The Philosophy of Nate

Google's Latest Privacy Woes

2012-02-22T00:46:00.001-05:00

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

2012-01-18T00:56:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-08T04:00:00.000-05:00

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!

2011-10-26T20:20:00.001-04:00

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)

2011-08-19T23:22:00.000-04:00

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

How to Run an Online Scam

2011-08-09T22:05:00.002-04:00

As much as it may appear otherwise, given a little time running an online scam isn't nearly as difficult as the general person likes to think. This translates to the rest of us being required to be all the more vigilant about keeping ourselves safe and verifying anything, especially before sharing any personal information.

Though there are scams running online all the time, some obvious, others not, one of the most recent ones that spread virally was about browser choice being indicative of a person's IQ. The news article was picked up by various reputable news sites such as CNN, Telegraph, BBC and others and circulated for a few days. I picked it up and mentioned it in the previous post on The Philosophy of Nate as well before anyone had any reason to question the results of the study, which conveniently seemed to make some sense. Having been on CNN and the BBC, it seemed legitimate enough to me.

Surprisingly little work went into putting together the scam- it was discovered a few days after the news story circulated that the research group running the study, "AptiQuant," was, in fact, a fake. The company's website went live not long before the scam, and apparently copied a lot of content from an existing, reputable website from a company based in France. Employee pictures and site content were copied, though names were changed for the purposes of "AptiQuant."

The degree to which the Browser IQ story circulated with what seemed to be very little effort on the part of the scammers is a reminder to the rest of us to watch out for ourselves online and to check into the background of anything before we give out any sort of information (or rely on any information). Although the "AptiQuant" scam was only an annoyance and embarrassment to those who covered it, many scams are far more than that and result in identity theft, hacking, or other data theft. If anything seems questionable, check with the source yourself with your own information- call them or log in with your own web address rather than using the information given.

And, of course, if you switched from Internet Explorer 6 because of "AptiQuant", your IQ is no lower than anybody else's- though you may want to keep your upgrade as IE6 isn't up to par with the security on newer browsers.

If you liked this, you might also like...
What Site to Trust Next
Ad Blocking Ethics
What Site Leaked Your Data

My Browser Said What?

2011-08-01T05:00:00.005-04:00

One of the most overlooked (and under-cared about) aspects of online privacy is what browsers say about their owners. Generally, web browsers transmit a lot of data about what browser they are, certain software/hardware capabilities, and software versions. Transmitting information such as this has its uses- websites can warn about out-of-date software, and software sites can direct visitors to the appropriate download for their system. It does raise some security and privacy concerns as it makes it easier to track people. Even I can admit to simply not caring what my browser says about me.

With concern mounting regarding hacking and privacy, browser headers, as they're called, will probably be thought about much more by the average privacy-aware web surfer, especially with the new Internet tracking bill passed by the government. There are browser extensions that can hide or mask the information your browser sends to the Internet, but while doing this improves privacy (my browser, for example, is unique out of 1,692,860 tested browsers [panoptic.eff.org] making me very trackable) it can also prove to be an inconvenience as you won't receive the benefits of certain websites tailoring their site to your system.

[It appears, however, that simply sharing the name and version of your browser of choice can say a lot about you as well (keep it quiet!). According to a study done by a Canadian company AptiQuant, your browser can also be an indication of your IQ. The conclusion developed from the study is that users of a lower IQ are less likely to upgrade or experiment with new software, hence the lower IQ of users of older web browsers, particularly Internet Explorer (if you by choice run Internet Explorer 6 in 2011, don't tell anyone!)

The summary of results from the study show that users of Internet Explorer 6 have a low IQ close to 80, with users of later versions not faring much better, followed by Firefox in the low 100s, Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer with Chrome Frame jumping past 120, then followed by Camino and Opera. Though "what browser do you use" is not likely to become a question on most college or job applications any time soon, it is information worth keeping in mind for bragging rights or secrecy, if nothing else.] - The organization running this test has been discovered as being a scam, and the test and its results having been fabricated with no actual science.

If you liked this, you might also like...
What Site to Trust Next
What Site Leaked Your Data?
Where is Your Information?

Data from http://mashable.com/2011/07/29/internet-explorer-iq/ and https://panopticlick.eff.org/

What's Up With Linux?

2011-07-20T19:43:00.001-04:00

The Linux Foundation is celebrating the 20th anniversary of Linux this summer, from its humble start in 1991 to where it stands today as the operating system of choice for supercomputers, phones and many more things where speed, security, and reliability are required. Get in on the celebration at http://www.linuxfoundation.org/20th/.

Outside of the more nerdy, technically inclined people like myself, Linux isn't extremely popular and isn't even well known. Windows vs. Mac OS X is the usual choice given in stores, and Linux only recently has gotten some publicity from companies such as Dell and Google. Given its past of being powerful but hard to use, the general opinion of Linux isn't too surprising even though it has become a misconception.

Unfortunately, the selling point for Linux is usually that it's free and that it doesn't have viruses, both of which are generally true but are not the best things to take into consideration when trying to pick an operating system. Those two arguments seem to be the biggest arguments used when hard-core Linux fans try to "convert" users of OS X or Windows, even though they're not the most important reasons, and not the main reasons why Linux users such as myself run Linux as our system of choice.

Really, the biggest and best reasons for running Linux are the independence, privacy, and reliability that any distribution of Linux comes with. In Linux, there is little question of if [Linux] software will work- it either does, or is fixed within a very short time to work because of the fact that it's open-source so anyone can develop software. Problems are fixed fast and if they aren't, there is nothing wrong with editing software yourself to fix it if you know how. The fact that Linux can work with almost any file you throw at it no matter how strange is also nice, so that when your cousin from Hogwarts emails you his homework, you can probably open it (assuming, of course, said cousin got around the fact that Muggle technology doesn't work inside Hogwarts).

