Group items tagged

IT directors are adding multiple layers of protection to their networks and constantly upgrade those measures to adjust for new threats. Is this good? Is the Internet too broken to fix? Is there a better path to enterprise network security? One option is a new "gated community" Internet, where users give up their freedoms and anonymity for safety. My initiation to the Internet and the World Wide Web occurred in 1994 in a large meeting room at an Atlanta hotel. Most of the 100 or so seats were empty. Those in attendance seemed fairly rabid about this new network and took exception to one speaker's prediction that the Web would become a major marketing vehicle. "Not gonna happen," said one attendee. "We'll spam them into submission if they try. We won't let this become commercialized." I kind of chuckled to myself. Those early adopters were mainly concerned with protecting the Internet from commercialization and marketing. Security was not even part of the discussion. Now, it is threatening to dismantle the Internet as a communication and commerce tool. Cyber attacks on U.S. government computer networks increased a reported 40 percent in 2008, according to data from the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team. More than 100 million credit card accounts at Heartland Payment Systems were compromised last year. In November, the Pentagon suffered from a cyber attack in the form of a global virus or worm that spread rapidly throughout a number of military networks, and caused the agency to ban the use of external storage devices, such as flash drives and DVDs. And this is just the tip of the Internet security Relevant Products/Services iceberg. Enterprise networks are being used to launch phishing Relevant Products/Services and other Internet scams, such as the Conficker worm that infected 12 million computers late last year. IT directors everywhere are adding multiple layers of protection to their networks and constantly having to upgrade those measures to adjust fo

Privacy rights are accepted and, generally, honored in Europe. The wealth - literally and figuratively - of personal information made available through the internet staggers the imagination. Staggering, too, is the prospect of privacy rights being trampled. EC Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva has a bone to pick with internet snooping. And she's launching an investigation into deep data mining. In an official statement (to be released March 31) she will outline concerns of vague and misleading 'term of use' for access to Web sites that can breach EC privacy rules. Commissioner Kuneva was born and raised in Bulgaria during a time when snooping on people was common, legal and nasty. The European Parliament (EuroParl) voted (March 27) overwhelmingly for recommendations in a report linking data surveillance, advertising and cybercrime. The report recommends safeguards for the privacy rights of internet users. The EuroParl called for "making use of existing national, regional, and international law." The MEPs raised the "imbalance of negotiating power between (internet) users and institutions." Internet users, said the MEPs, have the right to "permanently delete" personal details. Facebook's recent change in 'terms of use' allowing it to retain personal information brought a firestorm of criticism and the social networking portal backtracked. And the EC was watching. "It wasn't regulators who spotted the proposed change of terms at Facebook, it was one of the 175 million users," said Commissioner Kuneva's spokesperson Helen Kearns. Collecting and analyzing profile data is big business. It is "the new petroleum of the Internet world," said Ms Kearns, quoted in PC World (March 30). "If you are happy trading your data that's fine, but you should at least know how valuable it is." As Google and Microsoft have learned European Commission rules, unlike American rules, tend to set a low bar for compliance. The former pr

Plans by Internet service providers to deliver targeted adverts to consumers based on their Web searches threaten online privacy and should be opposed, the founder of the Web said Wednesday. "I just want to know that when I click on a link it is between me and the Web, and the Internet service provider is not going to immediately characterise me in different categories for advertising or insurance of for government use," Tim Berners-Lee told a Web conference in Madrid. "The postman does not open my mail, the telephone company does not listen to my telephone conversations. Internet use is often more intimate than those things," he added. New software called Webwise allows Internet service providers to show adverts to their clients based on their Web browsing habits instead of based on the content of a single Web page as currently happens. Several British Internet service providers, including BT and Virgin Media, have said they are considering using the software, which is aimed at making the Web more financially profitable for advertisers. With the help of other scientists at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), Berners-Lee set up the Web in 1989 to allow thousands of scientists around the world to stay in touch. The WWW technology -- which simplifies the process of searching for information on the Internet -- was first made more widely available from 1991 after CERN was unable to ensure its development, and the organisation made a landmark decision two years later not to levy royalties.

