View Profile
View Forum Posts
Google's CRIME Bible : Google Street View privacy case
Is it $7m too less for the damages caused?2014-06-30 19:01
Washington - The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected Google's bid to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of violating federal wiretap law when it accidentally collected emails and other personal data while building its popular Street View program.
The justices left intact a September 2013 ruling by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to exempt Google from liability under the federal Wiretap Act for having inadvertently intercepted emails, user names, passwords and other data from private Wi-Fi networks to create Street View, which provides panoramic views of city streets.
The lawsuit arose soon after the Mountain View, California-based company publicly apologised in May 2010 for having collected fragments of "payload data" from unsecured wireless networks in more than 30 countries.
Google was accused of having collected the data while driving its vehicles through neighbourhoods from 2008 to 2010 to collect photos for Street View.
In June 2011, US District Judge James Ware in San Francisco allowed plaintiffs in several consolidated private lawsuits to pursue federal Wiretap Act claims against Google, while dismissing California state law claims.
Google already has agreed to pay $7m to settle a probe into the matter involving 38 US states and the District of Columbia. As part of that settlement, Google agreed to destroy data collected in the United States.
Original Case:
Benjamin Joffe, et al v. Google Inc. No. 13-1181 : PDF
Google did not make statement about How Google is going to deal with data collected in the rest of 29 countries other than the United States.
Other 29 countries yet to decide How they will treat Google on tapping and stealing payload data from unsecured wireless.
If you think you have really something good to add a CRIMINAL PAGE to Google's CRIME Bible, you are welcome!
You are also welcome to express your views. Both requires courage and daring, both, though.
================================================== ===
Google is NOT the name you can TRUST for the business of any sort.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 39
-
Last edited by enim; 30th Jun 2014 at 15:44.
-
Sens. Franken and Heller over Government Surveillance of Americans
"The American people have a right to know what their government is doing. While I personally believe that the practice of bulk data collection should be eliminated, the government can at least take immediate steps to increase transparency in programs that have many Americans suspicious. In addition, private companies who have been served a subpoena should be able to share basic information with their customers. Protecting Americans' privacy is a bipartisan issue, which is why I am glad to be working with Senator Franken on this legislation," said Sen. Heller.
At the time of writing this, Other countries politicians are found very busy in a party called "Beer booze and snooze". -
Google's Street View Wi-Fi slurp nightmare
Whenever I start a project called "Happy & Clean Green Home", cleaning accessories automatically start attaching to the broom, I do not know Why?
It seems Google isn't quite done dealing with the fallout of its Street View cars' Wi-Fi snooping scandal.
The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the web giant's appeal to dismiss a class-action suit against it. Google will now have to face suit from 18 plaintiffs – Google v Joffe et al – who accuse the ads goliath of illegal wiretapping.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
"We're disappointed that the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case," Google said in a statement to The Reg.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
Amid outrage over the collection of the information, Google blamed it all on a bit of code written by a "rogue" engineer acting without the knowledge or approval of management. Since then, Google has faced fines and settlements with government agencies around the globe for violating privacy laws.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...The citizens of The United States of (North) America are also completely disappointed and condemn Google's CRIMINAL activities such as Wi-Fi snooping (and many more to name) and collecting private & personal data, for what?"We're disappointed that the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case," Google said in a statement to The Reg.
Nice Excuse.Amid outrage over the collection of the information, Google blamed it all on a bit of code written by a "rogue" engineer acting without the knowledge or approval of management.
A "rogue" engineer? -or- a scapegoat?
It is also possible that Google Management approved and engaged highly professional team of engineers on a special beneficiary project "Wi-Fi Snooping". It requires detailed probing & inquiry with Google's Engineering Team engaged in special project called Wi-Fi snooping from the Govt. Authority.
The American Citizens might have dropped willingly (with a pleasant smile) a buck in Google's bowl, if Google have begged in name of Privacy rather than snooping. -
Google: Email Users Can't Legitimately Expect Privacy On Gmail
Somewhere down the road I have already stated that Yahoo email account which I have used has been hacked & hijacked twice. Can you guess, WHO?Google doesn't believe that people can reasonably expect their emails to stay private when emailing a Gmail user, even if they don't use Gmail.
