If you thought Blizzard was boneheaded for expecting its forum members to agree to use their real names when posting in threads, wait until you hear this. The Sun Chronicle is taking this bad idea -- the same one that Blizzard quickly reversed course on when common sense, and a public backlash, prevailed -- a step further. Readers who want to leave a comment on a story not only have to use but their real names, but fork over a buck to verify their identity and share their thoughts. What. The. Frak.
"To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, all posters will be required to register their name, address, phone number, email and a legitimate credit card number as proof of who you are," reads a message in the comments section of thesunchronicle.com. "Your credit card will be charged a one-time fee of 99 cents to activate the account. We will not retain payment information after the one-time transaction."
It doesn't stop there.
"The poster's name as it appears on the credit card will automatically be attached to the poster's comments, as will the city/town and state of the community in which they live."
The idea here is to cut back on trolling without having to outright ban comments, Nevertheless, something tells us this one isn't going to sit well with privacy advocates.
What do you think about The Sun Chronicle's policy?
Okay, they don't know exactly who you are, but these high-tech advertizing platforms can determine what sort of person you might be. A consortium of 11 railway companies are running a one year trial called the Digital Signage Promotion Project. The billboards will be able to scan individuals and determine their age and gender.
The identification process is apparently quite fast, requiring that people only glance at the display for a moment. Facial recognition software is used to determine who is viewing the advertisement, but the images captured are supposed to be deleted afterward. Operators will not be matching ads to individual people, only to demographics. So, we're still a ways away from the Minority Report system that remembers your purchases.
So exactly how weird does this seem to you? We're constantly being advertised to on the internet based on our demographics. Is it just the image capture element that makes these new billboards feel shady?
Adding insult to injury, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) inadvertently shared potentially thousands of emails from gamers who wrote to complain about Blizzard's short lived policy of requiring its forum members use their real names. Oops!
Yesterday we sent an e-mail to a number of consumers who wrote to us in recent days expressing their concern with respect to Blizzard's Real ID program. Given the large number of messages we received, we decided to respond with a mass e-mail so those who'd written us would receive our response as quickly as possible - rather than responding to each message individually, as is our usual practice.
Through an unfortunate error by one of our employees, some recipients were able to see the e-mail addresses of others who wrote on the same issue. Needless to say, it was never our intention to reveal this information and for that we are genuinely sorry. Those who write to ESRB to express their views expect and deserve to have their contact and personal information protected. In this case, we failed to do so and are doing everything we can to ensure it will not happen again in the future.
The fact that our message addressed individuals' concerns with respect to their privacy underscores how truly disappointing a mistake this was on our part. We work with companies to ensure they are handling people's private information with confidentiality, care and respect. It is only right that we set a good example and do no less ourselves.
We sincerely apologize to those who were affected by this error and appreciate their understanding.
NZXT Product Manager and Co-Founder Johnny Hou this morning sent out a letter that wasn't quite as seething as the one Cleveland Cavaliers majority owner posted online after LeBron James skipped town, but almost as defiant. With the subject line "NZXT Still Kicking Ass and Thriving," Hou wrote:
To our friends and loyal customers in the PC enthusiast community,
Yesterday at 7:30 PM PST the NZXT website was infiltrated illegally. While having access to the site, hackers made several malicious changes including sending out an erroneous newsletter to our database claiming that NZXT is going out of business. They also changed product warranties, deleted product and home page banners, etc.
Well, I’m happy to report that NZXT is NOT going out of business and to the contrary we are more excited than ever to be a part of this tremendous industry. We are poised to launch several highly anticipated products over the next two months including the Phantom full tower case we unveiled at Computex. We feel this will provide enthusiasts with one of the most fresh and unique case designs in quite some time.
I’d like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere gratitude to the community for your ongoing support of NZXT. We design our products based on what you need to build a stellar PC and welcome your feedback as to how we can help your computing experience be as enjoyable as possible. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions.
Best regards, Johnny Hou
The source of the attack is unknown, and so is the intent, which may have simply been to stir up a bit of trouble or to pick a bone with NZXT. Either way, NZXT fans who may have read gloom and doom scenarios prior to today can breathe a sigh of a relief.
At the behest of Britain's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), Facebook has finally agreed to install a "panic button" application on its site, the social networking service announced today.
Once installed, UK teens will see the app on their homepage indicating "they are in control."
"By adding this application, Facebook users will have direct access to all the services that sit behind our ClickCEOP button which should provide reassurance to every parent with teenagers on the site," said Jim Gamble, chief executive of CEOP. "We know from speaking to offenders that a visible deterrent could protect young people online."
