Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Atari Online News, Etc. Volume 17 Issue 09
Volume 17, Issue 09 Atari Online News, Etc. February 27, 2015
Published and Copyright (c) 1999 - 2015
All Rights Reserved
Atari Online News, Etc.
A-ONE Online Magazine
Dana P. Jacobson, Publisher/Managing Editor
Joseph Mirando, Managing Editor
Rob Mahlert, Associate Editor
Atari Online News, Etc. Staff
Dana P. Jacobson -- Editor
Joe Mirando -- "People Are Talking"
Michael Burkley -- "Unabashed Atariophile"
Albert Dayes -- "CC: Classic Chips"
Rob Mahlert -- Web site
Thomas J. Andrews -- "Keeper of the Flame"
With Contributions by:
Fred Horvat
To subscribe to A-ONE, change e-mail addresses, or unsubscribe,
log on to our website at: www.atarinews.org
and click on "Subscriptions".
OR subscribe to A-ONE by sending a message to: dpj@atarinews.org
and your address will be added to the distribution list.
To unsubscribe from A-ONE, send the following: Unsubscribe A-ONE
Please make sure that you include the same address that you used to
subscribe from.
To download A-ONE, set your browser bookmarks to one of the
following sites:
http://people.delphiforums.com/dpj/a-one.htm
Now available:
http://www.atarinews.org
Visit the Atari Advantage Forum on Delphi!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atari/
=~=~=~=
A-ONE #1709 02/27/15
~ Superfish Removal Tool! ~ People Are Talking! ~ Google Chrome Update
~ Doom: Use Selfie Stick ~ Club Nintendo Details! ~ Lenovo.com Hacked!
~ EU Police Remove Botnet ~ HAL Wins Atari Games! ~ Google Scrubs Pwnium!
~ ISPs Plan Challenges! ~ Porn Loses, Then Wins! ~ Bitcoin Exchange Hack!
-* FCC Passes Net Neutrality! *-
-* Atari Pioneer Steve Bristow Passes! *-
-* NSA Director Wants Access to Encrypted Data *-
=~=~=~=
->From the Editor's Keyboard "Saying it like it is!"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Believe it or not, there weer no major snow storms here this week! I know,
I find it hard to believe myself, but it's true. However, the frigid
te,peratures continue to plague most of the Northeast, so little existing
snow is melting away! Supposedly, Spring arrives in three weeks! Sure,
perhaps according to the calendar!
Lots of important news coming your way this week. A lot of this week's
issue deals with the FCC's passage of their Net Neutrality regulations.
There's a lot to digest in these articles, so you may want to check them
out and then do so again to try and understand how these new regs affect
us all. I'll leave you all to that, so let's dive right in, shall we!
Until next time...
=~=~=~=
->In This Week's Gaming Section - New Mod Lets You Use a Selfie Stick in Doom!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Atari Pioneer Steve Bristow Passes Away!
HAL Wins: Bests Humans at 'Space Invaders'!
And more!
=~=~=~=
->A-ONE's Game Console Industry News - The Latest Gaming News!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
New Mod Lets You Use a Selfie Stick in Doom
Just when we thought the year of the selfie was coming to a close, the
selfie stick brought it all back. Now a modder is sending them to Mars.
InstaDoom is a new mod from DoomWorld user Linguica that adds a selfie
mode to the 22-year-old first-person shooter.
The ability to take a selfie, as seen in Grand Theft Auto V and The
Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker on Wii U, was a huge step up from simply
taking a screenshot in the gaming days of yore. It turned the act of
taking a picture into an action actually carried out by your character
in-game. But do you think Doomguy, master of ridiculous armaments and
wielder of the BFG, would be content with pedestrian arms-length
selfies?
Surely not. He carries a BFSS.
With the mod installed, certain weapon drops throughout the game have
been replaced with the selfie stick. It really ups your selfie gamejust
look at that framing!
Of course, the Mars-invading denizens of Hell respond about as well to
Doomguys selfie stick as we do to that tourist at the Met, so you might
have to put down the camera and defend yourself from time to time.
Luckily this leaves you with a nice pile of corpses to backdrop your next
shot. Remember to observe the rule of thirds!
Once youre done taking that shot, be sure to tweak it for maximum
Facebook impact by adding one of the 37 included Instagram-style hipster
color filters. Hell looks great in Valencia.
Club Nintendo Program Discontinuation Details
Important Information on Club Nintendo Program Discontinuation
Dear Club Nintendo members,
Thank you for your continued loyalty to Nintendo. We launched Club
Nintendo 6 years ago in North America, and were grateful for all of the
feedback that our members have provided on your experiences with our
products. In order to focus on planning for a new customer loyalty
program for our fans, weve decided to wind-down the Club Nintendo
program.
We are deeply thankful to our members for being a part of Club Nintendo
for all of these years. We will share details about our new program at a
later date. For now, please see the schedule below for information on the
discontinuation timeframe for Club Nintendo.
All Coins will be deleted when Club Nintendo accounts are closed on
July 1, 2015. As a result, to give our members the best opportunity to use
their Coins, we have added dozens of downloadable games and a limited
quantity of exclusive reward items to the rewards catalog. In addition, as
a small token of appreciation for your loyalty, all Club Nintendo members
are receiving a free download code for Flipnote Studio 3D.
Club Nintendo program discontinuation schedule
1/20/2015 Products released after this date are not eligible for
registration with Club Nintendo
3/31/2015 Last day to earn Coins, register products with Club Nintendo,
and sign up for new Club Nintendo membership
6/30/2015 Last day to redeem Coins or access your account on the Club
Nintendo website. Club Nintendo program shuts down at 11:59pm PT on
6/30/2015.
Your Account and Coin Balance
The information in your Club Nintendo account will not be transferred to
the new loyalty program. We have added multiple items to our reward
catalog, so please be sure to redeem your Coins before the deadline on
June 30, 2015. Unused Coins will be deleted as of July 1, 2015.
2015 Elite Status
In order to reach Elite Status, you must earn 300 Coins (for Gold Status)
or 600 Coins (for Platinum Status) between July 1, 2014 and March 31,
2015. Members who reach Elite Status will be able to choose a
downloadable game from a wide selection of Nintendo 3DS and Wii U
titles. Your free Elite Status gift will be available between April 1
and April 30, 2015. A list of the Elite Status 2015 gifts will be
posted once announced.
FAQs about Club Nintendo program discontinuation
How long can I keep earning Coins?
The last day to register products with Club Nintendo, take surveys, or
earn Coins is March 31, 2015. Surveys in your To-Do list will be deleted
after March 31, 2015, so please be sure to register products or take
surveys by that date. Please note that products released after January 20,
2015 cannot be registered at Club Nintendo, and will not be eligible for
surveys or Coins.
But I have a Club Nintendo PIN # that is valid past March 31, 2015.
Products cannot be registered after March 31, 2015, regardless of the
expiration date written on the PIN card.
Will the games I download still be registered with Club Nintendo?
