Bingo. It is the collection of your router's unique wireless MAC address and publishing the MAC address along with its geographic coordinates that is the real problem. When people wake up to the issue, Google is going to have a major problem.
You can hide your router's SSID, you can turn on encryption, you can change the default password, but you can't hide your router's wireless MAC address. If you could, it would not be possible for even you to connect to your own wireless router.
I plugged in my router's wireless MAC address to a web page that queried Google and it pointed out exactly where I live. Suppose I was being stalked and had moved as a result? Plug back in my router, a friendly Google Android phone with location services enabled picks up the signal, sends it to Google and my new location is now published on the internet without my knowledge or consent.
Anyone who says this isn't a privacy issue is not thinking very deeply about the subject. If I know your physical address, it does not take much to find out a whole lot more.
The real problem is accepting as legitimate the practice of gathering what *should be* private information and publishing the information on the Internet. Google claims that "it makes it easier for cell phones to know where they are located". Read: It makes it easier for Google to target Android users with more profitable location based advertising.
Google, nor anyone else has the right to use my personal access point without my permission. And Google does not have the right to catalog and publish my router's unique MAC address and its exact location on the Internet.
Lets suppose Google made a list of automobile license tags it spotted and published where the tags were seen. Think they could get away with it? The only difference I see is that the license tag is visible to humans. Your router's wireless MAC Address is just as unique as your car tag however you can't see it. But your cell phone sure can.
Want more? Check out "How I Met Your Girlfriend part 3/3" on YouTube. Then tell me this isn't a big deal.
Could Google not go on the offensive by listing censored results and providing a link that leads not to the censored content, but to a page explaining that the government is afraid of the content?
How does Google respond to a subpoena issued as a result of a legal action. Example: Law enforcement obtains the Google cookie ID and requests information from Google in an attempt to prove prior intent for some action. What about the insurance company that wants to prove someone knew of a pre-existing medical condition, but didn't bother to disclose it?
"...the company has been in contact with the spammer via ICQ and that the spammer had claimed that he had carried out what he called a "backbone subversion" attack against a tier-one IP backbone."
Sony needs to recall every last one of the Mediamax CDs and do a better job on the recall than they did on XCP. XCP CDs were still being sold at my local Walmart this week. They were supposedly recalled a month ago.
It might not be possible to put the genie back in the bottle, but the record companies might have a chance of staying in the game if they would reduce the price of CDs to between $5 and $7.
Sure, they would earn less per CD, but they would reduce the incentive to pirate CDs. Most experts agree that the "lack of value to the consumer" is what is driving most casual piracy.
If you could buy the CD for five bucks wouldn't you rather have an original than a copy of a CD?
Open Office 2.0/StarOffice8 do not make it easy to configure defaults. The first time any user opens the program on a given computer they are greeted with a EULA, and series of configuration screens. File save formats will default to OpenDoc. One possible solution is to use scripting to copy the setup.xcu file from a fully configured user to the profile of each user. This approach turns out to be rather clumsy. A solution that works involves modifying the installation files so that OO2/StarOffice8 sets up and configures each user with the desired defaults.
I posted one possible solution to the OpenOffice.org forum on November 9th. Link here:
The following is for Windows System admins who want to maintain their sanity while transitioning users from MS Office to OpenOffice2 or StarOffice8. The idea is to introduce OO/Star without requiring an immediate switch to a new document format and to allow users to begin using OO2 or StarOffice8 without having to accept a license agreement and answer questions they may not know how to answer.
Depending whether you are using StarOffice8 or OpenOffice.org 2.0 - Do the following on workstation after a a fresh installation of OO2 or StarOffice8::
Add these lines to "C:\Program Files\Sun\StarOffice 8\share\registry\data\org\openoffice\Setup.xcu" at line 38: ((OR)) Add these lines to "C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 2.0\share\registry\data\org\openoffice\Setup.xcu" at line 38:
In C:\Program Files\Sun\StarOffice 8\share\registry\modules\org\openoffice\Setup ((O R)) In C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 2.0\share\registry\modules\org\openoffice\Setup Locate file: Setup-calc.xcu Replace " calc8" with "MS Excel 97"
Locate file: Setup-impress.xcu Replace " impress8" with " MS PowerPoint 97"
Locate file: Setup-writer.xcu Replace "writerglobal8" with " MS Word 97" **see note below** Replace "writer8" with " MS Word 97"
After this is done, I suggest storing the modified files with the OO/StarOffice8 installation (CD, Network share etc.). Write a post-installation batch file to replace these files on target computers immediately after installation.