Some consumers say they like the way Internet retailers will suggest new purchases to them based on what they've bought previously. Others feel creeped out when a banner ad seems to know a bit too much about their Web surfing habits. It's called behavioral advertising, and it's central to the business success of all manner of Internet commerce, from bookstores to newspapers. The practice needs regulation, says Rep. Rick Boucher , the Virginia Democrat who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet. Boucher says legislation to protect consumer privacy online will spur people to surf more. But Internet advertising companies are not happy about regulation, especially because Boucher's plan would require, in some cases, that consumers agree in advance before their surfing habits could be tracked. Such an approach "would really be a sea change in the U.S. regulatory framework," says Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy at the Interactive Advertising Bureau. Virtually all consumer protection laws, he says, permit people to opt out of solicitation, for instance, with a "do not call" registry. For the Internet, Congress has done almost nothing. "To suddenly move toward a draconian opt-in standard," he says, "would really be damaging not just to businesses but consumers." Zaneis, whose group includes such news heavyweights as the New York Times Co. and Conde Nast Publications, says now is not the time to upend Internet companies' business models, right when the economy is in the tank and print advertising is drying up. He argues further that new Web browsers make the issue moot by giving consumers the ability to easily block the electronic "cookies" that track their online movements. The issue promises to be a lobbying extravaganza. Last year, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was developing self-regulatory guidelines for Web companies engaging in behavioral advertising, it

Internet companies came under fire on Capitol Hill on Thursday, with lawmakers questioning how well the companies protect information that they collect online about consumers for advertising purposes. "I think it's a big deal if someone tracks where you go and what you look at without your personal approval. We wouldn't like that in the non-Internet world and I personally don't like it in the Internet world," said Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas). Lawmakers in the House are drafting Internet-privacy legislation designed to provide consumers more information about what is being collected online and to give them greater control about how that data can be used. It could also set rules for how consumers could prevent their personal data from being shared with advertisers. "Consumers are entitled to some baseline protections in the online space," said Rep. Rick Boucher (D., Va.) chairman of the House Internet subcommittee.

Every time you get online, your privacy comes under attack. Whether it's an overbearing End User License Agreement, contact forms, or just website cookies, there are literally millions of ways that you can let your private information slip away online. One of the best ways to fight invasions of your privacy is to get informed and learn how to prevent it. Read on to find advice, organizations, and other resources that can help you keep your privacy safe online. Guides & Articles These resources have specific advice and information for protecting your online privacy. 1. EFF's Top 12 Ways to Protect Your Online Privacy: Read this guide from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to learn how you can protect private information online. 2. Frequently Asked Questions about Online Privacy: Get answers to questions about online privacy and safety from this resource. 3. Is Your PC Watching You? Find Out!: This article from CNN will help you figure out if your privacy is being violated through your PC. 4. Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet: Find out why the right to anonymity online is so important to have by reading this article. 5. Consumer Privacy Guide: The Consumer Privacy Guide offers a variety of resources and information for protecting your privacy online. 6. This Email Will Self-Destruct: Learn about email security measures that you can take to protect your privacy. 7. Anti-Spam Resources: Visit this guide to learn how to stop receiving junk email. 8. All About Internet Privacy and Security: Read this guide to learn about security terms and Internet privacy settings. 9. Online Privacy: The Complete Guide to Protect You: WebUpon's guide discusses steps you can take to protect your online privacy. 10. Social Networking and Safety Online: Read this guide to learn how to practice common sense on social networking sites. 11. Internet privacy: Wikipedia's entry on Internet privacy offers a broad view at staying private o

The debate on Internet privacy has begun in Congress. I had a chance to sit down recently with Representative Rick Boucher, the long-serving Virginia Democrat, who has just replaced Ed Markey, the Democrat from Massachusetts, as the chairman of the House Subcommittee looking after telecommunications, technology and the Internet. Mr. Boucher is widely regarded as one of the most technologically savvy members of Congress. As he ticked off his top priorities for his panel, most involved the pressing demands of telecommunications regulation. There is a law governing how local TV stations are carried on satellite broadcasters that needs to be renewed. There is the Universal Service Fund, which takes money from most telephone customers to pay for rural service to be improved. And there is the conversion to digital television and the investments in rural broadband to be supervised. But high on his list is a topic that is very much under his discretion: passing a bill to regulate the privacy of Internet users. "Internet users should be able to know what information is collected about them and have the opportunity to opt out," he said. While he hasn't written the bill yet, Mr. Boucher said that he, working with Representative Cliff Stearns, the Florida Republican who is the ranking minority member on the subcommittee, wants to require Web sites to disclose how they collect and use data, and give users the option to opt out of any data collection. That's not a big change from what happens now, at least on most big sites.