Club Nintendo-eligible games that you download will continue to be
registered to your account automatically until March 31, 2015 if your
Nintendo eShop account is linked to your Club Nintendo account. After
that date, games will no longer be registered with Club Nintendo. To find
out which games you can register, please see Eligible Products.
When is the last day to join Club Nintendo?
You can join Club Nintendo until March 31, 2015.
When is the last day to redeem Coins on Club Nintendo?
The last day to redeem your Coins is June 30, 2015. Any unused Coins
will be deleted on July 1, 2015. We are offering a large number of
digital games, and select physical rewards, so we are sure you can find
something you like. Limited quantities are available for the physical
rewards, so please be sure to check out our Get Games & Rewards page for
each items availability.
What happens to my Coins if I don?t use them all?
Any unused Coins in your Club Nintendo account will be deleted on July 1,
2015.
When is the last day to get the download code for the digital games I
chose?
The last day to access your Club Nintendo account is June 30, 2015, so
please be sure to get your 16-digit download code(s) for any games youve
received before that date.
Will the download code ever expire?
Yes, all download codes redeemed from Club Nintendo will expire on July 31,
2015, so please be sure to download your game from the Nintendo eShop
before that date.
Do I need to cancel my membership?
No, your account will automatically be cancelled on July 1, 2015, so there
is no need for you to cancel your account.
=~=~=~=
->A-ONE Gaming Online - Online Users Growl & Purr!
"""""""""""""""""""
Atari Pioneer Steve Bristow Passes Away
Atari engineer Steve Bristow, an early employee who conceptualized
Breakout and was instrumental in designing the Atari 2600, has passed
away. Company founder Nolan Bushnell has previously described Bristow as
a games industry pioneer.
The Atari Museum's Marty Goldberg shared the news on Facebook. Bristow
died Sunday.
Bristow got his start at Atari working on arcade games, including Indy
800 and Tank. He later held a number of executive-level positions at the
company, including vice president of engineering where he helped birth
the popular Atari 2600 home console.
Prior to joining Atari, Bristow worked for Bushnell at Nutting Associates
as an intern on Computer Space, considered to be the world's first arcade
game.
Bristow officially left Atari in 1984.
Atari has changed dramatically since its heyday in the early eighties.
The company is moving forward under new management, and just recently
announced an Asteroids MMO for PC.
HAL Wins: Computer Program Bests Humans at 'Space Invaders'
Computers already have bested human champions in "Jeopardy!" and chess,
but artificial intelligence now has gone to master an entirely new level:
"Space Invaders."
Google scientists have cooked up software that can do better than humans
on dozens of Atari video games from the 1980s, like video pinball,
boxing, and 'Breakout.' But computers don't seem to have a ghost of a
chance at "Ms. Pac-Man."
The aim is not to make video games a spectator sport, turning couch
potatoes who play games into couch potatoes who watch computers play
games. The real accomplishment: computers that can teach themselves to
succeed at tasks, learning from scratch, trial and error, just like
humans.
The computer program, called Deep Q-network, wasn't given much in the way
of instructions to start, but in time it did better than humans in 29 out
of 49 games and in some cases, like video pinball, it did 26 times
better, according to a new study released Wednesday by the journal
Nature. It's a first time an artificial intelligence program bridged
different type of learning systems, said study author Demis Hassabis of
Google DeepMind in London.
Deep Q "can learn and adapt to unexpected things," Hassabis said in a
news conference. "These types of systems are more human-like in the way
they learn."
In the submarine game "Seaquest," Deep Q came up with a strategy that the
scientists had never considered.
"It's definitely fun to see computers discover things that you didn't
figure out yourself," said study co-author Volodymyr Mnih, also of
Google.
Sebastian Thrun, director of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at
Stanford University, who wasn't part of the research, said in an email:
"This is very impressive. Most people don't understand how far
(artificial intelligence) has come. And this is just the beginning."
Nothing about Deep Q is customized to Atari or to a specific game. The
idea is to create a "general learning system" that can figure tasks out
by trial and error and eventually to stuff even humans have difficulty
with, Hassabis said. This program, he said, "is the first rung of the
ladder."
Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Emma Brunskill, who
also wasn't part of the study, said this learning despite lack of
customization "brings us closer to having general purpose agents equipped
to work well at learning a large range of tasks, instead of just chess or
just 'Jeopardy!'"
To go from pixels on a screen to making decisions on what to do next,
without even a hint of pre-programmed guidance, "is really exciting,"
Brunskill said. "We do that as people."
The idea is that when the system gets scaled up, maybe it could work like
asking a phone to plan a complete trip to Europe, book all the flights
and hotels on its own "and it sorts it all out as if you have a personal
assistant," Hassabis said.
But to some ways of thinking, Deep Q wasn't even as smart as a toddler
because it can't transfer learned experiences from one situation to
another and it doesn't get abstract concepts, Hassabis said.
Deep Q had trouble with "Ms. Pac Man" and "Montezuma's Revenge" because
they are games that involve more planning ahead, he said.
Next, the scientists will try the system on more complicated games of the
1990s and beyond, perhaps a complicated game like "Civilization," where
gamers create an entire empire to see if it can stand the test of time.
Deep Q isn't showing what Hassabis would call creativity, he said: "I
would call it figuring out something that already existed in the world."
Creativity would be if the program created its own computer game,
Hassabis said. Artificial intelligence isn't there, he said.
At least not yet.
=~=~=~=
A-ONE's Headline News
The Latest in Computer Technology News
Compiled by: Dana P. Jacobson
FCC Chief Pressed To Release Net Neutrality Rules
A key Republican lawmaker in Congress called for Federal Communications
Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler to make proposed net neutrality
regulations public before a planned Thursday vote on the measure.
In the latest wrinkle in the Republicans' battle to quash Wheeler's
proposals, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who's also the chairman of the
House Oversight Committee, sent a letter today to Wheeler, questioning
whether the FCC has been "independent, fair and transparent" in crafting
the rules to protect content on the Internet.
"Although arguably one of the most sweeping new rules in the commission's
history, the process was conducted without using many of the tools at the
chairman's disposal to ensure transparency and public review," he said.
Chaffetz urged Wheeler to publicly release the 332-page draft order that
was given to the other four commissioners nearly three weeks ago and
appear at a House Oversight hearing Wednesday before a vote at the FCC's
monthly meeting Thursday.
Also, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for
Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday
vote to allow for 30 days of public comment.
He also asked Wheeler to reconsider testifying at a House Committee on
Oversight & Government Reform hearing Wednesday and allow for a period of
public review before the FCC votes on the regulations.
The FCC has been recasting net neutrality rules because the agency's 2010
rules were tossed out by a federal court last year. Rules for net
neutrality, or open Internet, would ensure that Internet service
providers (ISPs) give consumers access to all legal content and
applications on an equal basis, without favoring or blocking some
sources. The rules would also prohibit ISPs from allowing content
providers to pay to get speedier delivery of their content, a practice
known as "paid prioritization."
