Ms. Pallante totally ignorant of the past decade plus of the DMCA? The DMCA takedown process also is basically about blocking content and not about monetary relief, and yet it's widely abused, with some estimates suggesting that over 30% of DMCA takedowns are questionable. The problem with SOPA (totally ignored again) is that unlike the DMCA -- which targets the specific content -- SOPA will kill off entire sites.
Even more stunning: rather than suggesting that such abuses may come from copyright holders sending bogus takedowns, she worries instead that payment processors and ad networks may ignore such takedowns -- and hints that if anything, the bill may need refinement on that front. Whoa. It's like an alternative universe where everything is mirrored. Again, we know what happens. We have the less draconian DMCA already and see how widely it's abused. And we see that those who receive takedowns generally abide by them.
Speaking of the DMCA, she pretends -- totally against the text of the actual bill -- that nothing in SOPA will impact the DMCA. This is hilarious. Why would anyone use the DMCA to take down a specific piece of content when they can now kill off an entire site using SOPA? Amusingly, she points to the fact that payment providers and ad networks face no monetary liability under SOPA... but ignores that just two paragraphs above, she was hinting that perhaps the law should be changed to include such liability to make sure they comply. This is the ultimate in cynical, obnoxious politics. Put in that one clause that makes you able to pretend something is reasonable (no monetary punishment!) and then be ready to remove that the second the bill is in place.
Finally, she talks about how "pleased" she is that SOPA turns streaming into a felony. Apparently Pallante would prefer people no longer stream videos any more. Has she even used the internet? Amusingly, she cites YouTube as an example of a legal source for streaming... ignoring the fact that under SOPA, YouTube likely wouldn't have even existed. It's as if she doesn't even understand the bill she's supporting and what it will do to the technology world.
And people wonder why so many Americans think copyright law is a joke? Perhaps they should look at the Copyright boss.
Next, we've got MPAA VP Michael O'Leary. His testimony is really worthy of having been written in Hollywood, seeing as it kicks off with a tearjerker of a story about the poor, poor stunt coordinator, "who depends on the residual payments he earns to help support his wife and three children between productions." Of course, the rest of the world doesn't get to sit back and get a check for work they did in the past, but actually has to keep working to support their families. Of course, how much do random key grips, stunt coordinators and boom mic operators (the favorites for these multi-millionaires to exploit in this kind of way) really make from residuals? It's a lot less than these kinds of testimonies suggest.
O'Leary continues to pull at heart strings, by trying to rope all sorts of other businesses into the movie and TV industry including (I'm not joking) the dry cleaners that serve the cast and crew on location. Apparently, without movies, dry cleaners go out of business. Think of the poor dry cleaners!
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Turn These IKEA Lamps into Speaker Mounts to Keep Your Computer Speakers Out...
Posted about 4 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
Turn These IKEA Lamps into Speaker Mounts to Keep Your Computer Speakers Out of the Way [Ikea Hacks]
via Lifehacker by Alan Henry on 11/16/11
One of the problems with keeping a good set of speakers on your desk is that they often take up a lot of otherwise usable space. This IKEA hack, on the other hand, gets your speakers up off of your desk surface so you can use the space and showers you with sound at the same time. More »
#stopSOPA Yes, SOPA Breaks The Internet: By Breaking The Belief In Trust
Posted about 2 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous
Yes, SOPA Breaks The Internet: By Breaking The Belief In Trust And Sharing That Is The Internet
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/16/11
Venture capitalist Brad Burnham has a brilliant blog post that explains how SOPA really breaks the internet . It isn't just the technical aspects of it. SOPA is an attack on the fundamental belief system that underlies the internet, and much of what makes it successful: At a dinner earlier this week, Joi Ito, the head of the Media Lab at MIT described the Internet as a "belief system" and I suddenly understood. The Internet is not just a series of pipes. It's core architecture embeds an assumption about human nature. The Internet is designed to empower individuals not control them. It assumes that the if individuals are empowered, they will do the right thing the vast majority of the time. Services like eBay, Craigslist, Etsy and AirBnB are built on the assumption that most people are honest. Other services like Tumblr, Twitter, YouTube, Wordpress, and Soundcloud assume people will be generous with their ideas, insights and creations. Wikipedia has proven that people will share their knowledge. Companies like Kickstarter show that people will even be generous with their money. This does not mean that there are not bad people out there. All of these companies spend a lot of time and money to battle spam and fraud. The companies are simply betting that there are many more good people than bad. The architecture of the Internet shares this assumption. It could have been designed to prevent bad behavior. Instead its design empowers good behavior.
The entertainment industry does not share this view of human nature. That encapsulates the point wonderfully. And SOPA is really about suggesting that that "belief system" built on trust and sharing isn't worth keeping around. I think this is a fundamental issue that people who understand the internet fully get: that it's more than the "series of tubes" or the specific technology that holds it together. It's built on a philosophy of openness and sharing. And that is a worldview that some businesses just don't grasp. Whether you agree with me that the vast majority of people are good or with my friend that given a chance many people will steal is not really important. What is important is that PIPA, and SOPA, the legislation the content industry is currently pushing through Congress, will not allow me to architect a service and build a relationship with consumers that reflects my core beliefs about human nature. If I am a search engine and I remove sites from my index, I am essentially lying to my users. If I am a social media site and I remove links my users have posted to sites that some authority has deemed illegal, I am breaking a promise.
I am sympathetic to the content industries struggles with piracy, but my belief system tells me the answer is to capitalize on the great strengths of the Internet to create a healthy and profitable relationship with their users not to sue them. No matter how strongly I believe that, however, I do not think I have the right to tell them how to run their business. Apparently, they do not feel the same way about our businesses. The current legislation in Congress does not just create an administrative burden, it requires service providers who have built wonderful businesses on a deep conviction about human nature to change their relationship with their users in a way that subverts their core values. It really is this that's the issue at hand. The "breaking" is of this recognition of the wonderful aspects built on the fact that people really are, for the most part, good. And when you treat them as being good -- rather than treating them as criminals -- you get rewarded for it. Are there some people who take advantage? Sure. But should we break the whole system just to stop those few people, when it will hinder all the wonderful things built on trust? That, unfortunately, appears to be the position the pro-SOPA folks are taking.
My only beef with Brad's piece is that he claims "the content industry" doesn't believe in the internet of trust and sharing. I disagree with that. I am a a part of the content industry. As is Brad. The new content industry absolutely gets it. It's why it embraces these platforms, uses them to create, distribute, promote, connect and monetize. It's the old gatekeepers who don't believe in this view of the internet.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Want your own? Change your email settings