Due to the fact that Linux is open-source, there is a huge community online willing to help anyone with questions about anything, any time of day. The community is great, and had it not existed when I first became a Linux user, I probably wouldn't still be a Linux user because I had no idea how to set up everything to work on the old computer I was using- it took a while and some patience but I got it working. Generally, a lot of hardware "just works" under Linux (even the Kinect!). For anything that doesn't, you become your own IT person with the huge number of forums at your back, a fact that makes it much more satisfying and educational to solve problems. The open-source factor also makes Linux more secure because with an army of developers all over the world working on the software, there is no way for anyone to make any of the software malicious, simply because there's too many people to get it by. This happens to be one of the big reasons why the Russian government is switching to Linux and moving away from Windows.

On the flip side, if you're at all timid when it comes to messing around with your computer and are unwilling to occasionally break or fix things, then Linux is generally not the best choice. There are, however, some newbie-friendly distributions that require less work, such as Ubuntu, so if you're willing to learn, there is a place to start.

First post in a Series- Subscribe to stay up to date.
If you liked this, you might also like...
What Google+ Means for Facebook
What Site Leaked Your Data
Reviewing Gnome 3

Google and Facebook's New Looks

2011-07-17T19:07:00.004-04:00

Google and Facebook are both in the process of rolling out some changes to their interfaces; Google started soon after announcing Google+, and Facebook started just in time for everyone to log into Facebook at work Monday morning and be irritated about it.

For Google, the new look is pretty slick and integrates Google+ features (for those using the service) across most of Google's products with a new upper bar. The rest of the services that the change has affected now sport a new layout that is much more consistent across Google that was a long time coming, particularly for Blogger, but doesn't change anything so significantly that anything is hard to find. The new upper bar provides slick integration with Google+ for those using it and is more noticeable for switching between services. So far changes have been rolled out to GMail via a preview theme, Calendar, Blogger in Draft, Search, the Help centre, YouTube, and the account page (accessible through Google+) that include a new colour scheme and in some cases, smaller logos. I haven't really heard any complaints about it and I don't have any myself.

Facebook, however, introduced a new chat interface this weekend. The new interface moves the contact list into a sidebar, moving the options to minimize the list and change availability settings into a menu. Worse, it no longer shows only online friends- just a long list of those recently contacted, online or not, with a search at the bottom. The annoyance resulting from this change has been amazing, at least within my group of friends, and understandably given that it makes the chat more annoying to use. As someone who usually takes Facebook's occasional changes in stride without any issues, I found the new chat interface extremely annoying, mainly because in the attempt at simplifying it, the interface made all the features harder to use. The big question becomes whether or not Facebook will listen to user feedback in light of their competition with Google+. If not...several of my friends have mentioned moving to Google+, so it will be interesting to see where it goes over the course of the week.

If you liked this, you might also like...
What Google+ Means for Facebook
What Site to Trust Next
How to Stay Safe on Facebook

Google+ Takes on Facebook

2011-07-07T00:10:00.000-04:00

If the number of hacks, extensions, and suggestions on how to make Facebook more like Google+ is any indication, Google+ has drawn more than a small amount of interest across the web. At the same time, pressure is increasing on Facebook to bring new features to Facebook that may not have even been considered in the past.

The first, and probably most momentous indication of the pressure on Facebook is the announcement of Facebook's latest new feature; video chat via Skype. Given the low-quality video and the lack of any distinguishing features, it seems clear that Facebook unveiled the new feature long before it was actually ready, not long after Google+ was announced. In all likelihood it is not the last feature Facebook will announce prematurely due to pressure from Google. I haven't tested Facebook's video chat myself (it runs only on Windows right now), but I have already heard complaints about the new chat interface as well as some notable testers such as ZDNet complaining about the quality. With Facebook's own video chat, the feature battle between Google+ and Facebook has started.

For now, Google's implementation of most of its features is far better than Facebook, enough to make Facebook seem extremely awkward after using Google+ for a while, which may be enough to keep users and to attract more. Right now, Google has a few of the key things going for it to give it an upper hand in a competition with Facebook. One of them is exclusiveness, which makes Google+ seem like a club to those outside of it and draws a significant amount of publicity. From a marketing standpoint the now nearly entirely exclusive social network is doing just the right thing, building a huge amount of interest, even though the invite system is mainly a practical consideration.

The other, something that Google has been successful with in nearly all its services, is a good implementation. With all the interest surrounding Google+, it will undoubtedly be visited by a huge number of new users once it opens up- and already has, considering the invite link disappeared as I was in a Hangout due to massive demand. A good service keeps users on the site. The big indication of how Google+ could succeed is GMail's past. GMail launched long before I was actively online for anything other than flash games, but started much like Google+ - and now is one of the top webmail providers online. Google+ is at a huge disadvantage in the social area but with the introduction of some new features and an extremely good implementation of ones done poorly on Facebook, they may very well become the next Facebook, though with better privacy (damn! stalking just got harder!).

Whether or not you are on Google+, there's some sites worth checking out:
http://www.circlehack.com - your Facebook lists, in Circle form
http://move2picasa.com/ - migrate your Facebook photos and albums to Picasa/Google Photos for Google+
http://bit.ly/pjJlyH - Update your Facebook status from Google+
https://www.facebook.com/videocalling - Enable Facebook video chat

If you liked this, you might also like...
What Google+ Means for Facebook
How to Stay Safe on Facebook
What Site Leaked Your Data

What Google+ Means for Facebook

2011-07-05T00:21:00.002-04:00

Google+, particularly due to its current exclusiveness, has gained a huge appeal across the Internet if the demand for invites has been any indication. Fan pages have sprung up on Facebook for Google+ and its various features and it generally has been the latest big thing online, even finding itself a mention on FOX News.