Sides have been drawn over how Wheeler has crafted the new rules. He
based the legal authority of his proposal on parts of both the
Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Consumer advocates supported the use of Title II of The Communications
Act to regulate ISPs as if the Net were a utility, as is traditional
telephone service. But critics say that could give the FCC too much
regulatory power.
Originally, Wheeler had planned a different approach, but changed his
strategy. His announcement of that shift came after President Obama in
November called for tough net neutrality rules based on Title II.
Since then, two congressional committee chairmen have asked Wheeler and
the FCC whether Obama exerted undue influence on the process. And draft
congressional legislation proposes a measure that supporters say would
be less intrusive because it doesn't rely on Title II, but would still
ban ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing content, as well as
prohibiting paid prioritization for fast lanes.
Earlier this month, FCC commissioner Pai called for Wheeler to make the
net neutrality proposal public. "With the future of the entire Internet
at stake, it is imperative that the FCC get this right," he and O'Rielly
said in their statement today. "And to do that, we must live up to the
highest standards of transparency."
In his response to an earlier congressional request to make the proposals
public, Wheeler said the FCC had received more than 4 million comments
and held six public roundtables. Releasing the rules before the
commission votes runs contrary to how federal agencies work, he said.
"If decades of precedent are to be changed, then there must be an
opportunity for thoughtful review in the lead up to any change,"
Wheeler wrote.
Kim Hart, press secretary to the FCC chairman, said that "the chairman
has seriously considered all input he has received on this important
matter, including feedback from his FCC colleagues."
There is precedence for the FCC chairman to make rules public, the
commissioners and Rep. Chaffetz said. In 2007, then-chairman Kevin Martin
released to the public new media ownership rules and the entire FCC
testified in a House hearing prior to the final vote in December.
A senator who supported the FCC's postponement back then, Chaffetz notes,
was then-senator Barack Obama. "He specifically noted while a certain
proposal 'may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public
have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not
it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility
to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate,'" Chaffetz
said citing the original letter sent by Sen. Obama to Martin.
Locked and Loaded: FCC Primed for Vote on Internet Regs, Amid 11th-hour Drama
The Federal Communications Commission is driving toward a landmark vote
Thursday on a sweeping plan that critics warn would impose a new era of
regulation for how Americans use and do business on the Internet, even as
11th-hour appeals inject added drama behind the scenes.
The so-called net neutrality proposal has been the subject of fierce
debate, in part because the 332-page plan is being kept from public eyes.
President Obama's vocal push for aggressive Internet rules also has
raised questions on Capitol Hill over undue influence by the White House
- but House Republicans who had planned a hearing on that very subject
said Wednesday they would postpone after Chairman Tom Wheeler allegedly
refused to testify.
"This fight continues as the future of the Internet is at stake," House
oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and House Energy and
Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., vowed, in a statement
announcing the hearing delay.
For now, the plan is in the FCC's hands.
At issue is a proposal that proponents say would ensure an "open"
Internet, by growing the government's power to oversee Internet service
providers and establish new rules to bar companies from blocking or
slowing data.
But The Hill reports that a vital Democratic member, Mignon Clyburn, is
now seeking last-minute changes to scale back Wheeler's proposal.
This puts Wheeler in a tough spot because the FCC is composed of three
Democrats and two Republicans. The Republicans are likely to oppose the
plan, and Wheeler would need Clyburn on board to push it through.
According to The Hill, Clyburn would leave alone the most controversial
plank of the proposal - a call to regulate broadband Internet as a
telecommunications service, treating it much like telephones.
But she reportedly wants to strip a new legal category that would give
the FCC additional legal authority over certain deals over back-end
Internet traffic.
Her requests may be in the weeds, but they have the effect of potentially
complicating Thursday's vote. The two Republican members, Ajit Pai and
Mike O'Rielly, earlier this week already urged Wheeler to postpone that
vote - and to release the plan so the public can review it. Wheeler so
far has not agreed to do so. Wheeler needs a three-member majority to
approve the plan.
Asked about the report in The Hill, Clyburn's office said she would not
comment "on any potential changes to the Open Internet Order out of
respect for the deliberative process."
Her office said: "Any reports about policy or position shifts when it
comes to the item have not been verified or confirmed by her office.
Commissioner Clyburn continues to advocate for strong open Internet
protections for consumers and looks forward to voting the item on
Thursday."
Still, Clyburn's supposed requests may not be a deal-breaker.
One FCC official told FoxNews.com there appears to be little sign of the
vote being delayed.
"They are very locked and loaded with this whole thing," the official
said.
Pai and O'Rielly, meanwhile, have made their position clear. Pai tweeted a
photo of himself with the proposal on Wednesday, announcing that he would
oppose it.
While Wheeler and consumer groups say the proposal is necessary to prevent
providers from creating slow or fast Internet lanes in which content
companies like Netflix can pay to jump to the head of the queue, Pai
co-authored a Politico op-ed with Federal Election Commission member Lee
Goodman describing the plan as "heavy-handed."
They said it would allow the FCC to regulate broadband rates; "decree"
whether companies can offer "consumer-friendly service plans" like
unlimited access to streaming music; and claim the power to force
companies to "physically deploy broadband infrastructure."
The commissioners argued that the panel was conjuring the idea of
"digital dysfunction" in order to "justify a public-sector power grab."
Wheeler, though, has pushed back on the calls for a delay.
He tweeted earlier this week that the future of the "open Internet" is at
stake, and, "We cannot afford to delay finally adopting enforceable rules
to protect consumers & innovators." He also noted that the commission
received "more than 4 million comments on #OpenInternet during past year
that helped shape proposal."
"It's time to act," Wheeler tweeted.
Asked Tuesday about the call for a delay, an FCC spokesperson also told
FoxNews.com that the 4 million comments amounted to an "unprecedented"
level of public response.
"In accordance with long-standing FCC process followed in both Democratic
and Republican administrations, Chairman Wheeler circulated his proposal
to his fellow Commissioners for review three weeks before the scheduled
vote. The Chairman has seriously considered all input he has received on
this important matter, including feedback from his FCC colleagues," the
spokesperson said.
Even if the FCC approves the plan on Thursday, the next stop may be the
courts. Industry lobbyists say it's likely that one of the major
providers will sue and ask the court to suspend enforcement pending
appeal.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that efforts by Hill Republicans to
fight the plan with legislation appear to be fading.
''We're not going to get a signed bill that doesn't have Democrats'
support," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told the newspaper, though his office
later pushed back on the notion that Republicans were giving up on the
issue.
FCC To Vote To Regulate Net Neutrality Thursday: What It Means
The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote Thursday on a new
set of rules for Internet service providers. And while Democratic
Chairman Tom Wheelers proposal to regulate the Internet like water,
electricity and other public utilities is slated for approval, the
months (years, actually) of fighting over net neutrality, both within
the FCC and on Capitol Hill, wont likely end there. As Thursdays vote
has drawn closer, Wheeler continued to face pressure from within his own
party to amend the net neutrality rules. And contrary to a report in The
New York Times on Tuesday suggesting that Republican lawmakers once
poised to pounce on new FCC rules with counteracting legislation have
now accepted defeat, Republican Senator and Senate Commerce Committee
Chairman John Thune tweeted that the GOP has far from conceded on the
hot topic.