So-called panic buttons, which are already in use on social networking sites Bebo and MySpace, has been a feature Facebook previously felt it could do without. However, the site has been under near constant pressure from the UK following the murder of a teenage girl in 2009 from a Facebook member who posed as a young boy to lure her to her death.
According to Cyber-Ark's fourth annual "Trust, Security, and Passwords" survey, IT staff are finding it increasingly difficult to avoid the temptation to snoop other people's PCs.
The survey pinged 400 IT professionals from all corners of the U.S. and U.K., most of which work for enterprise-size businesses. Of those, 67 percent said they access confidential information not relevant to their jobs.
But that isn't all. Some 41 percent of those surveyed admitted to abusing administrative passwords to spy on sensitive or confidential information, up from 31 percent over the last two years, Cyber-Ark says. IT staff in the U.S. said they're most interested in peeking at the customer database, while those in the U.K. were more concerned with looking at their internal HR records.
Adeniyi Adeyemi, a 27-year-old former IT worker for the Bank of New York, made away with some $1.1 million from charity bank accounts after stealing personal information for 2,000 bank employees, and now must face the legal repercussions for doing so.
According to a press release issued by the York City District Attorney, Adeyemi came clean with what he'd done and pleaded guilty to grand larceny, money laundering, and computer tampering. As the press release tells it, Adeyemi used his position as a computer technician at the bank's headquarters to steal the personal identifying information of 2,000 employees, almost all of which worked in the IT department.
This went on for eight years, during which time he set up dummy bank accounts used to transfer stolen funds from no less than 11 charities worldwide. After using publicly available routing numbers for the charities, he would then transfer the funds to a second tier of dummy accounts to better hide his tracks, the press release said.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave a speech in London today, and was predictably asked about a rumored Google social network. Ever the clever businessman, Schmidt simply replied, " That would be a product announcement, and I won’t say." So he's saying it's a product? Well, at least that's the way the interwebs are taking it.
Rumors have been swirling for the past few days that Google is working feverishly to rollout a Facebook competitor called Google Me. There are no real details on the service as of yet, but Google's track record in social isn't very good. Orkut has not seen wide spread use, and the Buzz messaging service opened to major privacy concerns. Whatever Google is working on, hopefully they are taking a different approach.
We'd place our money on this being some sort of expansion of Google Profiles, which have always felt underused. Maybe Buzz would find a new life as a service integrated into Google Me. For now, we'll just have to wait and see. If you have any theories, let us know.
For the first time ever, Google has gone and pushed the big red button labeled "Remote Application Removal." In doing so, the sultan of search remotely wiped out a pair of free apps from hundreds of Android smartphones, and felt justified in doing so because the apps ran afoul of Android's Terms of Service (TOS), Google said.
Jon Oberheide, the developer who coded the apps and voluntarily removed them from the Android Market after Google asked him to, described the software as proof-of-concept programs. Oberheide says he wanted to find out if how difficult (or easy) it would be to distribute apps that could later be used to launch an attack and seize control of handsets.
"An attacker who develops legitimate-looking apps and distributes them on the Android Market could gather a large install base and if there was a vulnerability within the Android operating system or Linux (upon which Android is based) the attacker can phone home to see if there is an exploit to download and push it out to all the phones he controls and take complete control of the phone via the kernel," said Oberheide, who works at a security start up called Scio Security.
Those who installed one of Oberheide's apps -- one of which was disguised as a preview of the Twilight Saga: Eclipse movie -- received a message that read "Hello World."
While Oberheide's apps were harmless, they could have just as easily been malicious. This all begs the question, should Google have exercised, or ever exercise, its right to push the big red button and nuke your apps from afar? Users seem split on this one, with some saying it's no big deal, while others are downright pissed that Google would use its authority on harmless apps.
What's your opinion? Hit the jump and tell us what you think.
A US Senate committee today approved an expansive cyber security bill that many fear could harm the Internet. The legislation can now move on to the Senate floor for a vote, where it will likely pass. Some have suggested the bill would allow the President to shut down parts of the Internet in the event of a terrorist attack. The so-called Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act is backed by several Senators, but Joseph Lieberman has been perhaps its staunchest supporter.
Backers of the legislation say that there is no provision for an "Internet kill-switch" as some have warned. Instead the bill only expands existing powers of the President to close "any facility or stations for wire communication" in case of war. The main purpose of the law would be to establish a centralized White House Office for Cyberspace Policy. Through this office, network operators could be ordered to implement emergency response plans in the event of attack. We suppose that could mean shutting something down, but the bill is unclear.
The vagueness of the bill is what concerns civil libertarians and security experts so much. It's true the bill would expand executive authority over communication infrastructure, but it is not entirely clear what is covered. There may not be a straight up "Internet kill-switch" in the bill, but we can't help but feel a little fretful about it. Where do you come down?