Due to the exclusiveness of Google+, it remains to be seen just how popular it will become and if it will actually grow in popularity to rival Facebook, as Facebook once did to Myspace. Google was forced to shut down its invite system given the huge demand for entrance into its social network which has simply created more demand; Google+ invites can now even be bought on Ebay. Meanwhile, Facebook has a developed network with over 130 million users and counting which makes it a formidable social network to compete with- one that until now has faced little direct competition.

Google+, however, offers many of Facebook's features in a much more refined way while introducing some of its own. Hangouts, Google's group video chat, has been a feature long demanded from Facebook, while Google+'s friend Circles are a much more intuitive alternative to Facebook's criticized friend lists. Both of these features give Google an upper hand, while Google can also leverage its huge presence and many users that use various Google services. Already, Google's +1 buttons are all over the Internet, Google's web tools track "+1's", and anyone on any of Google's services has no setup as far as joining Google+ is involved since their data is already in place awaiting privacy settings.

The main change may be Facebook's habit of treating users as commodities and catering instead to advertisers. Facebook has become notorious for adding features primarily for the benefit of advertisers, and ignoring requests of users for features, fixes, and in many cases simple acknowledgement of problems. Even if Google+ doesn't catch on in the long run, it will force changes to Facebook's procedures in order to avoid seeing large groups of users switch to Google as users become frustrated and migrate their circles of friends. Already, Google has the foundation through all its services to provide a clean, streamlined and secure service to compete against Facebook, and Google+ is still under development. In the long run, Facebook may see changes of its own in appearance, features, and its treatment of users that have been a long time coming.

If you liked this, you might also like...
The Lowdown on Google+
How to Stay Safe on Facebook
Where on Earth is Your Data

The Lowdown on Google+

2011-06-30T10:34:00.002-04:00

Google has made a few attempts to get into the social networking market, particularly to compete with Facebook, but thus far has seen limited success. Google Buzz was nailed over privacy concerns, Google Orkut never caught on, and Google Wave was a dismal failure. Google's latest stab at social media is Google+ (Google Plus). Currently, it is invite only and Google took down invites temporarily so only those who were invited are able to use the network, making it seem pretty exclusive.

Unfortunately, Google stands at a disadvantage with Google+ given the fact that Facebook and Twitter are already well-established, and Google's previous attempts at social networking never caught on and were never really liked. However, it appears that they have been busy introducing new features across Google as a foundation for Google+ for a while now, and with great results. The new +1 button for sharing sites in search results and articles from blogs takes the place of Facebook's 'like' button, Google's services are tightly integrated so there's no migration if you happen to use Google (your pictures, videos, profile, and buzz are already there for you), and there is a very slick integration across Google. The new upper bar introduced yesterday across Google holds notifications, a link to your profile, circles, privacy, and the usual account settings, so browsing Google doesn't take you away from what's going on on Google+.

The site itself is very intuitive to use as it has the familiar aspects of Facebook at first glance, making it easy to navigate, but also improves greatly in places that Facebook made overcomplicated. The equivalent to Facebook's "lists" is "circles" which is used simply by dragging and dropping friends between "circles", then sharing posts with specific circles. Circles is much better than Facebook's privacy because there is no digging through settings to find it, as it is an integral part of Google+, much as privacy should be. Right now there are no "Fan Pages", "Events", or "Apps" as Facebook calls them, but it does make for a much cleaner experience. Some of these features will likely be added over time via other Google services such as Events via Google Calendar, for example, but I find that at least for now, I don't miss them.

Google more than makes up for any missing features with group video chat that Google calls "Hangout", something that has been long-demanded from Facebook. It uses the Google TalkPlugin which was released for use with Google Voice for in-browser phone calls, so the framework is already there and in the case of a lot of users, is probably already installed. I had a hangout with 4 of my friends last night and I didn't have any problems with it, though its habit of switching the main video to the person talking is a bit seizure-inducing (stopped by clicking one of the video thumbnails under the main video).

It seems that despite being the underdog, Google+ has a very good chance of catching on, at least if the fury of searching for invites is any indication, and because getting started on it is as simple as it is. I have 8 friends in my Circles as of now, which won't grow until another wave of invites is available or Google opens the service, and I have more reason to sit on Google+ than Facebook (150 friends). The service is great and the fury of searching for invites is definitely not unwarranted. To jump start your Google+ presence, try the +1 button under this post if you're visiting on The Philosophy of Nate.

If you liked this, you might also like...
The Good and Bad of Social Networking
How to Stay Safe on Facebook
Introducing Google Buzz

What Site to Trust Next

2011-06-21T21:17:00.001-04:00

As Dropbox is my favorite (and currently, only) cloud storage provider, I place a lot of trust in them in, both in terms of reliability (they are my backup system) and security (I store my journal with them). I trust Dropbox with a huge part of my digital life, so I stay up to date on their company goings-on in order to make sure my trust is not misplaced, and thus far, it has not been.

However, on Sunday Dropbox had a particularly bad security issue; a software update left all accounts accessible without a password for a little over 4 hours, at which point the issue was fixed; though 1% of Dropbox's millions of users were affected. The issue was kept relatively quiet; the Dropbox crew emailed all affected users, and posted a low-key announcement on their blog that was picked up by a number of other blogs. It comes at a bad time for Dropbox, given Sony's recent issues and the wave of hacking going on that even allegedly resulted in the UK's 2011 Census data being stolen. Not to mention of course, the recent, unannounced features of Facebook and Google (facial recognition and contact list searching) that have raised accusations of breaches of privacy.

It is worth noting that I was not one of the affected Dropbox users, but simply someone who is extremely careful when it comes to online security. With that said, I am now searching for a new means of storing files online that suits my high expectation of security - and once I find one, I'll be sure to write about it. Not that I've lost my love of Dropbox, just my trust in them when it comes to storing more sensitive files without encrypting them prior to sending them to Dropbox's storage.

