Filed under: News

A UK regulatory body has cleared Google of stealing users' personal data via Wi-Fi snooping from its Street View vehicles. Google admitted that it mistakenly snooped packets of data from open Wi-Fi hotspots while taking photos for Street View, and it turned over the data to several governments who wanted to investigate exactly what had been collected. The UK Information Commissioner's Office concluded that the data Google ended up with was "not significant."

This doesn't let Google off the hook in Germany, Australia, or any of the other countries that have opened investigations, but it's a good sign for the company. According to the BBC, the UK ICO couldn't find any case where an individual could have been harmed or compromised by the data that Google gathered, but they said that the company was still "wrong" to collect it.

There's no exploitation in play here, just the wholesale harvesting and presentation of superficial data for roughly one-fifth of Facebook's half-billion strong user-base.

Ron Bowes, of Skull Security, posted the torrent to the Pirate Bay after realizing that his pet project had become something that others might be interested in. He had basically crawled the Facebook directory, and indexed the results. What he got was a list 171 million entries long, representing 100 million unique users, their names, and their Facebook URLs. He packaged it all into a database and posted the 2.8GB file as a torrent.

It's important to note that there isn't any other information in the database. Shortly after word got out about the torrent, the BBC posted a story about it, and quoted a random user in the comments section as stating that it was "awesome and a little terrifying." Honestly, the only thing terrifying about any of this is the thought of going through the Facebook directory. Seriously, I looked, and there are so many people with my name that I would never find myself.

Bowes has stated that, though there isn't any real information aside from names and a URLs in the database, any number of contact details may be present on a user's Facebook page -- it all depends on how that user has his privacy settings set. Basically, with this database in hand, a potentially malicious user could sift through all the names and come across the user he was looking for, see that user's Facebook landing-page (the little page with their name, picture, and a few friends) -- and that's about it.

But regardless of the harmless nature of the database, this torrent has become a big deal, because simply being in the cavernous Facebook directory is an option in itself. Now that there's a torrent containing the most basic contact information for 100 million users, that particular privacy setting has become null for the users on that list.

So, in the end, this is just one more reminder for everybody on Facebook to check their privacy settings.

Just when Facebook was riding high on the publicity from its upcoming movie and its 500 millionth user, a lawsuit popped up, claiming that Mark Zuckerberg signed away half the company back in 2003.

Facebook has taken a look at the supposed contract between Zuckerberg and a guy who supposedly hired him to build the original "The Face Book" site when he was at Harvard, and they "strongly suspect" Zuck's signature was forged.

This is just another entry in the long line of drama over who really owns the golden goose that is Facebook. Zuckerberg's former Harvard friends and collaborators have also claimed he stole Facebook from them, and those stories turned into the upcoming Hollywood movie The Social Network.

Paul Ceglia, the guy on the other side of this supposed contract, has some problems, even if the signature is real. It's been almost 7 years since the $1000 contract, and Facebook's value has grown tremendously in that time, making it unlikely that a judge would award anywhere near half of the company's current worth. Ceglia has also been indicted for fraud before, as recently as 2009, for a bad deal involving heating equipment. Whatever your feelings are about Zuckerberg's reliability, Ceglia isn't exactly a model of trustworthiness either.

[via Wired]

This one's a bit on the hilarious side, just giving you fair warning.

If you thought Rupert Murdoch was ridiculous with his quest to erect paywalls around his online news empire, you're in for a surprise. The Sun Chronicle, a small-time newspaper in Massachusetts, is instituting a paywall this week that's even more pretentious than the likes of which we've yet seen.

They're making people pay to comment on news stories posted to their website.

Apparently the news staff had become so sick of riling commenters that it killed its comments system completely back in April. After months of mulling over his options, publisher Oreste P. D'Arconte has decided that the best way to enforce rules in comments is to rid them of anonymity. The best way to be sure that users are using their real names? Charge them a one-time payment of $0.99 and make them use a valid credit card, of course!

Now readers in the Attleboro, MA area will need to pay the paper to voice their opinions, and the name on their credit cards will be automatically used for their comment signatures. On top of that, their addresses will be used to state the neighborhoods in which they live, just to be sure that there's no ambiguity (oh, that Fred T. Johnson). The paper goes on to state that anybody getting a little too uppity will be permanently banned from the site.

I understand having mixed feelings for Web commenters, but really... ?

[via The Guardian]

The US was buzzing for months after Google announced that it was planning an experimental high-speed fiber network, but these days it seems like the project's been all but forgotten about. Breathing new life back into it again, Google has now created a new site: Google Fiber for Communities.

The new site combines related sources of information dealing with fiber technology, broadband in general, and community-action resources that people can use to start getting their own hometowns ready for a much-needed upgrade to the tubes. Basically, it's a site meant to educate the public about faster broadband, and what needs to happen for everybody to have access to it.