Beyond the response on Capitol Hill, the FCC can almost certainly expect
a legal challenge to the new rules from the Internet service providers it
seeks to regulate. So for all those whove avoided the net neutrality
conversation, its not too late. In fact, theres no better time to start
paying attention. Sure, net neutrality isnt exactly riveting date or
dinner party fodder. But while friends and neighbors might not be
impressed with your ability to rattle off the arguments for and against
federally regulated Internet service, the direct impact that Thursday's
vote and its inevitable fallout could have on your life and, more
important, your wallet make it worth familiarizing yourself with the
issue. But fear not. Net neutrality, and the heated debate thats
surrounded it, arent nearly as bewildering as they seem. Seriously.
What is net neutrality?
Before even attempting to tackle the politics of Thursdays vote, we need
to get one thing straight: What is net neutrality? The elusive term,
coined by Columbia Law School Professor Tim Wu in 2003, refers to the
concept of an open Internet, wherein all data from music-sharing sites
to social networks to personal blogs exists on a level playing field,
free from discrimination.
Discrimination, in this sense, means the ability of Internet service
providers (or ISPs), like Comcast, Verizon or AT&T, to act as Internet
gatekeepers; Controlling not only which websites, apps, or other content
are available online, but the speed at which that content may be
accessed. In other words, if an ISP like Comcast charged a premium for
faster service, it would give the Internets big money-makers a major
leg up over smaller, less profitable sites. Not only would users be
forced to choose between waiting a painfully long time to download a
song for free on Soundcloud and paying to listen instantly on iTunes,
ISP fees might push sites like YouTube to start charging for things
weve long grown accustomed to receiving for free.
Beyond that, there is the chance that service providers would give
preferential treatment to the companies with which they collaborate. For
example, Verizon could make it so that the websites of smartphone
companies that use Verizons mobile service work faster than the websites
of other smartphone companies.
Ultimately, the Internet has the potential to become exclusive, limited,
and very costly which, net neutrality advocates argue, would violate what
many see as a human right to Internet access.
How did this become a political debate?
Without going too far back in history, the current debate can be traced
back to a federal appeals court ruling from January 2014. Siding with
Verizon in a suit against the FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia struck down a set of net neutrality rules the FCC
adopted in 2010. More than a decade earlier, before the Internet evolved
into its current form, the FCC had specificly chosen not to classify
broadband Internet as a classic telecommunications service. Therefore,
the court ruled, broadband providers were not subject to the same
"common carrier" rules that telephone companies, for example, must
adhere to.
In response to this ruling, last November President Obama called on the
FCC to enforce net neutrality with the strongest possible rules, urging
the commission to reclassify Internet service providers under Title II of
the 1934 Communications Act in order to regulate the Internet like a
public utility. Obamas call to action was met with challenges from
Republican lawmakers like Senator Ted Cruz, who charged that net
neutrality actually threatens the freedom of the Internet and would
hinder the growth of the tech industry. Net neutrality is Obamacare for
the Internet, Cruz wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. It would put the
government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service
and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to
fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices. On the contrary,
Democratic Senator Al Franken argued on CNN in response to Cruzs
claims, Obamacare was a government program that fixed something, that
changed things. This is about reclassifying something so it stays the
same. This would keep things exactly the same as theyve been. Yet FCC
Chairman Tom Wheelers announcement earlier this month that he planned
to propose the strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by
the FCC, was seen by Republicans as direct evidence of the Presidents
influence over the commission. Its a power grab for the federal
government by the chairman of a supposedly independent agency who
finally succumbed to the bully tactics of political activists and the
president himself, Thune said of Wheelers announcement, arguing that
what might have worked to combat telecommunication monopolies in the
1930s has no place in todays high-tech economy.
Regulating the Internet through ill-suited and antiquated authorities
that were designed for the monopoly phone era will ultimately make the
Internet more rigid and less innovative, Thune said.
Senate Republicans ultimately tabled an earlier plan to put out
legislation ahead of the FCC vote. But Thunes recent tweet suggests he
still has every intention to try to override Wheelers rules in Congress.
And while the FCC has received overwhelming support from Internet
companies from Google to Netflix to Etsy, Internet service provider
giants like AT&T have already promised to sue the FCC if Wheelers rules
are approved.
The FCC's last attempt to impose rules on ISPs may have ended in a
lawsuit, but Wheeler told the tech site CNET in an interview last month
that he's confident his new rules can stand up to the challenge.
"We think we have a clear legal case," Wheeler said. "I can assure you
that we are writing this with the full expectation that it will be
reviewed by the court, so we will make sure we are on sound footing."
U.S. Internet Providers Hit With Tougher Rules, Plan Challenges
U.S. regulators on Thursday approved the strictest-ever rules on Internet
providers, who in turn pledged to battle the new restrictions in the
courts and Congress, saying they would discourage investment and stifle
innovation.
The rules, which will go into effect in coming weeks, are expected to
face legal challenges from multiple parties such as wireless, cable and
other broadband companies and trade groups that represent them.
Experts expect the industry to seek a stay of the rules, first at the FCC
and then in courts, though the chances for success of such an appeal is
unclear.
The new regulations come after a year of jostling between cable and
telecom companies and net neutrality advocates, which included web
startups. It culminated in the FCC receiving a record 4 million comments
and a call from President Barack Obama to adopt the strongest rules
possible.
The agency's new policy, approved as expected along party lines,
reclassifies broadband, both fixed and mobile, as a more heavily
regulated "telecommunications service," more like a traditional
telephone service.
In the past, broadband was classified as a more lightly regulated
"information service," which factored into a federal court's rejection of
the FCC's previous set of rules in January 2014.
The shift gives the FCC more authority to police various types of deals
between providers such as Comcast Corp and content companies such as
Netflix Inc to ensure they are just and reasonable for consumers and
competitors.
Internet providers will be banned from blocking or slowing any traffic
and from striking deals with content companies, known as paid
prioritization, for smoother delivery of traffic to consumers.
The FCC also expands its oversight power to so-called interconnection
deals, in which content companies pay broadband providers to connect with
their networks. The FCC would review complaints on a case-by-case basis.
Republican FCC commissioners, who see the new rules as a government power
grab, delivered lengthy dissents. Their colleagues in Congress hope to
counter the new rules with legislation. All five FCC members are expected
to testify in the Senate on March 18.
Large Internet providers say they support the no-blocking and
no-discrimination principles of the new rules but that the FCC's
regulatory path will discourage investment by lowering returns and
limiting experimentation with services and business plans.
Some smaller telecoms, such as Sprint Corp and T-Mobile US Inc , have
argued new rules will have little impact on investments. FCC Chairman Tom
Wheeler on Thursday agreed.