On a relatively related note, passwords were published from several hacked sites including GMail, PayPal, World of Warcraft, and Facebook. Although these are directly related to the recent wave of hacking, it begs the question of whether or not too much trust is placed in those sites. To find out if your account was among the hacked, visit https://shouldichangemypassword.com/. If it was hacked, or if you're rightfully paranoid, consider turning on the 2-step verification that Google and Facebook both offer so that if your password is compromised, your account still can't be logged into unless the perpetrator has your phone as well to receive the second verification code needed to log in. Changing your passwords regularly should also go without question.

If you liked this, you might also like...
What Site Leaked Your Data?
The Easiest Ways to Stay Secure Online
How to Stay Safe on Facebook

Losing the Cursor

2011-06-15T23:16:00.001-04:00

Every new "era" in computing starts a new battle between the large companies. Everything from simply going online (at one point in time, not so simple), to the interface we're familiar with on our computers has gone through the battle of the companies, generally the "big names" in software such as Google, Apple, Microsoft and the like. The latest issue appears to be one that will impact everyone who keeps up with the latest trends in software, one that has already started but hasn't gained a lot of speed in terms of publicity yet. Apple pioneered the so-called "Tablet War" with the iPhone/iTouch and a little more recently, the iPad, and they are currently the best selling tablet on the market. Android from Google is available on tablets and phones as well, giving Google a place as the other major contender.

However, due to the divide between the personal computer and the tablet, issues are arising with how the new interface is rolled out, as it appears that the new touch-friendly interfaces are already here - Gnome 3, OS X Lion, and possibly in fall 2012, Windows 8 - but not necessarily on tablets. Although the current "desktop" interface that everyone is familiar with isn't considered "tablet-friendly", the tablet interface that is coming seems to be notably less friendly when it comes to desktops with regards to efficiency and ease of use. Having used Windows tablets dating back to XP and more modern tablets such as the iPad (and PalmOS Garnet, technically), I can say from personal experience that the XP desktop on a tablet wasn't at all painful, but that I would never want to be forced to use the iPad interface on a desktop, simply because of the way I work. Not, of course, that I dislike tablets, I just dislike being forced to use a tablet with a mouse and no touch input.

Currently, Gnome 3 and Ubuntu's Unity have "fallback" or "classic" modes which make the old desktop-style interface available, and it appears that Windows 8 may have a similar option. All three have interfaces clearly inspired by the touch interfaces of phones; Gnome 3 and Unity have the best of all the mobile-world, Windows 8 will have the best of Windows Phone 7 (which is great on a phone, I will add), and OS X Lion has the best of the iPad. With the tablet war raging on, it seems that touch is "in" even at the cost of handicapping those who lack actual touch input. As much as I love Gnome 3's new interface, managing more than a few windows with a mouse is utterly frustrating and inefficient no matter how well it works on a touch screen. As we move away from the mouse and cursor interface of computers (not that it does me much good anyway, I can never find the damn cursor on my screen), it will be interesting to see how the gap between touch and non-touch computers is bridged without alienating users. I, for one, enjoy having a taskbar.

If you liked this, you might also like...
Reviewing Gnome 3
Upgrading to Firefox 4
Thoughts on Windows 7

Ad Blocking Ethics

2011-05-31T21:51:00.001-04:00

As with essentially everything else in the modern world, the Internet fosters advertising; and has huge industries surrounding it. Given the young and evolving nature of the Internet the ad industry has undergone many changes and compared with its extremely sketchy past, improved significantly. Ads are now targeted and tracked - and censored, in some cases - so they are relevant and whatever happens to lie on the other end of the click is of use.

Online advertisements have garnered a bad reputation, in large due to their past and in the case of some websites, their intrusiveness. Popup blockers are old news and are built in to any modern browser, though less due to the annoyance of popups than to the security risk they pose. Following the popup blockers though, have been browser extensions such as Adblock, which are built to block all online ads of any type. It appears that quite an industry is springing up around the blocking of advertisements, considering that the Adblock developer left his job and relies solely on profits from Adblock donations.

The practice of blocking advertisements, though nothing new, is becoming so widespread that it is a problem for a huge industry, not to mention the smaller websites that rely on revenue from ads to pay for their web space. Due to the reliance on ads - which for a large part are forgiveable and unintrusive - to support websites, ad blocking raises an interesting question of ethics; when is it permissible to block ads rather than simply ignoring those that aren't interesting? Given the huge effort that goes into tracking and targeting ads, ads have become more relevant and more reputable in most cases, and no longer hijack browser windows for attention (in most cases).

Blocking ads appears to be becoming a standard practice, despite the fact that they are no longer a particular security threat and less effort is put into teaching new Internet users not to click them. Sites that rely on advertising revenue in many cases simply need the ads to be shown on the page, so blocking them means that there is no chance for the site to be paid. Removing ads from pages seems like a minor and beneficial choice, but in reality it hurts frequented sites. Simply shutting off Adblock (or choosing not to block ads) is one of the best ways to support free sites without directly donating money to them. Most free sites are supported by advertising revenue, which is worth keeping in mind while perusing the Internet.

If you liked this, you might also like...
What Site Leaked Your Data?
Easiest Ways to Stay Secure Online
How to Stay Safe on Facebook

What Site Leaked Your Data?

2011-05-20T21:14:00.000-04:00

The Internet is notoriously bad when it comes to privacy, which is a fact that has unfortunately been accepted - and even embraced - by most avid surfers. Facebook has leaked various pieces of user information to various places (including Google search), Google has taken to reading emails and contact lists, and people search sites have disturbingly recent and accurate information open to the public. Recent news from around the Internet seems to show that as much as sites explain how secure they are, they still have their shortcomings and secrets.