Is it a violation of privacy that should be banned or a tool necessary to keep the internet running? Canada's privacy commissioner has opened an online discussion on deep packet inspection, a technology that allows internet service providers and other organizations to intercept and examine packets of information as they are being sent over the internet. "We realized about a year ago that technologies involving network management were increasingly affecting how personal information of Canadians was being handled," said Colin McKay, director of research, education and outreach for the commissioner's office. The office decided to research those technologies, especially after receiving several complaints, and realized it was an opportunity to inform Canadians about the privacy implications. Over the weekend, the privacy commissioner launched a website where the public can discuss a series of essays on the technology written by 14 experts. The experts range from the privacy officer of a deep-packet inspection service vendor to technology law and internet security researchers. The website also offers an overview of the technology, which it describes as having the potential to provide "widespread access to vast amounts of personal information sent over the internet" for uses such as: * Targeted advertising based on users' behaviour. * Scanning for unlawful content such as copyright or obscene materials. * Intercepting data as part of surveillance for national security and crime investigations. * Monitoring traffic to measure network performance.

European Union's move indicates growing government concern over how Internet companies are using individuals' private data The European Commission began legal action against the U.K. Tuesday over its failure to protect Internet users from Phorm -- a covert behavioral advertising technology tested by the U.K.'s biggest fixed line operator, BT, in 2006 and 2007. The move signals growing concern in Brussels over the way new Internet-based technologies are using people's personal data. In addition to taking legal action against the U.K., the Commission also issued a general warning to all 27 E.U. countries to uphold privacy laws, especially regarding social-networking Web sites and users of RFID (radio frequency identification) technologies. In Canada, the federal government has even proposed a legislation that will provide law enforcement agents sweeping powers to obtain user information from ISPs. The Commission, the executive body of the European Union responsible for upholding laws, said the U.K. had failed to enforce E.U. data protection and privacy rules, because broadband Internet subscribers were not informed that their browsing was being tracked.

Behavioral targeting is not bad as a concept but advertisers would have the public opt-in by default without knowing what is being collected and what it is being used for. On the other hand not many in the public seem very concerned about this subject.

The Internet contributes about US$300 billion a year to the U.S. economy, and U.S. lawmakers should be careful about tinkering with the advertising-supported Internet content model in the name of privacy, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) said. An IAB-commissioned study by two Harvard University professors, released Wednesday, found that 1.2 million U.S. residents are directly employed in Internet-related jobs, and another 1.9 million U.S. jobs support those Internet workers. IAB released the study Wednesday, as 30 publishers of small Web sites converged on Washington, D.C., to urge U.S. lawmakers to avoid passing legislation that would harm their ad-supported business models. Chief among those publishers' concern was talk in the U.S. Congress about requiring Web sites to gain opt-in permission from users before tracking their Web habits as a way to deliver personalized advertising to them. Many users wouldn't give the permission, and without offering targeted advertising, many small Web sites could fold, some small publishers said. Small Web publishers and sellers "are the face of small business" in the U.S. in recent years, said Susan Martin, publisher of Ikeafans.com, a home improvement site.

"The ubiquity of online advertising is a product of its importance to the internet economy, said a group of consumer advocates Wednesday during a debate on the future of online advertising. But the impact of new targeted advertising methods on consumer privacy and its potential to manipulate online experiences was the subject of heated argument at the event, sponsored by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Privacy does not mean the same thing to all consumers in all situations, said Progress and Freedom Foundation Senior Fellow Berin Szoka. Advertisements are attempts to capture user attention - the "great currency of the Internet" - and when successful support a wide range of valuable content, he said. But in online life, "consumers have many values," Szoka added. "Privacy is one of them," he said, but it is not an absolute. Consumers must sometimes trade privacy for content, he said. "There is no free lunch." As more information and entertainment migrates to the internet, Szoka said it is "critical…that we find a way to support this media." Targeted advertising can fit the bill, he suggested - especially if technology gives users more control over their own preferences. Most consumers don't understand that advertising is a necessity for today's internet, he said. New technologies like targeting need to be given a try, he said, so content providers can recoup the value of their advertising - down 25 percent since 2000, he noted. Center for Digital Democracy founder Jeff Chester said Szoka's ideas about advertising's future represented a "false dichotomy." The real debate should be over the rules that regulate advertiser content, he said. Chester warned of a "Targeting 2.0″ system in which neuroscience combined with massive databases not only serve ads, but target content to users. "It's about influencing our behavior without our consent," he said. Chester pointed to the subprime lending cr

Lawmakers took aim at privacy practices of cable and Internet providers Thursday at a House subcommittee hearing, laying the groundwork for the introduction of legislation that could restrict companies' ability to target ads at consumers online. The focus of the hearing was on new efforts by Internet providers to collect and share data on consumers' behavior to target online advertising and by cable companies to target ads at subscribers via their set-top boxes. Lawmakers are concerned about consumer privacy as cable, phone and Internet companies experiment with Internet-based technologies that pinpoint advertising to consumers in new and more accurate ways. Legislation to impose tougher privacy rules could be coming later this summer.