At this point in time, over 1,100 communities across the country have responded to Google's initial request for information, but the company's keeping mum on which towns or cities are at the top of their list. They say that a final decision should be made by the end of this year.

While the whole site is useful for people just learning about the project, the new FAQ is just about all anybody could ever need to get brought up to speed (no pun intended).

At the beginning of the month, we told you how Google's license to operate in China was up for renewal. Well, that renewal has finally come through, and Google will be allowed to stay in the country. The search giant had temporarily redirected its Chinese site to Google.hk in Hong Kong, to avoid censorship, but ended the redirect to make sure the renewal went through.

It's not surprising that Google got its license approved again, especially after making that concession, but it is surprising that the company says it will still provide unfiltered results. " Users can conduct web search or continue to use Google.cn services like music and text translate, which we can provide locally without filtering." Not all of Google's services are available through Google.cn, though, so even though there's no longer an automatic redirect, there's still a link to Google.hk on Google's Chinese homepage.

Just weeks ago, Australia received its very first female Prime Minister. It was a surprising bit of news, and it came just after word had broken out that the "toxic" issue of government-run Internet-censorship was set to be shelved. Unfortunately, Julia Gillard is not the shiny new PM that everyone had hoped she would be. She wants to push forward with the much-hated Internet filter, and doesn't see what all the fuss is about.

Gillard's stance on the issue is pretty simple: Since Aussies can't legally go and see child porn in a movie theater, or catch it on cable, or buy it at the news stands, then they obviously shouldn't be allowed to look for it online, either. The problem with that point of view, aside from it being unabashedly naive, is that it's ignoring the fact that a blacklist simply won't work for the purpose of deterring predators. That's omitting the countless other arguments against such a filter, which is an idea so beyond rational that it's simply indefensible.

This filter is of course completely separate from the proposed legislation for a data retention directive, which would have Australian ISPs logging all traffic data for up to 10 years if hard-liners get their way. If the two plans ever come to fruition, Australia would be more like Iran, China and North Korea than any other modern society as far as the Internet is concerned.

While there's no shortage of people ready and willing to fight any legislation that provides mandatory Internet-filtering for all Australians, the fact remains that those in power are the same people who concocted the whole idea in the first place. Gillard tries to draw a distinction between what is -- and what isn't -- a "legitimate use of the Internet." Once a government starts believing it can decide something as basic as that, the slippery slope begins to take shape, cliches be damned.

The Sydney Morning Herald via Tech Eye. (Image: Australia.to)

More sad news from the world of journalism: looks like Time Magazine is experimenting with putting its web content behind a very odd type of paywall starting with the next issue. Instead of being able to pay for a subscription to read the full content of Time in their browsers, web visitors see the beginning of each article, and this:

"The following is an abridged version of an article that appears in the July 12, 2010 print and iPad editions of Time."

Wait, so ... what if I don't have an iPad, and I think print is dead? I guess Time just doesn't want money from people like that. Paywalls are bad enough, but turning the website into an ad for the iPad and dead-tree editions of the magazine is pretty extreme. Not every article in the magazine is cut short, but all the major ones appear to be. I really hope Time reverses course on this, and at least offers online subscriptions as part of their paywall.

Of course, whether it's smart to have a paywall at all is another issue altogether.

iPhone users have fallen victim to rogue developers who are hacking accounts and using them to buy fake apps, stealing Apple customers' money and driving up the popularity of their useless apps at the same time. TheNextWeb has a thorough report on the scams, along with plenty of testimony from users who say they've been duped out of hundreds of dollars. At first, it seemed like this ripoff was being run by one developer, based in Asia and using fake website and support links. That account was shut down, but there are multiple "app farms" out there engaging in similar behavior.

Some apps take the scam a step further: they sell for free, and then steal your money with in-app purchases (beware of an app called World War). To make sure you haven't been hacked, check your purchase history in iTunes for suspicious activity. As a precaution, it also doesn't hurt to change your account password and remove any saved credit card info. If you've already been scammed, call Apple and your bank and try to stop the purchases from clearing.

If you need more info, TheNextWeb has details on a few of the specific app farms, as well as a good overview of the scam.


UPDATE: Here's a statement from Storm8, one of the companies on TheNextWeb's app farm list.

Most of our games have been on the App Store for over a year. Our games are free to download and play. Like many apps from iTunes, we offer certain virtual goods (like Honor Points) for sale through In-App Purchase. They are an optional part of the game, and serve to enhance various aspects of user experience and game play. In no case do users have to buy points to use our free applications.

Looks like there may have been some exaggeration on TheNextWeb's part in this company's case, but it's still a good idea to be careful of in-app purchases. Also, it still seems sketchy to have so many identical apps, just with different point totals (and different prices) attached.