"The (Internet service providers') revenue stream will be the same
tomorrow as it was yesterday," he said at the FCC meeting.
"I have spent a lot of time in public policy, and today is the proudest
day of my public policy life," he later told reporters.
Legal experts and industry lobbyists say corporate lawyers are waiting for
the FCC to publish the specifics of the rules, a document more than 300
pages long. Lawsuits can be filed after the rules are recorded in the
Federal Register, likely days later.
Wheeler sought to address in the new rules some Internet providers'
concerns, proposing no price regulations, tariffs or requirements to give
competitors access to networks.
Cable and telecom shares saw muted reactions on Thursday. They had jumped
earlier this month when Wheeler confirmed long-bubbling expectations that
he would seek a tougher regulatory regime, with some adjustments to the
network needs.
FCC Passes Net Neutrality: What This Means for Americans
After almost a year of fierce national debate, the Federal Communications
Commission voted Thursday to pass net neutrality in a 3-to-2 partisan
vote. The five-member commission reclassified broadband Internet access
as a common carrier under Title II of the Telecommunications Act,
making the Internet a regulated utility like water or electricity.
The new rules aim to ensure that Internet service providers (ISPs) cannot
discriminate between content-makers by blocking or deliberately slowing
some content while offering prioritization for those willing or able to
pay. Mobile data service for smartphones and tablets also are being
placed under the new rules. The directive also includes requirements to
protect consumer privacy and to ensure Internet service is available for
people with disabilities and in remote areas.
Critics of the rules say they may hinder innovation and investment.
Opponents have said they plan to challenge the FCC order in court. But
Republicans on Capitol Hill announced Tuesday that they do not plan to
pass a legislative response.
Net neutrality, or an open Internet, is the concept that ISPs should give
consumers equal access to all legal content and applications. That means
ISPs could not favor or block some content-makers or charge them to
provide faster delivery of their content, in what are known as fast
lanes. ISPs would also be forbidden from slowing the content of
competing providers.
Supporters of net neutrality say the Internet has become a human right
that should be equally accessible for everyone. Denying access or giving
preferential treatment to one user over another is thus considered a
violation of the users rights.
"The Internet, which was once a luxury, is now a necessity, and it has
given people the ability to be heard in our democracy and have more
opportunity in our economy," Rashad Robinson, executive director of
ColorOfChange, an online civil rights organization, was quoted as saying
in USA Today. "It has been a tool for the little guy to get ahead."
Proponents of net neutrality say that without the new rules, smaller
content providers unable to pay hefty fees to ISPs would be pushed out
and made more difficult to access.
No one should have to ask permission to innovate, and we need to retain
the ability of all Internet users to communicate and compete on a level
playing field, preventing the presence of fast and slow lanes that are
contrary to the essence of the Internet, Sen. Edward J. Markey (D) of
Massachusetts said in a statement.
Many larger Internet companies such as Netflix and Amazon, both of whose
streaming services use large amounts of bandwidth, support the idea of
net neutrality. Google and Twitter also are supporters.
"More than 30 percent of Internet traffic at peak times comes from
Netflix, according to studies. So Verizon might say, 'Netflix, you need
to pay us more,' " NPRs Laura Sydell explains. "Or maybe Verizon strikes
a deal with Amazon and says your prime video service can get speedier
delivery to the home and we're going to slow down Netflix.
If companies are asked to pay more, consumers may be asked to foot the
bill, observers say.
But those who oppose net neutrality say it is an issue of free enterprise:
Service providers should be free to decide how they deliver content and
charge customers for their services. They also claim that net neutrality
will prevent ISPs from making network upgrades and finding new business
models.
The last thing we should want is President Obama or a government agency
picking winners and losers on the Internet. And enforcing net neutrality
is picking winners and losers even if it looks like it is just leveling
the playing field.' He may think it is not, but it completely blocks
certain business models and stops any possible innovation that might
emerge if given the option of seeking differential access to bandwidth,
writes Jeffrey Dorfman in Forbes.
'Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not
operate at the speed of the government, wrote Republican Sen. Ted Cruz
in a tweet last November.
Furthermore, more than just the Internet is at stake, some say.
Advocates for pay-TV providers are saying the FCC should use Section 706
to act more aggressively against the companies that produce TV content.
Why? Because the pay-TV providers think the content producers are charging
them too much for programming and because programming costs eat into the
budget for building, say, cable broadband, writes Brian Fung in The
Washington Post.
If the FCC decides to pursue this line of logic, it could affect how much
consumers pay for cable providers, too.
What every side does agree on, though, is that the results of todays vote
will affect everyone who uses the Internet. Anyone who goes online does so
through an ISP, and increasingly these companies are lobbying to provide
services on their own terms. Without net neutrality rules, companies like
Comcast and Verizon could cherry pick which content is easy to access. And
that means that consumer access to specific online content could slow down
or speed up noticeably.
For anyone who uses the Internet, around 87 percent of Americans, today's
vote is a really big deal.
NSA Director Wants Gov't Access To Encrypted Communications
It probably comes as no surprise that the director of the U.S. National
Security Agency wants access to encrypted data on computers and other
devices.
The U.S. should be able to craft a policy that allows the NSA and law
enforcement agencies to read encrypted data when they need to, NSA
director Michael Rogers said during an appearance at a cybersecurity
policy event Monday.
Asked if the U.S. government should have backdoors to encrypted devices,
Rogers said the U.S. government needs to develop a framework.
You dont want the FBI and you dont want the NSA unilaterally deciding,
So, what are we going to access and what are we not going to access?
Rogers said during his appearance at the New America Foundation. That
shouldnt be for us. I just believe that this is achievable. Well have
to work our way through it.
Justsecurity.org has a transcript of an exchange between Rogers and Yahoo
CISO Alex Stamos at Mondays event.
Rogers isnt the first member of President Barack Obamas administration
to call for encryption workarounds in recent months. In September, after
Apple and Google announced encryption features on their smartphone OSes,
both FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Eric Holder raised
concerns that additional encryption tools would hinder law enforcement
investigations.
Stamos questioned whether it is a good idea to build backdoors in
encryption. If were going to build defects/backdoors or golden master
keys for the U.S. government, do you believe we should do so .... for the
Chinese government, the Russian government, the Saudi Arabian government,
the Israeli government, the French government? he said, according to the
Justsecurity transcript.
Rogers objected to using the word backdoor. When I hear the phrase
backdoor, I think, Well, this is kind of shady. Why would you want to
go in the backdoor? It would be very public, he said. Again, my view
is: We can create a legal framework for how we do this. It isnt
something we have to hide, per se.
An NSA spokeswoman wasnt immediately available for further comment.
EU Police Operation Takes Down Malicious Computer Network
European police have taken down a computer network that used malicious
software to infect more than 3 million computers worldwide and steal
personal data, banking details and passwords.
European Union police coordination agency Europol said in a statement
Wednesday that the network, known as the Ramnit botnet, was dismantled in
an operation Tuesday by cybercrime experts coordinated from Europols
headquarters in The Hague.