You may want to change out the respective files in the installation.cab files in the distribution. Doing so will eliminate the need for a post-installation script.
The result is that all users of the target computer (new and existing) will not be prompted for user information on first use and will have the default file format set for compatibility with Microsoft Office 97/2000/XP. (This does not prevent the user from changing the default file save format any time she chooses)
Then go forth - install and evangelize! Sell your users on the fact that OO/StarOffice8 is an *upgrade* from MS office. After about a year, go back and switch to OpenDoc and the battle is won.
**note**
I still have lingering questions about changing the ext.GlobalDocument ooSetupFactoryDefaultFilter from "writerglobal8" to "MS Word 97. It would be good for someone to test this to see if it is the right thing to do..
good point...
maybe it should have been "by exploit, trickery, or seduction".
Perhaps what is needed for affiliates to present something like the following:
YES - I want to see more ads..
YES - I want to screw up my computer
YES - I want you to screw up my computer again if I try to fix it
YES - I trust you to install more software goodies whenever you want
YES -.........
Seriously, I wonder what percentage of affiliates installation would fall into each category. (exploit, trickery, seduction, or the user actually agrees that the adware/spyware is worth it)
Seems like the feds could clean all of this up by launching a quick investigation into *every* affiliate of the spyware/adware companies. The only way an affiliate can get someone to load this junk is by trickery or exploit.
" This will be interesting as soon as spyware starts using rootkits in windows."
Already has... and on my VmWare Windows 2K test machine it causes a crash when RootkitRevealer runs. The malware is msupd5.exe or msupd6.exe.
On an infected machine you cannot see the malware in the file system, nor in the registry (at least with any utility I tried). The malware installs a kernel level driver in %SYSTEM%\System32\Drivers and several files in the System32 directory plus a couple of hidden BHO's. Although the files could be seen from safe mode, the infection on my machine never shows up in hijack this logs in any mode. Spooky.
Microsoft has an article about the crash in KB 894278
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. It is the collection of your router's unique wireless MAC address and publishing the MAC address along with its geographic coordinates that is the real problem. When people wake up to the issue, Google is going to have a major problem.
You can hide your router's SSID, you can turn on encryption, you can change the default password, but you can't hide your router's wireless MAC address. If you could, it would not be possible for even you to connect to your own wireless router.
I plugged in my router's wireless MAC address to a web page that queried Google and it pointed out exactly where I live. Suppose I was being stalked and had moved as a result? Plug back in my router, a friendly Google Android phone with location services enabled picks up the signal, sends it to Google and my new location is now published on the internet without my knowledge or consent.
Anyone who says this isn't a privacy issue is not thinking very deeply about the subject. If I know your physical address, it does not take much to find out a whole lot more.
The real problem is accepting as legitimate the practice of gathering what *should be* private information and publishing the information on the Internet. Google claims that "it makes it easier for cell phones to know where they are located". Read: It makes it easier for Google to target Android users with more profitable location based advertising.
Google, nor anyone else has the right to use my personal access point without my permission. And Google does not have the right to catalog and publish my router's unique MAC address and its exact location on the Internet.
Lets suppose Google made a list of automobile license tags it spotted and published where the tags were seen. Think they could get away with it? The only difference I see is that the license tag is visible to humans. Your router's wireless MAC Address is just as unique as your car tag however you can't see it. But your cell phone sure can.
Want more? Check out "How I Met Your Girlfriend part 3/3" on YouTube. Then tell me this isn't a big deal.
Could Google not go on the offensive by listing censored results and providing a link that leads not to the censored content, but to a page explaining that the government is afraid of the content?
How does Google respond to a subpoena issued as a result of a legal action. Example: Law enforcement obtains the Google cookie ID and requests information from Google in an attempt to prove prior intent for some action. What about the insurance company that wants to prove someone knew of a pre-existing medical condition, but didn't bother to disclose it?
Does Google simply fork over the information?
Here's the AG's site: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/apr/apr04a_0 6.html
But the real fun is in reading the actual complaint. It is clear the AG does not think highly of Direct Revenue.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/apr/Direct%2 0Revenue%20Affirmation%20of%20Justin%20Brookman.pd f
Caution... large PDF, but a fascinating read.
Sony needs to recall every last one of the Mediamax CDs and do a better job on the recall than they did on XCP. XCP CDs were still being sold at my local Walmart this week. They were supposedly recalled a month ago.