The French parliament on Thursday voted down an Internet piracy law, which had largely been expected to pass. The "Creation and Internet" law, which won the preliminary approval of the parliament last week, would compel Internet service providers to take graduated actions against customers accused of illegally downloading copyrighted material. After warning a customer against such actions for a third time, an ISP could suspend the person's Internet access for up to a year. Because the bill was expected to pass, few members of parliament were present for the final vote on the bill, according to the Associated Press. Opponents of the legislation, led by the Socialist party, rejected the measure by a vote of 21 to 15. The legislation had the support of the ruling UMP party, to which President Nicolas Sarkozy belongs, as well as the support of the Recording Industry Association of America. Backers of the bill intend to re-introduce an amended version within the coming weeks, according to reports. The entertainment industry has suggested to the United States' Congress that it should consider adopting European methods of combating copyright infringement. The United States, members of the European Union, and other countries may also consider making ISPs liable for infringement through international treaties.

making best indexing in goggle and bing. RADJASEOTEA is a master of backlinks. You want indexing in goggle and bing. LOOK THIS www.fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-super-backlink-143445

Broadband is cheaper in many other countries than in the United States. "You have a pretty uncompetitive market by European standards," said Tim Johnson, the chief analyst at Point-Topic, a London consulting firm. Other countries have lower costs for the same reasons their DSL service is faster. Dense urban areas reduce some of the cost of building networks. In addition, governments in some countries subsidized fiber networks. But the big difference between the United States and most other countries is competition. "Now hold on there," you might say to me. Since I wrote that many countries don't have cable systems and the bulk of broadband is run by way of DSL through existing phone wires, how can there be competition? Aren't those owned by monopoly phone companies? True enough. But most big countries have devised a system to create competition by forcing the phone companies to share their lines and facilities with rival Internet providers. Not surprisingly, the phone companies hate this idea, often called unbundling, and tend to drag their feet when it is introduced. So it requires rather diligent regulators to force the telcos to play fair. And the effect of this scheme depends a lot on details of what equipment is shared and at what prices. Britain has gone the furthest, forcing BT Group to split off a unit that operates the actual network and sells to various voice and Internet providers, including its own telephone service, on an equal basis. The United States was early with this sort of approach, requiring telephone companies to allow rival Internet service providers to sell DSL service using their networks. The way these rules were written, however, meant the wholesale cost was so high that providers like AOL and Earthlink couldn't offer a better deal than the telcos themselves. And the plan was largely abandoned in 2003 by the Federal Communications Commission on the theory that the country is better served by encouraging competition

Bits readers have a serious case of broadband envy. I've been writing about the debate about how the government might encourage more high-speed Internet use and you've complained loudly that people in other countries have faster, cheaper, more widely available broadband service. Even customer-service representatives of Internet service providers overseas are nicer too. I don't know about manners, but it's easy to find examples that American's broadband is second-rate: In Japan, broadband service running at 150 megabits per second (Mbps) costs $60 a month. The fastest service available now in the United States is 50 Mbps at a price of $90 to $150 a month. In London, $9 a month buys 8 Mbps service. In New York, broadband starts at $20 per month, for 1 Mbps. In Iceland, 83 percent of the households are connected to broadband. In the United States, the adoption rate is 59 percent. There's more than just envy at stake here. President Obama campaigned on a promise of fast broadband service for all. On the White House Web site, he writes "America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access." And the recent stimulus bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to create a national broadband plan in order to make high-speed Internet service both more available and more affordable. I've spent the last week trolling through reports and talking to people who study broadband deployment around the world to see what explains the faster and cheaper service in many countries. We'll start with where the United States isn't doing quite so badly: the basic speed of broadband service. If you take out the countries that have made significant investment in fiber optic networks - Japan, Korea and Sweden - the United States is in the middle of the pack when it comes to network speed.