The operation involving investigators from Germany, Italy, the Netherlands
and Britain along with representatives from companies including Microsoft
and Symantec shut down control servers and redirected Internet domain
addresses used by the networks criminal operators.
Symantec says in a statement that the network had been operating for at
least five years and evolved into a major criminal enterprise that
defrauded large numbers of victims.
Lenovo Releases Superfish Removal Tool
Chinese PC maker Lenovo late yesterday (Feb. 20) released a removal tool
for the dangerous Superfish adware that Lenovo had pre-installed on many
of its consumer laptops. Hours later, a security researcher demonstrated
how easily the adware could be used to hack into online financial
transactions.
The Lenovo Superfish removal tool can be found at
http://support.lenovo.com/us/en/product_security/superfish_uninstall. It
must be downloaded first, but will run without installation. Lenovo has
released the tool under a public license and placed the source code on
the developer website Github so that security experts can analyze and
possibly improve on it.
(If you have a Lenovo laptop, you can check whether it is affected by
using each installed Web browser to visit https://filippo.io/Badfish/.)
Early today (Feb. 21), Robert Graham, CEO of Atlanta-based Errata
Security, posted detailed instructions on his blog on how to create a
malicious Wi-Fi hotspot to exploit the security vulnerability that the
Superfish adware creates on Lenovo laptops.
"This example proves that this exploit is practical, not merely
theoretical, as claimed by the Lenovo CTO," Graham wrote.
Graham used a Raspberry Pi 2, which is a minicomputer that costs about
$35, a $10 Wi-Fi adapter and a microSD card, which can be had for as
little as $4. The software was all freely downloaded from the Internet,
and it took Graham about 3 hours to build the device and get it running.
To demonstrate the flaw, he used a laptop on which the Superfish adware
had been installed to connect to the Internet using his malicious
hotspot. He tried to log into the Bank of America website using a
fictitious name, and showed that the hotspot intercepted the connection
and logged the fictitious name. It would also have logged the password,
had there been one.
For about $50, a malicious hacker could build a similar hotspot, name it
"Starbucks HotSpot" and bring it into your local coffeeshop. Any user of
an affected Lenovo laptop who connected to the Internet using that hotspot
could have all her or his banking, social-media and shopping sessions
intercepted and decrypted.
Superfish is an American-Israeli company, and its adware, called Visual
Discovery, analyzes images of retail products displayed in a Web page,
then adds advertisements showing similar or identical products for sale
at other locations online. This is done without the consent of the
website operator or the laptop user.
Many forms of unwanted adware can pull off this trick on unencrypted Web
pages, but Superfish goes further. By breaking the Web browser's system
of secure connections, it can inject ads even into encrypted "HTTPS"
websites, such a secure retail site -- or a banking website.
Superfish can do this because Lenovo pre-installed the adware and added
Superfish's digital signature to the list of "root certificates" that
Windows trusts to guarantee a secure Web connection. As a secure Web
page's information travels from the network connection (either an
Ethernet port or Wi-Fi card) to the Web browser, Superfish intercepts
it, decrypts it, adds its own ads, then re-encrypts it using its root
certificate.
The laptop user will be none the wiser, and will believe he or she is
still viewing a secure Website. Because this "man-in-the-middle attack"
takes place entirely within the computer, the website operator will not
be aware that the secure connection has been broken.
That's arguably unethical, but wouldn't be inherently dangerous it had
every Lenovo laptop used an entirely different certificate to re-encrypt
the connection.
But they don't. Every Lenovo installation of Superfish uses the same
private key to verify the connection. On Thursday, Graham decrypted that
universal private key and revealed that its password was "komodia."
Komodia is the name of an Israeli company that makes two pieces of
software, called SSL Digestor and Redirector, made by an Israeli company
called Komodia.
Security researcher Marc Rogers analyzed other pieces of software made by
Komodia, including a parental-control product called "Keep My Family
Secure," and said that the private keys always used the password
"komodia."
Lenovo's first response when the Superfish flaw went public Thursday
(Jan. 19) was to deny that there was anything to worry about.
"We have thoroughly investigated this technology and do not find any
evidence to substantiate security concerns," the company said in its
initial statement.
But by the end of the day, the company had changed its tune."We're
sorry. We messed up," the Lenovo U.S. Twitter feed said. "We're making
sure it never happens again."
The company reiterated that the Superfish adware had been installed only
on consumer laptops manufactured between September 2014 and January 2015,
and would no longer be used.
However, the Superfish company was adamant in a statement to Ars
Technica's Dan Goodin.
"Despite the false and misleading statements made by some media
commentators and bloggers, the Superfish software does not present a
security risk," a company representative told Goodin.
The Superfish company has not made any other public statement about the
Lenovo situation.
Lenovo.com Has Been Hacked, Possibly by Lizard Squad
Lenovo.com has been hacked. As of 4PM ET, users visiting the site saw a
slideshow of disaffected youths, set to the song Breaking Free from
High School Musical. By 4:17, the site seemed to have reverted to its
normal self, although HTML problems persist and in some instances, the
song continued to play in the background. The hacked version has
reappeared intermittently as cached versions work through the system.
The source code for the hacked page identified it as, the new and
improved rebranded Lenovo website featuring Ryan King and Rory Andrew
Godfrey, both of whom have been publicly identified as members of the
hacker collective Lizard Squad. Its unclear whether King and Godfrey are
actually related to the hack, or if the attackers are simply using their
names and photos to muddle their true identity.
The hack comes on the heels of a wave of public criticism of Lenovo, after
the company bundled computers with an encryption-breaking adware program
known as Superfish. Lenovo eventually released a program to remove the
software and restore affected users, but the debacle left many users
unhappy with the company. That lingering mistrust may have contributed to
the attack.
The attackers seem to have hijacked Lenovos domain record, an attack that
would have given them the power to redirect the lenovo.com url to a new
server under their control. The attack targets entirely external
infrastructure, similar to the Syrian Electronic Armys attacks against
Twitter and The New York Times in 2013. As a result, theres no reason to
believe the attackers have breached Lenovos internal network. Still,
its an embarrassing incident for the company, particularly on the heels
of security concerns over Superfish.
Google Chrome Update Curbs Harmful Software Downloads
Many of us find anti-viruses cumbersome and taxing on the computer, but
remove those and the computer is susceptible to attacks from malware,
spyware, phishing, fake advertising, and malicious software that can harm
or warp a computers security measures. With social media on the rise,
online privacy and protection has become one of the most integral
subjects, and Google has moved to address that.
Google Chromes next update will elaborate on the Safe Browsing feature it
introduced in September 2011 to warn users before they end up visiting any
potentially dangerous websites. A warning screen will pop up that will
include a details section that will further clarify what makes the page
in question a risky prospect for the user. All this was revealed in Lucas
Ballards blogpost, who is a software engineer at Google Inc. Any page
that encourages download of an unwanted software will be flagged by
Google, and will redirect users to a warning page.
The Safe Browsing techniques apply to other aspects of Google as well.