Google made no secret of the fact that it was changing how it serves ads to its GMail users; it announced it publicly on the Google Blog and notified all GMail users. To sum it up, Google stated that they were going to take notice of email content in order to show relevant advertisements; essentially, their ad crawler was going to read emails. Rumour has it that they will also be taking this a step further in the near future by looking at attachments, and displaying non-animated graphical ads as well when images are included in an email. Considering that GMail is funded entirely by advertising (as is Google as a whole), the move is understandable, but not any less creepy when it's all said and done. However, Google introduced something behind the scenes as well that has gone mostly unnoticed and completely unannounced.

Google now crawls (optionally, I might add) contact lists, then searches competing sites for users with the same contacts, aka you, and offers to "connect" the account with Google as part of the public profile. I find that this explains my experience with Google finding me on every site I happen to be on. On Google's end, this is part of a business technique to compete with Facebook, but as far as I'm concerned, at least, it's really very creepy, especially with the amount of information I have for most of my contacts. I consider my contact list somewhat private and I take the security of my friends' data pretty seriously so as such I don't approve of Google crawling my contact list. I was able to shut off the option on this page: https://profiles.google.com/u/0/connectedaccounts (bottom checkbox), a somewhat hidden preference panel.

Of a much more serious concern, Facebook recently fixed a huge security issue with the way applications interact with user data. I won't post the technical details, but essentially, Facebook applications accidentally leaked user information to advertisers and other third parties. According to the Symantec blog, “[third parties and advertisers] have accidentally had access to Facebook users’ accounts including profiles, photographs, chat, and also had the ability to post messages and mine personal information.” Symantec also states that most probably didn't realize the flaw, but when it comes to hackers, I'm sure the flaw was known and exploited at some point. Facebook has supposedly fixed the problem, but if you are of the more careful type, changing your password resets Application access and fixes the problem.

More Information:
How Google Spies on Your Gmail Account, Gawker
Facebook Applications Accidentally Leaking Access to Third Parties, Symantec Blog

If you liked this, you might also like...
How to Stay Safe on Facebook
Where on Earth is Your Data
The Good and Bad of Social Networking

Reviewing Gnome 3

2011-05-03T18:42:00.001-04:00

Those involved with Linux in any way have most likely caught wind of Gnome 3, a rewrite of the Gnome 2.x.x desktop environment. As of just a few days ago, Gnome 3 is considered to be fully out of testing and is available to Arch users, Fedora users, and others (Ubuntu is not included in the mix as they created their own environment, Unity).

As Gnome 3 is going to fully replace its old 2.x.x counterpart, I adopted it in advance in order to get to know it and leave myself time to find a new desktop environment in case I didn't like it. Gnome 3 with gnome-shell is entirely different from the standard desktop that most of us are familiar with, and is most like what you would expect from an Android tablet or something similar rather than a desktop computer. There is, for all those who don't have hardware capable of 3D rendering that Gnome-shell requires, a fallback mode that is essentially the classic desktop that everyone is accustomed to.

Gnome 3 struck me as being extremely easy to use, and probably the first noticeable changes are that it lacks a "desktop" and a taskbar. Losing the Desktop wasn't a huge change for me because I have never actually used my desktop except as another folder. The "desktop" has been replaced with a brand new launcher that smacks of Android, and functions a lot like the app screen that most smartphone owners are familiar with. Typing a few letters filters the list, and includes files that have relevant names. It is much faster than sifting through a menu to find an application; those that are used frequently will show up in the "favorites list" which is the dock-like area at the left of the screen. (Screenshot: Launcher)

The replacement for the taskbar is a full-screen list with previews of all the open windows, minimized or otherwise. Windows can be closed from that screen with a small X button that appears over windows (like iOS), so sifting through and closing windows is fast. From that screen, windows can also be dragged to other desktops ("workspaces" is probably more accurate) that appear in the right hand dock. Gnome 3 automatically adds extra desktops so that there is always a blank workspace available, though switching between them in dual monitors takes getting used to, as anything on the extra monitor travels between them as though it's a separate area unrelated to the workspaces. (Screenshot: Window management). At the bottom is the tray with running applications as is customary, though system functions such as battery, volume, accessibility and such are now permanently in the upper bar to the right. The launcher and window manager can be found by moving the cursor off the upper left corner of the screen or by clicking on "Activities".

Notifications appear in the lower centre of the screen and are unobtrusive and overall more useful as things like instant messages can be read and responded to by hovering over the notification, which then vanishes when the mouse is no longer over it. Message boxes are tied to their respective application windows as well which for me took some getting used to but it makes sense. The desktop seems to run much smoother and faster than Gnome 2.x.x which always struck me as slightly bloated, even without the 3D effects. For the most part though, it's easy to get used to using as it's extremely intuitive. There are, however, a few things hidden away, such as the option to shut down- in the menu, holding the "alt" key switches "suspend" to "power off". All in all though, it's definitely worth upgrading once it's available for your distro and if the new interface isn't to your liking, the fallback mode has the speed improvements but the look and feel of the classic desktop. Keep in mind that there is no downgrade path so if you run Ubuntu or another distro that doesn't have it in the repositories yet you are probably better off waiting (I killed my testing setup of Ubuntu with it).

If you liked this, you might also like...
First Impressions of Firefox 4
Thoughts on Windows 7
Dropbox (and Dropquest 2011)

Easiest Ways to Stay Secure Online

2011-04-21T22:11:00.000-04:00

With all the talk of phishing and hacking raging across the Internet like wildfire, it tends to seem inevitable that one day an incident will hit close enough to home for it to hurt, especially with all the information we tend to store online. Most high-profile sites such as Google, Facebook, and even Twitter are continually rolling out site updates to counter attacks that in many cases are preventable. As someone who has never had an account hacked but sees friends' accounts hacked multiple times a week, it seems to me that some of the simplest ways of staying safe online are ignored for ease of use or simply carelessness.

