Group items tagged

This article has made clear that the AdWords advertising system is flawed, it is unacceptable for a large company like Google to lead users to believe that a website can be trusted using the 'sponsored links' and continues to make profit. This goes against the 6th point in Google's philosophy "You can make money without doing evil" although they are not doing it consciously. From the article I understood that the system is run using an automated filter to identify websites which break Google's policy and a manual assessment also takes place by a human. Instead of using just one human, a group of humans can assess the adverts to ensure nothing is missed. Furthermore, an update of Google's databases should regularly take place in order to catch illegal websites quicker.

Google's corrupt sponsored links affects nearly every digital citizen, as Google is by far the most popular and used search engine. There is alternatives to Google, but nevertheless Google is the most popular search engine(we're talking 70+% http://www.seoconsultants.com/search-engines/ ) I agree with Jorge's main ideas above. However, I do not think that increasing the number of people checking would make any large difference. It is their filters which needs an update - something I'm sure they're already doing. It does raise some reliability concerns, being the most popular search engine, you'd expect them not to endorse(even unknowingly) corrupt links.

The social and ethical issues related to this news story are reliability, privacy and anonimity to an extent. Privacy as the information from the buyers credit card is given to what seems to be an unknown person or company. The multiple stakeholders seen would be the buyer, Google and the advertiser. Although it is via Google that the advertiser gets sell his product, it is important to understand that there are most likely thousands of advertisements added daily to the Google search engine and, referring back to Jorge's point, it would be very likely that humans would fail to see such mistakes as well after repeatedly going through hundreds of adds everyday. The trust and reliance that people have on Google can be misleading and it is evident that to solve such an issue people must be awared of the several scams that they are exposed to every single day in order to prevent this sort of problems.

Google has enabled encrypted searching using SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) which it says will prevent "employers and internet service providers" from reading what is sent. The possibility that employers and ISPs might be watching peoples' search traffic clearly concerns Google, and it has often concerned employees.

Essentially what Google is trying to do is to offer people a way of securely navigating their website, using SSL, so that people don't have to worry about being monitored. People can see if they are using the secure version of the google search engine if the web adress cointains "https" rather than just "http". SSL works as follows: 1- The web browser being used checks the websites' certificate to make sure that the client is connecting to the real site and not someone intercepting 2- The encryption types that the browser and the web site server can both use to understand each other are determined 3- Browser and Server each send each other unique codes to use when encrypting the data that will be sent 4- The browser and server start communicating using encryption, leaving the web pages secured. For more information on how SSL works ckeck the following website: http://www.ourshop.com/resources/ssl.html

The following article shows how the asymmetric encryption inherent to SSL (Secure sockets layer) and TLS (Transport Layer Security) have been rendered useless by a tool called BEAST (Browser Exploit Against SSL/TLS). It attacks the "AES encryption algorithm" used in the cryptographic protocols. "BEAST is able to grab and decrypt HTTPS cookies once installed on an end user's browser." "While other attacks focus on the authenticity property of SSL, BEAST attacks the confidentiality of the protocol. As far as we know, BEAST implements the first attack that actually decrypts HTTPS requests". "Transaction confidentiality based on the SSL TLS V1.0 protocol (the most used still today) is dead." "The only true defense from fraudulent transactions is to sign the (...) transaction data so that the attacker cannot inject bogus material. This means effectively using a token with a pin pad." "Fixing the vulnerability that BEAST exploits may require a major change to the protocol itself." http://www.itpro.co.uk/636304/ssl-under-threat-as-flaw-exploited

The main stakeholder here is the google, youtube, gmail, etc. user. The change in privacy policy settings in the system affects the stakeholder in these ways, as outlined in the article: In "suggesting search queries, or tailoring search results, based on the interests expressed in Google+, Gmail and YouTube" (mining data to provide "ever more targeted adverts"), the results become limited: "something I am interested in this week, I might not be interested in next week. I use Google's facilities as both a private individual and in my professional life. Which bit are they going to give back to me?" There is no opt-out alternative to the changes in the system. "Google has become a way of life for some people. They can't do without it even if they don't like the direction it is going in". The simplification of policies could lead to graver problems. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/27/tech/web/google-privacy-clarified/index.html

This is what happens when you try to take money off the mega rich!