Google Search will earmark these websites, and prevent them from showing
up in users search results. This will at least ensure that Chrome users
will not be directed to websites that will encourage them to download
unwanted software. Similarly, advertisements that trick users into
downloading malware will also be disabled. This will help Google raise the
credibility of online ads, which are more often seen as spam rather than
something users can really benefit from.
Google has been scanning for malicious content since 2008, and has a vast
database that its API incorporates. As a result, Safari by Apple Inc. and
Mozilla Firefox also include parts of Googles API to reinforce their
searches. What makes Googles searches stronger is that the Mountain View
company relies on rankings and reputation of websites to determine which
ones are the most likely to include harmful content. Google, like
Microsoft Corporation does with its Internet Explorer, uses a series of
whitelists, blacklists, and algorithms to rank websites, and determine the
probability of them carrying harmful software that will force itself onto
users computers.
Of course, this might have been ineffective if a legitimate website had
just started operations was flagged, having had no prior reputation.
Google has a fix for that too. Site owners are encouraged to register with
Google Webmaster Tools, which will inform owners when their website
contains harmful content and even guide them on how to resolve such
issues. This certainly falls in line with Googles promise to keep people
safe across the web.
Googles apparently altruistic approach is certainly useful for Internet
users at large, with the search engine siphoning through large amounts of
data to fish out harmful websites from the normal ones. It will only serve
to enhance the companys reputation, while reinforcing the thought that
Google is everywhere. The only apparent danger is that of startup sites
finding it harder to gain credibility on the Internet, and there may be a
debate about net neutrality in here somewhere. For now, we can expect less
spamming and more relevant results from the Mountain View-based company.
Google Scrubs Pwnium Hack Contest
Google yesterday said it would shut down its Pwnium hacking contest, which
it has held alongside the better-known Pwn2Own challenge each spring since
2012.
Instead, Google will focus on its long-standing bug bounty program.
"Pwnium will change its scope significantly, from a single-day
competition held once a year at a security conference to a year round,
worldwide opportunity for security researchers," wrote Chrome security
engineer Tim Willis in a Tuesday blog post.
Last year, Google paid out $190,000 from its Pwnium pool to two
researchers who demonstrated multi-vulnerability chains that exploited
Chrome OS, the search giant's browser-based operating system. George Hotz,
a noted iPhone and Sony PlayStation hacker, was handed $150,000 by Google
for what the firm called "an epic Pwnium competition win," while another
researcher, known only as "Pinkie Pie," was awarded $40,000 for a partial
exploit.
Pwnium had attracted attention for its large awards - up to $150,000 for
each hack - the $3.14 million Google had pledged in 2013 to spend if
necessary, and the focus on Chrome OS.
Willis took a shot or two at Pwn2Own, the hacking contest run by HP
TippingPoint's Zero Day Initiative (ZDI), a rival bug bounty program, as
he explained Google's reasons for folding up the Pwnium tent.
"At Pwnium competitions, a security researcher would need to have a bug
chain in March, pre-register, have a physical presence at the competition
location and hopefully get a good time slot," said Willis. "[And] if a
security researcher was to discover a Pwnium-quality bug chain today,
it's highly likely that they would wait until the contest to report it
to get a cash reward. This is a bad scenario for all parties."
ZDI's Pwn2Own requires that researchers - or a representative - be
physically at the contest, which is held at the CanSecWest security
conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. Pwn2Own hands out cash prizes
only for until-then-unknown vulnerabilities.
Rather than sponsor Pwnium, Google will boost the maximum award in its own
bounty program to $50,000 for "Pwnium-style bug chains on Chrome OS,"
Willis added. Those rewards will be available year-round.
At times, there has been tension between Google and ZDI over hacking
challenges.
In 2012, Google first said it would partner with ZDI to pitch in prize
money for Pwn2Own, then withdrew that offer. Google objected to Pwn2Own
rules that did not require contestants to reveal to vendors a complete
exploit or all the vulnerabilities used in a demonstration.
ZDI contested Google's assertions, arguing that prize money - even the
then-top $60,000 - wasn't enough to shake loose the very rare
sandbox-escape vulnerabilities and ensuing exploits against the Chrome
browser target.
Rather than back out completely, Google launched Pwnium, which also ran
during CanSecWest.
Google will remain a sponsor of this year's Pwn2Own; its Project Zero team
will not only help pay for the contest's prizes, but separately will award
up to $10,000 for entries that successfully exploit the latest release of
Chrome 42.
HP TippingPoint declined to comment on Google's decision to scrap Pwnium.
Pwn2Own will take place March 18-19, with $465,000 in awards up for grabs.
Accused 'Revenge Porn Site' Operator: Take Down My Private Photos
This, indeed, was the name of an alleged "revenge porn site" he once ran.
Should you be unfamiliar with this thoroughly modern idea, revenge porn
sites encourage the hurt or merely the hateful to post naked personal
images sent to them (presumably as a gesture of love) by former
paramours.
Now it seems that Brittain himself is down. He's low because personal
images of, well, him are readily available via Google searches and he
wants them removed.
Indeed, he's issued a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, relating to "unauthorized use of photos of me and other
related information. Unauthorized use of statements and identity related
information. Unauthorized copying of excerpts from isanybodydown.com.
Using photos which are not 'fair use.'"
On reading this, there might be one or two people invoking pots, kettles
and an especially terrifying dark humor.
Indeed, one of the links that Brittain objects to is this one, which
happens to be from the Federal Trade Commission.
It announces that Brittain has been banned for allegedly posting nude
images without due fairness. Indeed, the FTC mused that Brittain" used
deception to acquire and post intimate images of women, then referred
them to another website he controlled, where they were told they could
have the pictures removed if they paid hundreds of dollars."
On receiving this order, Brittain posted to his own site a 49-paragraph
apologia, among whose words were: "I made a series of poor decisions,
then tried to rationalize them, and made it even worse. I am sorry for
the damage that I caused to everyone that ended up on my website. I am
making amends at every opportunity. I regularly volunteer for, and donate
to charitable organizations (I encourage you to do the same!)."
So the man who claims to have turned over a new leaf is asking Google to
remove any digital leaves that bear his imprint.
However, he also added in his apologia: "I strongly believe that any law
against 'revenge porn' is unconstitutional, circa Arizona, and should be
overturned. This does not mean I morally support 'revenge porn,' I do
not. It simply means that I don't support spending millions (billions?)
in taxpayer dollars to enforce a moral issue."
Perhaps he feels that having his own images and information taken down
is also a moral issue.
Google Bans Sexually Explicit Content on Blogger
Google is strapping a chastity belt onto its Blogger blogging platform.
It says that starting 23 March 2015, Blogger bloggers won't be able to
publicly share images and video that are sexually explicit or show graphic
nudity.
Note that any smut that's on a blog before that date won't be deleted.
Rather, it will be made private after 23 March, only viewable by the blog
owner or admins and the people with whom the owner has shared the blog.
Global News reports that Google sent emails to Blogger users informing
them of the policy change.