Make use of security settings. Almost every major site has a setting for https which encrypts information flying between the site's servers and users. Google turned https on by default for all GMail accounts after the China hacking incident, but nearly all Google services are now accessible via https. Facebook recently rolled out https for the majority of the site, the option for which can be found in the account settings, and Twitter has the option as well. Https prevents eavesdropping on communication with the site which is particularly important for public or unsecured connections, especially with software that makes it easy for anyone to pull login information without any hacking ability whatsoever, like a Firefox extension that I will not name.
Read more ways to stay secure after the break.
Read more »

The Good and Bad of Social Networking

2011-04-13T16:23:00.003-04:00

Over the last few years, social media has taken the Internet by storm. Myspace was among the first, and from there grew Twitter, Facebook, and all the other sites that we hear mentioned on a regular basis. Every company and person seems to either be on one or more of the major social networks or is making an effort to create their own presence on them. This storm of information posted online from everyone trying to find their niche is easily picked up by search engines and spreads around the Internet incredibly fast.

For someone such as myself, who is currently applying to colleges and jobs, things posted by either me or my friends can make or break opportunities as many colleges/employers do Google applicants. One of the worst things about social media is the general lack of privacy from the start; Facebook's recommended settings leave a lot of things fairly public, and every so often they revert custom privacy settings to that. Google was sued over its recent "Buzz" service that was introduced to compete with Twitter because it published some user information in a way that violated the company's own privacy policy. Between poor recommendations for privacy and ongoing changes, privacy is difficult to come by and even harder to maintain as far as posting information anywhere online goes. One of the best examples of this is the fact that a huge number of Facebook Notes were published and are still searchable in Google more than a year later.

Another problem that we've all run into, or at least will at some point, is the lack of emotion. Simply put, you can't judge emotions from text. Most social sites now allow posting all manner of media either natively or through third party sites, but it's extremely easy to misinterpret a message because the face behind it is invisible. To top it off, the Internet is addictive, and social media magnifies the effect; it's extremely hard to keep up with friends without watching or receiving notifications from Facebook. There are "Facebook Anonymous" programs where obsessive or addicted users can get coaching to curb their Facebook habit; one that's probably harder to kick than substance addictions.

Social media also gives us the opportunity to build up an identity for ourselves and hollow out our own little niche online. As a blogger, I can say that the main part of my online identity outside of my friends is a blog, and given my restrictive privacy settings, it doesn't focus around Facebook or Twitter. Social networks give everyone an edge in promoting the positive aspects of themselves and getting known; and potentially famous in their own ways. Aside from simply building egos, social sites also provide a powerful, fast way to keep in touch with friends and family around the globe. Distances start to seem much shorter with software such as Skype, with video chat, or even just watching the Facebook posts of friends scroll down the screen. With a little care and some careful control on what's posted and what's hidden, social media is a powerful tool with a lot of potential uses, and is something that will undoubtedly become an increasing part of our lives in the future.

If you like this, you might also like...
Do you know where your information is?
Thoughts on Windows 7
How to stay safe on Facebook

Upgrading to Firefox 4

2011-03-27T11:00:00.003-04:00

Firefox 4, as I mentioned in my previous review of it where I slated it against Google Chromium (the open-source clone of Google Chrome browser), took me by surprise with its speed and apparent improvements over its previous versions and my old browser of choice, Chromium. So much so, in fact, that I've now adopted Firefox as my browser of choice and have migrated all of my settings to the new browser. In the process, I discovered a few quirks that, due to the 'newness' of 4, will likely be fixed soon or that are Mozilla avoiding alienating some of its older users. Just to be clear, I don't mean problems; I've actually had far fewer issues with Firefox 4 than I had with Chromium.

Read more »

First impressions of Firefox 4

2011-03-24T18:30:00.005-04:00

The latest and greatest in browsers (at least as far as publicity goes) is Firefox 4, which was just released a few days ago. As a heavy web user who is still trying to cut down on Internet time, I regularly max out my memory with some huge number of pages open in my browser of choice; generally Google Chromium (the open-source equivalent to Google Chrome). I love Chromium; it's fast, secure, and I can sync my bookmarks between multiple browsers, which for me is important since I regularly move between computers. It has never given me any real problems, which in my experience is fairly rare given the browsers I switch between.
Read more »

How the Internet is crucial in a crisis

2011-03-17T18:56:00.003-04:00

On any normal day, the Internet undoubtedly brings us closer together; we stalk our friends on Facebook, follow celebrities on Twitter, and read the various blogs that we enjoy being kept up to date on. It bridges the gap between our local friends and family and those who are farther away, across an ocean, for example. For the most part, the Internet has reached a point in our minds where it is taken for granted and it's just one of those things that for those of us in more privileged countries always have at our disposal.

The true power of the Internet and our ability as people to band together with it at our disposal is never recognized until a crisis strikes; the recent rebellion in Egypt, or the earthquake in Japan, for example. In Egypt, the people used social sites as a means of organizing their protests, and it was such a powerful tool that not only did they succeed, for a large part, but the government shut down broadband Internet for a period of time, knowing that it was being used in that manner. A France-based dialup provider even offered free Internet access to those in Egypt (who were able to find the information online).

Even more recently was the earthquake in Japan. The primary source for news was the Internet, between Google Realtime and Twitter. Google opened its PeopleSearch service for those in Japan to locate their family and friends and to post information about themselves so that their family and friends could locate them as well, not to mention that those who were left with more access to the Internet were keeping in touch with friends from other, unaffected places. I have a teacher who on the morning of was texting back and forth with someone she was close to in Japan in between her teaching.