The Federal Trade Commission had some sharp words for Internet advertising companies Thursday, saying that they simply are not disclosing how they collect information about users well enough. And the agency threatened that the industry had better get its act together - or else. Or else what? Well, that's a bit harder. The commission has limited ability to issue binding regulations on advertising practices, and the process is cumbersome. But if the agency were to say that its attempt over the last few years to have Internet companies voluntarily bolster their privacy standards has failed, it could encourage Congress to pass online privacy legislation. Indeed, two members of the commission - Pamela Jones Harbour, an independent, and Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat - issued statements saying that while they support the commission's action, they hope for further regulation and possibly legislation on the issue. What the commission issued Thursday was the final version of its principles for online behavioral advertising - that is, ads shown to you based on something you did in the past. The agency issued its first draft of these at the end of 2007 and spent more than a year digesting comments. These principles were meant to spur various Internet groups to create self-regulatory standards for their members. And one group, the Network Advertising Initiative, did publish new rules. The top recommendation was that users should be given clear notice about what information was collected and an easy way to tell sites to stop watching them. "What we observe is that, with rare exception, is not the rule for any Web sites," said Eileen Harrington, the acting director of the commission's bureau of consumer protection, in an interview Thursday. "It is far more commonplace to put the information in the midst of lengthy and hard-to-understand privacy policies."

Online targeted advertising and the collection of consumer data are the fuel of Internet commerce, not the major privacy problems described by some advocates and U.S. lawmakers, according to a new paper. "The use of such data permits firms to target their marketing messages to consumers' interests, pays for a wealth of content on the Internet, and helps protect consumers from a variety of online threats," said the paper, released Monday by the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), an antiregulation think tank. "It forms the basis for many of the business models that are fueling the growth of the Internet." Privacy groups want a "free lunch" online, with strong privacy controls that make it tougher for advertising to work online, the paper said. "Privacy advocates have provided little detail on the benefits of more privacy and have typically ignored the costs or trade-offs associated with increasing privacy," the paper said. Data collection delivers ads that people want and that advertising pays for a multitude of free services online, said the paper, co-authored by TPI President Thomas Lenard and Emory University law and economics professor Paul Rubin.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will unveil in a speech on Monday new proposals that would force Internet providers to treat the flow of content equally, sources familiar with the speech said on Friday. The concept, referred to as net neutrality, pits open Internet companies like Google Inc against broadband service providers like AT&T Inc, Verizon Communications Inc, and Comcast Corp, which oppose new rules governing network management. Advocates of net neutrality say Internet service providers must be barred from blocking or slowing traffic based on content. Providers say the increasing volume of bandwidth-hogging services like video sharing requires active management of their networks and some argue that net neutrality could stifle innovation. "He is going to announce rulemaking," said one source familiar with his speech about broadband, to be delivered at the Brookings Institution, a public policy think tank. "The commission will have to codify into new regulations the principle of nondiscrimination." The FCC could formally propose the rules aimed at applying to wireless and landline platforms at an open meeting in October.

The European Commission started legal action against Britain on Tuesday for what the EU executive called a failure to keep people's online details confidential. EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said the action related to how Internet service providers used Phorm (PHOR.L) technology to send subscribers tailor-made advertisements based on websites visited. Reding said Internet users in Britain had complained about the way the UK applied EU rules on privacy and electronic communications that were meant to prohibit interception and surveillance without the user's consent. "Technologies like Internet behavioural advertising can be useful for businesses and consumers but they must be used in a way that complies with EU rules," Reding said in a statement. "We have been following the Phorm case for some time and have concluded that there are problems in the way the UK has implemented parts of the EU rules on the confidentiality of communications," Reding said. She called on Britain to change its national laws to ensure there were proper sanctions to enforce EU confidentiality rules. Unless Britain complies, Reding has the power to issue a final warning before taking the country to the 27-nation EU's top court, the European Court of Justice. If it rules in favour of the European Commission, the court can force Britain to change its laws. (Reporting by Huw Jones, editing by Dale Hudson)

making best indexing in goggle and bing. RADJASEOTEA is a master of backlinks. You want indexing in goggle and bing. LOOK THIS www.fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-super-backlink-143445

U.S. lawmakers plan to introduce privacy legislation that would limit how Internet service providers can track their users, despite reports that no U.S. ISPs are using such technologies except for legitimate security reasons. Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, and three privacy experts urged lawmakers Thursday at a hearing before the House Energy Commerce subcommittee to pass comprehensive online privacy legislation in the coming months. Advocates of new legislation focused mainly on so-called deep packet inspection (DPI), a form of filtering that network operators can use to examine the content of packets as they travel across the Internet. While DPI can be used to filter spam and identify criminals, the technology raises serious privacy concerns, Boucher said. "Its privacy-intrusion potential is nothing short of frightening," he added. "The thought that a network operator could track a user's every move on the Internet, record the details of every search and read every e-mail ... is alarming."