If the proposed blackout were to occur, a greater awareness and understanding could be achieved. This would likely garner more support against SOPA, as websites like Facebook, Google and Twitter are used by millions of people worldwide, most of these people being casual internet users who have no idea what SOPA really is, meaning some would attempt to educate themselves on the subject and try to do something about it. The potential increase in support could lead to more people demanding big companies to 'drop' their support by threatning to boycott said comapnies products/services. As mentioned in an article bookmarked by Tranny Franny (http://www.slashgear.com/sony-and-nintendo-drop-sopa-support-amid-anonymous-threats-03205579), Sony and Nintendo appear to have dropped their suppor after being threatned by Anonymous. Although what Anonymous threatned to do was wrong, it certainly go the point across to both companies meaning a boycott from customers worldwide could change other companies minds on whether or not to support SOPA

Although that seems like a good way to reach a wider audience in order for them to understand the severity of how SOPA would affect the internet, it could be seen as quite unethical. These casual internet users could only use websites such as Facebook to get an quick update, so these could be people who would be indifferent after knowing the affect of SOPA. Why should these people be prevented to access a website they use simply because the website feels the need to make a statement. And in terms of big companies dropping their support, is it really correct for them to drop their support? why did they support it in the first place? If they believe that this act should be made official is it correct for them to "drop" their support simply because too many people are going against it? So they would be "changing sides" out of fear, rather than due to their opinion, which in a way goes agaisnt the point of voting or supporting somethis such as SOPA

interesting stuff. They will take over your world very soon. More details here http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/google-tv-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know/

Germany opposes Google Street View switch-on

"Google tests cars that drive themselves"

This is a good system since cars that drive themselves will decrease danger in the road. They're programmed and don't have the problem of "drinking and driving" like humans do. This is an advantage because it will reduce danger. Plus, it will increase time for leisure since people can be socializing with people or doing work instead of driving.

Here is a link to one of google's self driving cars. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-24/tech/31094289_1_sergey-brin-google-car

Also, here's a link to another article explaining about how google's self-driving car works.

I'm a bit curious Jorge, how would this invade the privacy of some? This is an amazing technological improvement, it will be interesting to see what happens in the future with this. This is a quite good article on how it works http://news.discovery.com/autos/how-google-self-driving-car-works-111018.html

Because the car records it's position using the GPS, if a black hacker is able to get hold of this information the owner of the car could be put at risk.

25 January 2012 Last updated at 12:23 ET O2 has apologised for a technical problem which caused users' phone numbers to be disclosed when using its mobile data. The company said it normally only passed numbers to "trusted partners". A problem during routine maintenance meant that from 10 January numbers could have been seen by other websites.

As mentioned above the the issue concerned about in this article is privacy as peoples information (mobile phone numbers) are displayed on websites without their consent. Obviously the fact of having others know personal information may leave people concerned, however they must be aware that their personal information is spread all over the internet. From pictures on facebook to a gmail/youtube accounts peoples names, adresses and surnames are most likely known by some companies. Google and Facebook holds personal information that belongs to each one of us. What companies like such do to profit from this is sell a list of names, adresses and emails to third party which will then have means of communication with us to advertise their products and this is responsible for some of the spam we receive. The solution for this specific scenario of mobile phones isn't very clear, although it has been fixed no way of how it could of been prevented was suggested. Perhaps a the server could be shut down while it was under maintenance and another one should've been running in the meanwhile. Clearly the issue here had nothing to do with the mobile phone users and there was nothing they could have done as they were unnaware of the situation. I personally believe that privacy does not exist on the internet. It someone wishes to have privacy then the safest way to go do so is to not use/be connected to the internet. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/30/when-it-comes-to-cell-phone-privacy-youre-an-open-book/ Shows how mobile phones can cause privacy issues and how police officers now have gadgets that allows then to see everything that a person has done in their mobile phone, this clearly violates peoples privacy.

I would just like to mention that I posted this, not fiche galinha -.- diigo is trolling me.

"Data that sheds light on how laws and policies affect Internet users and the flow of information online."