With that said, in a crisis, the Internet is a source for news for both those affected and those elsewhere around the globe. Not only news sites, but firsthand accounts from those affected. Information and aid are available much more readily to everyone, affected or not. It's also a way to keep in touch and a source of help for those affected. With the Japan earthquake, instructions on how to make solar powered lanterns surfaced on a few websites in hopes that they would be made and sent to Japan, as lack of light was a huge problem for those left stranded, for example. Though it may not be available directly to those affected by a crisis for various reasons, power outages or damage to infrastructure that the Internet relies on, the Internet has become an indispensable resource, and seems to be growing in that role significantly as it becomes more accessible and more reliable.

Crisis is somewhat of a broad term, however, and the Internet has also been involved in getting help to those in more isolated situations. Facebook, Twitter, and instant messaging make it possible to silently call for help in any situation where being noticed may be dangerous or speaking simply isn't realistic. Cases where people have called for help via Facebook seem to be becoming more frequent (article), and although some, as in the linked article, may have a valid reason for using the Internet that way since most areas don't have the ability to text emergency services [yet], it also raises the question of when it truly is a useful tool in an emergency rather than something that simply delays when help can arrive. There is no doubt that the Internet has become an integral tool in any crisis and getting help for any sort of crisis is crucial, be it Japan after the earthquake or a burglary, but it may very well be that the Internet is best left for the "really big" crises rather than burglaries.

If you liked this, you might also like:
How to stay safe on Facebook
Where might your information be?
The pros and cons of social networking

How to Stay Safe on Facebook

2011-03-09T21:45:00.002-05:00

phishing: using seemingly legitimate web pages or applications to steal or gain access to information

One of the biggest and least expected places to find malware and phishing is the Facebook news feed, which means that Facebook is becoming as much of a jungle as the rest of the Internet. Last year, it was estimated that more than 20% of posts in the news feed were phishing or malware posts from users or applications. Among my own group of friends, seeing spam posts from hacked accounts is fairly rare, but it does happen nonetheless, and I myself have been roped into a few and had to clean off my Wall and reset my password. Generally, the damage is minor; a bunch of spam posts to friends, for example, but the problem can, quite literally, grow exponentially if a spammer manages to make a fake application that looks enticing and legitimate enough for friends to follow the lead of the hacked account; which can then steal information off the unsuspecting users' walls, personal data included.

Many of the phishing issues revolving around Facebook are preventable, but it seems that a lot of people simply don't exercise the same caution while exploring their news feed as they do the Internet. Facebook, to a large degree, doesn't filter the links that are posted and doesn't take any sort of action against less-than-legitimate Applications. Particularly with Facebook's newly added feature that allows its users to 'like' any website, Facebook itself is beginning to become nearly as much of a mess of questionable links as the rest of the Internet, if not worse due to the social aspect of it where malware links and Applications can spread from person to person, making them much more contagious and a lot more dangerous given the amount of data posted on profiles. However, there are some simple ways to protect from and to avoid problems altogether, which are important to keep in mind as malware from on Facebook is becoming more intrusive; less for the purpose of spamming than it may be to steal user data and promote false sites.

Primarily, don't click any links in the news feed that have been 'liked' or shared by a lot of friends in a short period of time and especially, don't visit links that were posted to a few dozen walls. Facebook filters links that have been reported and won't allow them to be posted, but it seems to do a less-than-noticeable job in keeping the site clean. A great example is the recent slew of links to a fake YouTube page; once the link was clicked, the page would post itself to the user's Wall, which was more of an annoyance than an actual problem. Despite being somewhat lax in its monitoring of shared Links, Facebook will temporarily disable access to accounts that it suspects have been hacked and allow their rightful owners to confirm and change their login information. The Help Center has a link to a reporting form where suspicious activity (links, in particular) can be reported to Facebook; https://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=report_phishing.

The second most important way to protect a Facebook account is to pay attention and keep track of what Applications are allowed to do and what information they access. Facebook requires Applications to provide a page showing what information they use, which is important to pay attention to. Moreso, Facebook has strict rules regarding what Applications can and cannot do, and anything that claims to do something that doesn't follow those guidelines is a fraud, simply because Facebook doesn't provide certain data to applications. The ongoing issue in this area is the classic "See who is visiting your profile" or "See how many people visit your profile" type Applications. In short, Facebook doesn't publicize that information to users or Applications, which instantly deems every one of those a fraud and potentially a phishing problem. Considering that 60% of the problems with clickjacking and phishing come from Applications, it seems that this may be one of the most overlooked areas with regards to Facebook security.

From a phisher's standpoint, Facebook is one of the best places to collect personal information from, given the social and therefore extremely viral nature of anything shared; it's bound to be clicked by at least one other person, and potentially can spread alarmingly fast, much faster than the pieces of malware spread across the Internet. Viruses and other problems can quickly become an epidemic because too many Facebook users feel that within the confines of Facebook the Internet is safe. In a word, if something in the news feed appears extremely popular and overly enticing, there's likely something wrong with it, so stay away from it and especially, report accounts that have been compromised so that the account (and links in question) can be cleaned up as quickly as possible.

Clarification: Facebook does not publicise statistics for personal profiles, it does give users access to visit data for fan pages.
Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373281,00.asp
If you liked this, you might also like:
Mobile Security
Managing Your Online Reputation
The Good and Bad of Social Networking

Mobile Security

2011-02-10T15:52:00.006-05:00

Everyone who owns a computer likely hears about the plethora of latest security issues, viruses and whatnot- and for all those Windows users, may have figured out that Microsoft releases security updates on the second Tuesday of the month. For the most part, that's outside the scope of this article, although it is relevant. Viruses and hackers are the bane of any computer user and many of us spend seemingly ridiculous amounts of time making sure our virus scanner is up to date, that Windows Security Center reports back that everything is fine, and otherwise being extremely careful with our computers. We set up (hopefully) strong passwords for all of our online accounts, and from there, try to lie low and hope that no hackers come our way; and hope that if they do, all the defenses we threw up for them are strong enough.