Leading up to that date, bloggers who muse about the carnal have a few
choices: you can remove the sexually explicit or graphic nudies, or you
can take it upon yourself to mark the blog as private.
Then again, if you'd rather pack it up and move to another, less
restricted blogging platform altogether, Google suggests that you have
the option of exporting your blog as an .xml file or archiving its text
and images with Google Takeout.
As far as adult content-friendly platforms go, WordPress allows blogs
with adult content as long as they're marked as Mature in our system.
It's not a free-for-all, however: WordPress warns against posting sexual
materials that can be considered pornographic, such as images or video of
explicit sexual acts or close-up images of genitalia.
Tumblr, on the other hand, tolerates sex and nudity, though such material
is filtered and users have to unlock "Safe Mode" to see anything racy
(which, as of this month, now includes torrent-related searches).
From Tumblr's current adult content policy:
We have no problem with that kind of stuff. Go nuts. Show nuts. Whatever.
Any salacious blogs created after 23 March will be bumped off Blogger or
subjected to unspecified
"other action", Google says.
That goes for blogs that include content that's "sexually explicit" or
that shows graphic nudity as explained in Google's content policy.
Exempt from the purge is content that offers "a substantial public
benefit", Google says, such as that found in artistic, educational,
documentary, or scientific contexts.
Google didn't give any reasons for the new policy, which replaces a
previous policy on Blogger that allowed adult content if it were in fact
labeled as "adult".
Google hasn't changed its policy's messaging around censorship, stating
that "censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself
on freedom of expression."
How Google will manage, with Blogger, to increase "the availability of
information, [encourage] healthy debate, and [make] possible new
connections between people" while still curbing "abuses that threaten our
ability to provide this service and the freedom of expression it
encourages" remains to be seen.
Writing policies and laws that restrict truly harmful content while still
respecting freedom of speech isn't easy.
That was made apparent recently when civil liberties advocates, bookstores
and publishers sued to stop an anti-revenge porn law in the US, outlining
how laws that aren't written carefully enough could arguably be used to
criminalize a host of non-vengeful innocents who handle nude images:
libraries, booksellers, college professors or breastfeeding educators,
for example.
Good luck to Google on that one.
Porn Lovers Win: Blogger Ban on Adult Content Reversed
Not even Google can erase porn from the Internet.
Just three days after banning explicit sexual content on Blogger, Google
has given in to pressure from porn fans who were less than thrilled about
the new policy. The Web giant on Friday announced that it has changed its
mind and will not crack down on adult content on its blogging platform,
after all.
The turnaround comes after Google on Tuesday said it would no longer allow
"images and video that are sexually explicit or show graphic nudity" on
Blogger, as of March 23. Any existing blogs containing porn would be made
private, unless the admin deleted the offending content.
Now, Google says that porn will be allowed on Blogger, but asked people to
tag pages with nudity, so that Blogger can display an "adult content"
warning page before that content is served up.
"This week, we announced a change to Blogger's porn policy," Google's
Social Product Support Manager, Jessica Pelegio, wrote in a post on the
Blogger Help Forum. "We've had a ton of feedback, in particular about the
introduction of a retroactive change (some people have had accounts for
10+ years), but also about the negative impact on individuals who post
sexually explicit content to express their identities. So rather than
implement this change, we've decided to step up enforcement around our
existing policy prohibiting commercial porn."
That commercial porn ban, instated in 2013, strictly prohibits adult ads
on Blogger and the monetization of adult content, meaning you can't start
a blog on the site to make money off porn.
So, in other words, long live porn on the Internet.
Hackers Force Closure of Canadian Bitcoin Exchange Cavirtex
Canadian Bitcoin exchange Cavirtex has announced its imminent closure
following an apparent security breach.
The exchange, believed to be Canada's biggest, has already ceased taking
new deposits and will halt withdrawals from 25 March.
The decision to close the exchange came on Sunday after it discovered that
an older version of its database may have been compromised:
On February 15, 2015 we found reason to believe that an older version of
our database, including 2FA secrets and hashed passwords, may have been
compromised.
Fortunately, Cavirtex said that the database in question did not include
identification documents.
In a statement published on Tuesday, the company elaborated on its
decision to cease trading, citing uncertainty over security and potential
reputational damage:
Because security and the safety of customer funds are paramount to our
mission and the success of Bitcoin in general, CAVIRTEX has determined to
cease active operations in the Bitcoin business and to return all
customer funds. We believe that the damage to the company's reputation
caused by the potential compromise will significantly harm our ability to
continue to operate successfully.
As a result of the potential compromise of our database we cannot be
certain of the confidentiality of account credentials.
The Cavirtex team said customer funds were not affected and the company
remains solvent and fully able to cover all withdrawals made prior to its
25 March deadline.
The company urged users to change their passwords immediately and delete
any Cavirtex cookies from their browsers.
Speaking to CoinDesk, Cavirtex vice president Kyle Kemper said the
exchange had been targeted by hackers before, and that the protection of
customer balances was becoming ever more challenging:
[The closure] has entirely to do with the fact that some of our databases
were compromised. And, given the history of hackers against us, you know,
it seems to be kind of never ending. We never lost any client funds but
its getting to the point where it could happen.
Cavirtex joins a long list of Bitcoin exchanges to experience the
attention of virtual currency hackers:
In May 2012 Bitcoinica was allegedly fleeced out of $225,000 before
experiencing a further $90,000 loss later that same year.
September 2012 saw the then fourth largest exchange Bitfloor lose
$250,000 after an encryption lapse during a server upgrade.
Various small exchanges in Australia, China and Denmark disappeared in
November 2013, along with investors' cash, after claiming they'd been
hacked.
2014 saw the fall of the greatest exchange, as Mt. Gox announced it had
lost around half-a-billion dollars worth of Bitcoins following alleged
insider fraud.
More recently, Bitstamp suspended its service after losing $5 million in
BTC after hackers targeted its hot wallet and then, earlier this week,
Chinese exchange Bter claimed to have lost $1.75 million after its cold
wallet system was hacked.
For all its attractiveness as an alternative currency, Bitcoin and the
associated trading of the currency still appears to be a bit wet behind
the ears - so it may be wise to think twice before putting all your
virtual coins in one virtual basket.
=~=~=~=
Atari Online News, Etc. is a weekly publication covering the entire
Atari community. Reprint permission is granted, unless otherwise noted
at the beginning of any article, to Atari user groups and not for
profit publications only under the following terms: articles must
remain unedited and include the issue number and author at the top of
each article reprinted. Other reprints granted upon approval of
request. Send requests to: dpj@atarinews.org
No issue of Atari Online News, Etc. may be included on any commercial
media, nor uploaded or transmitted to any commercial online service or
internet site, in whole or in part, by any agent or means, without
the expressed consent or permission from the Publisher or Editor of
Atari Online News, Etc.
Opinions presented herein are those of the individual authors and do
not necessarily reflect those of the staff, or of the publishers. All
material herein is believed to be accurate at the time of publishing.