Search Google for "stock photography" and you will get an endless list of results. There's no shortage of sites trying to make money off the work of stock photographers, and apparently no shortage to drab sites and blogs who seek out the stockiest images, despite the fact that it all looks like the same clip-art that was used in 1996. Finding truly good images usually requires a lengthy search through the annals of Flickr, DeviantArt, and other sites not actually meant to provide stock photos. Stocky aims to bridge the gap between quality content and traditional stock photography -- but right now it's only a project on Kickstarter.

The idea behind Stocky seems to be that all creative media can be exchanged freely and collaboratively in an open, engaging environment. Photography isn't alone in this; if the project ever comes to fruition, Stocky would also incorporate video, vectors, Photoshop brushes, audio samples, design templates, fonts, and just about anything else that an artist or designer could create and hope to share. So, if you're an avid user of the Share and Share Alike type of IP licensing, then you might be interested in a new service like this.

The project was posted to Kickstarter about a week ago, but has yet to receive any notable pledges. It's currently sitting at under $100 USD, which is quite a distance from the $5000 goal. The deadline for pledges is July 28, and no funding will go to the project if the goal isn't met by then -- so if you're interested, pledge!

You may remember that, back in May of this year, the Swedish Pirate Party became the new ISP of the Pirate Bay. That alone was not only surprising, but proved to be politically spectacular in the rawest sense of the word. Now the Pirate Party wants to take their stand even further, and plans to use a section of the Swedish Constitution to allow them to host the seemingly indefatigable TPB from inside Parliament.

The Party announced their plan in a blog post at their official site on Friday. They state that while there shouldn't be a need for such drastic action, that hosting the torrent site from within the walls of Swedish Parliament would carry "an important symbolic value." There's not much doubt that they're right about symbolism there.

The Party references a section of the Swedish Constitution that protects MP's from prosecution if they're acting in accordance with their political mandate. In this case, hosting the Pirate Bay would not only fall under that wide umbrella, but would also provide a measure of immunity that would be much harder to crack than ever before.

Whether or not the Party will be able to pull this off hinges on the coming September elections, which as TorrentFreak points out, currently shows a 4% gap that needs to be filled for the party to get a seat. Given their success last year in winning a seat in the EU Parliament, I'd say they've got a decent chance.

Google's been putting out some pretty decent informational videos over the last couple of years, and yesterday they turned their sights on the hardest targets around: Our grandmothers. Granted, the idea behind this video likely applies to more mothers than grandmothers, it's still a good point that Google's making here -- the generation gap is pretty wide when it comes to technology.

So, aside from making yet another cute video to tout one of their many services, the folks over at Google have made a solid, timely point in bringing up how easy it is to implement visual chat in today's tech-saturated world. If your parents, grandparents, or tech-illiterate brothers and sisters have so much as a webcam and an email Gmail account, then you can give them quality face-time no matter where you are in the world.

Unless, of course, you can walk your grandmother through a Skype installation.

Wednesday was a big day for Google in China. It's the deadline for a renewal of the search giant's Internet Content Provider license, the license that allows Google to keep operating in China. On Monday, Google explained in a blog post that it would stop redirecting traffic from Google.cn to its Hong Kong site, Google.hk, because China was displeased with the redirect and unlikely to approve Google's license if it stayed in place.

On Wednesday, Google reported that its search results were "partially blocked" in China. Google's search recommendations, showing related searches, were inaccessible to Chinese surfers, but regular Google results seemed to be unaffected. There's no official news on the status of Google's license yet, but some serious drama will undoubtedly ensue if it's not renewed.

[via Marketwatch]

There's been quite a few sensational headlines cropping up around the Web lately about a new bill that's abuzz in the Senate. The title of that bill is Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, or PCNAA. It's a pretty big piece of legislation for the Internet as a whole, but nowhere inside it will you find mention of an Internet "kill switch." At least, not in so many words.

The full-text version of the bill is available as a 197-page PDF, and there are additional breakdowns of the bill available at a site put up by the Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs.

Yesterday, the bill was unanimously approved by Senate Committee, and will now make its way to the Senate floor for a full vote. Critics have all but run to the streets with end of the world is nigh signs, and headlines in everything from newspapers to tech blogs (and right back 'round to news blogs) haven't exactly helped matters, either. There's no doubt that the bill is wide-ranging, but there is no wording within it that should automatically be construed as "providing the President with an Internet kill switch."

What the bill does say is that, should it be passed, the DHS would spawn a new agency called the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications. This NCCC would become the focal point for all things "cybersecurity" at the national level, and would act as go-between for the government and the private sector. Private companies (like ISP's) would also be asked for data that could be used to diagnose security holes. The rest of the private sector, or more specifically, the heads of Internet-related tech firms in the private sector, would lend their expertise in situations that might take place in the event of a major "cyber attack."