It seems that so much effort is put into making sure that computers and Facebook accounts are secure, that the most dangerous devices we have in our lives are completely forgotten from a security standpoint- or measures are taken to accommodate them that the security of everything goes downhill as a result.

The issue is that ease of use seems to often take a higher priority than security for many people. As mobile devices with admittedly crappy keyboards become increasingly prevalent, crappy passwords follow. That's not to say that all mobile devices are difficult to type on since more and more sport full QWERTY keyboards in some form or another. Remembering and typing also plays a role- obviously it's much easier to remember a simple (and easily hackable) password such as 'letmein' instead of a stronger password such as L3+mE!n. (Simplicity vs Security; The Philosophy of Nate)

Even worse, once our mobile device is no longer attached to us; forgotten on the bus, pickpocketed, whatever, security suddenly becomes a massive problem. Hacking a cell phone is disturbingly easy in most cases even if it is password protected. My phone, for example, uses a 4 digit PIN for security, with unlimited attempts. Many phones include a method by which the manufacturer can boot the phone and bypass security measures for transferring data to a new phone, or a hidden recovery mode. The sad fact is though; most people don't secure their phones for the sake of ease of use, and those who do are unable to secure them well.

Now, moving past just a simple phone and on to other mobile devices- Palm OS (legacy Palm OS) includes built-in encryption and access control, which indeed makes it more difficult to steal data from. Other than devices with security tools there is, once again, a disturbing lack of actual security. iOS (iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch) allows a user to password-protect their device, and thankfully many people make use of that feature; though for a large part because it's extremely easy to use. To put it bluntly, I sincerely hope that very few people carry confidential data on their iOS device, although I know I'm wrong because they include a web browser and various apps for Facebook, Google, and the like. iOS can be hacked in no more than 6 minutes (including the theft of passwords) and nearly any data not encrypted on some level is fair game. Even I have the ability to hack into iOS should I choose to; I have all the resources and know-how to do it. (article)

Having physical access to any electronic device instantly makes it hackable on a number of levels. However, the fact that mobile devices are exactly that; small and mobile, physical access to them is that much easier to obtain considering the many places they seem to be forgotten, and from there that much easier to hack considering how unbelievably bad their security tends to be. If you carry sensitive or data that's at all private on a mobile device (especially flash drives), consider encrypting it if you have no choice but to carry it.

If you liked this, you might also like:
How Should we Protect our Friends' Information?
Where might your information be?
The downsides to mobile life

Dropbox and Dropquest 2011

2011-01-18T17:08:00.000-05:00

I'm no stranger to online storage, I've cycled through Windows Live Skydrive, ADrive, Google Docs, Ubuntu One, and likely a few others that I can't recall. As far as I'm concerned, I need a secure, reliable place to store my files where I can access them anywhere because I move between computers frequently for various reasons.

Dropbox is, thus so far, my favorite of the online storage sites I've used and I seem to keep returning to it. It's not the biggest; Dropbox only initially gives users 2 gigabytes, but provides opportunities for them to earn more. My account currently is 6.75 gigabytes in size, all of which I've earned for free. For some money, users can buy 50 or 100 gigabytes of storage space on Dropbox, or it can be won for free by participating in and winning Dropquest. What it may not give in initial storage allotment, it does make up for in features.

To my knowledge, it's the most secure of the aforementioned storage services, as everything on the site is encrypted. The entire Dropbox website uses an https (secure) connection. Any files stored on the service are accessible by their owner(s) only, as they're also encrypted on the site to a degree where not even those working at Dropbox are able to access them other than basic metadata (size, name, type). In all honesty, files stored on Dropbox are probably safer than they are on your own computer due to Dropbox's numerous safeguards. I find that I trust my files to Dropbox moreso than other services.

As far as accessibility goes, Dropbox's file synchronization software (optional, but it's really nice to have) will run on Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, and there are apps available for it on Android, Blackberry, and iPhone/iPod/iPad and likely others that I haven't looked into. Uploading a file with the desktop software is as simple as dragging it into the Dropbox folder, and it acts just like any other folder so making and deleting files and folders isn't any different. Although the web interface doesn't allow for editing the contents of a file, it does allow for moving, renaming, and deleting files without any problem and even sharing them securely with a link or specific other people, in many cases without downloading the file. As with any other website, the web interface can be accessed from anywhere on the planet, including mobile devices, for uploading or downloading files without the software as well, so it really is as they advertise: a virtual flash drive. Files and folders can be selectively synced with any computer that Dropbox's software is installed on and there are instructions around online for setting up scripts to do various things; such as printing anything dropped into a certain folder or even setting up personal Wikis.

Dropbox recently has been much more prominent online due to Dropquest 2011, which was a competition for extra storage space and physical gear such as Tshirts and hoodies. I participated in and finished Dropquest, though I wasn't the first (#6361) so I earned another gig of storage space for my Dropbox as does anyone else who participates in and finishes. If nothing else, giving Dropbox a try just for participating in Dropquest seems worth it in my personal opinion because it's a very well thought out online scavenger hunt. It can take a while, but there's a lot of mental puzzles to solve and in the end there is still the extra 1 gigabyte to be won. The competition was actually so popular that it brought down the Dropbox forums due to a widespread misconception about how to solve step two. And just as a hint, for step 28, you need to cut out the paper and fold it into a crane in order to find the math problem to solve. There are instructions online for getting through Dropquest, but for the sake of competition, I won't post a link.

If you intend to sign up for Dropbox and give it a try, using this link to sign up: http://db.tt/ZRLTJjm will give you an extra 250Mb of space for being referred.

If you liked this, you might also like:
Thoughts on Windows 7
How should we protect our friends' information?
Where on Earth is your data?