It might not be possible to put the genie back in the bottle, but the record companies might have a chance of staying in the game if they would reduce the price of CDs to between $5 and $7. Sure, they would earn less per CD, but they would reduce the incentive to pirate CDs. Most experts agree that the "lack of value to the consumer" is what is driving most casual piracy. If you could buy the CD for five bucks wouldn't you rather have an original than a copy of a CD?
Open Office 2.0/StarOffice8 do not make it easy to configure defaults. The first time any user opens the program on a given computer they are greeted with a EULA, and series of configuration screens. File save formats will default to OpenDoc. One possible solution is to use scripting to copy the setup.xcu file from a fully configured user to the profile of each user. This approach turns out to be rather clumsy. A solution that works involves modifying the installation files so that OO2/StarOffice8 sets up and configures each user with the desired defaults.
p html?t=24737&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid =5c103f13a5f7aa0f198eb26452b22b36
< /value>
o p>
O R))
.cab files in the distribution. Doing so will eliminate the need for a post-installation script.
.
I posted one possible solution to the OpenOffice.org forum on November 9th. Link here:
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.
The following is for Windows System admins who want to maintain their sanity while transitioning users from MS Office to OpenOffice2 or StarOffice8. The idea is to introduce OO/Star without requiring an immediate switch to a new document format and to allow users to begin using OO2 or StarOffice8 without having to accept a license agreement and answer questions they may not know how to answer.
Depending whether you are using StarOffice8 or OpenOffice.org 2.0 - Do the following on workstation after a a fresh installation of OO2 or StarOffice8::
Add these lines to "C:\Program Files\Sun\StarOffice 8\share\registry\data\org\openoffice\Setup.xcu" at line 38:
((OR))
Add these lines to "C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 2.0\share\registry\data\org\openoffice\Setup.xcu" at line 38:
<prop oor:name="LicenseAcceptDate" oor:type="xs:string">
<value>2005-11-05T18:30:11
</prop>
<prop oor:name="FirstStartWizardCompleted" oor:type="xs:boolean">
<value>true</value>
</pr
In C:\Program Files\Sun\StarOffice 8\share\registry\modules\org\openoffice\Setup
((
In C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 2.0\share\registry\modules\org\openoffice\Setup
Locate file: Setup-calc.xcu
Replace " calc8" with "MS Excel 97"
Locate file: Setup-impress.xcu
Replace " impress8" with " MS PowerPoint 97"
Locate file: Setup-writer.xcu
Replace "writerglobal8" with " MS Word 97" **see note below**
Replace "writer8" with " MS Word 97"
After this is done, I suggest storing the modified files with the OO/StarOffice8
installation (CD, Network share etc.). Write a post-installation batch file
to replace these files on target computers immediately after installation.
You may want to change out the respective files in the installation
The result is that all users of the target computer (new and existing) will
not be prompted for user information on first use and will have the
default file format set for compatibility with Microsoft Office 97/2000/XP.
(This does not prevent the user from changing the default file save format
any time she chooses)
Then go forth - install and evangelize!
Sell your users on the fact that OO/StarOffice8 is an *upgrade* from MS office.
After about a year, go back and switch to OpenDoc and the battle is won.
**note**
I still have lingering questions about changing the ext.GlobalDocument
ooSetupFactoryDefaultFilter from "writerglobal8" to "MS Word 97.
It would be good for someone to test this to see if it is the right
thing to do.
good point... .........
Seriously, I wonder what percentage of affiliates installation would fall into each category. (exploit, trickery, seduction, or the user actually agrees that the adware/spyware is worth it)
maybe it should have been "by exploit, trickery, or seduction". Perhaps what is needed for affiliates to present something like the following: YES - I want to see more ads.. YES - I want to screw up my computer YES - I want you to screw up my computer again if I try to fix it YES - I trust you to install more software goodies whenever you want YES -
"use it, and agree to the terms without thinking." might that be classified as "trickery"?
Seems like the feds could clean all of this up by launching a quick investigation into *every* affiliate of the spyware/adware companies. The only way an affiliate can get someone to load this junk is by trickery or exploit.
" This will be interesting as soon as spyware starts using rootkits in windows."
Already has... and on my VmWare Windows 2K test machine it causes a crash when RootkitRevealer runs. The malware is msupd5.exe or msupd6.exe.
On an infected machine you cannot see the malware in the file system, nor in the registry (at least with any utility I tried). The malware installs a kernel level driver in %SYSTEM%\System32\Drivers and several files in the System32 directory plus a couple of hidden BHO's. Although the files could be seen from safe mode, the infection on my machine never shows up in hijack this logs in any mode. Spooky.
Microsoft has an article about the crash in KB 894278
Regards.