At least, that's what the Internet giant articulated in a brief that was filed last month in federal court and recently surfaced by Consumer Watchdog. The document was written in response to a class-action lawsuit accusing Google of violating wiretap law when it scans emails to serve up targeted ads.
Plantiffs accuse Google of violating the emailers' privacy by mining their personal messages for information that it uses to inform which targeted ads it displays. The suit calls for Google to fully disclose exactly what information it's taking from emails, and to pay damages for these alleged violations of privacy. (You can read a redacted version of the complaint here).
The company argued in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit that "all users of email must necessarily expect that their emails will be subject to automated processing." (You can read the full motion here).
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
Google was also named by the Guardian newspaper in June as one of the companies that gives the NSA "direct access to its systems" as part of a surveillance program called PRISM. Google has denied the allegations; the company's Chief Legal Officer David Drummond told the Guardian that the company is "not in cahoots with the NSA and there's no government program that Google participates in that allows the kind of access that the media originally reported." -
Each of Google Services can add CRIMINAL PAGE to this Google's CRIME Bible.
WhiteMouse & Other US Tech Companies Services can even contribute more & more contents to CRIME Bible. -
He may be crazy.Originally Posted by Clockwork
He may be a troll.
He may just like to hear himself talk.
If's definitely the 3rd one and possibly #1 or #2 as well. He has a small number of threads where he continually updates them with more rantings. This is one of them. -
It would be inappropriate, if I decided not to reply you and just decide to talk to myself.Originally posted by
He may just like to hear himself talk.
May I ask you, why did you replied? I mean politely.
And, about "What's going on here?" I would say try to figure-out yourself. -
NSA collected US email records in bulk
CIA and FBI possess higher powers than NSA that will open up few more chapters to The Bible.Secret program launched by Bush continued 'until 2011'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-mining-authorised-obama
The Obama administration for more than two years permitted the National Security Agency to continue collecting vast amounts of records detailing the email and internet usage of Americans, according to secret documents obtained by the Guardian.
The documents indicate that under the program, launched in 2001, a federal judge sitting on the secret surveillance panel called the Fisa court would approve a bulk collection order for internet metadata "every 90 days". A senior administration official confirmed the program, stating that it ended in 2011.
The collection of these records began under the Bush administration's wide-ranging warrantless surveillance program, collectively known by the NSA codename Stellar Wind.
According to a top-secret draft report by the NSA's inspector general – published for the first time today by the Guardian – the agency began "collection of bulk internet metadata" involving "communications with at least one communicant outside the United States or for which no communicant was known to be a citizen of the United States".
Eventually, the NSA gained authority to "analyze communications metadata associated with United States persons and persons believed to be in the United States", according to a 2007 Justice Department memo, which is marked secret.
The Guardian revealed earlier this month that the NSA was collecting the call records of millions of US Verizon customers under a Fisa court order that, it later emerged, is renewed every 90 days. Similar orders are in place for other phone carriers.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
But while that specific program has ended, additional secret NSA documents seen by the Guardian show that some collection of Americans' online records continues today. In December 2012, for example, the NSA launched one new program allowing it to analyze communications with one end inside the US, leading to a doubling of the amount of data passing through its filters. -
I was reading about an article & news about Cyber Internet Bullying from one US Tech Giant,
and here comes Google as well.
Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
Not only this, some of editions of "The Guardian" and "The Observer" (might be many publishers) are not accessible in North-America, I never tried to dig details or wonder why?Publishers must fight back against this indirect challenge to press freedom, which allows articles to be 'disappeared'. Editorial decisions belong with them, not Google.
Whether for commercial or free speech reasons (or both), Google is informing sites when their content is blocked – perhaps in the hope that they will write about it.
When you Google someone from within the EU, you no longer see what the search giant thinks is the most important and relevant information about an individual. You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
If you search any EU Google site for anything resembling a name, you'll see a warning your results may be restricted. Yet, there's an even better workaround which the search giant has left open. If you go to the Google homepage, and look in the bottom right-hand corner, you'll see a link saying "Use Google.com". Do that – or switch to another search engine, such as DuckDuckGo, which has no EU footprint and also doesn't track cookies – and for now, you'll see the full unfiltered results.
But this isn't enough. The Guardian, like the rest of the media, regularly writes about things people have done which might not be illegal but raise serious political, moral or ethical questions – tax avoidance, for example. These should not be allowed to disappear: to do so is a huge, if indirect, challenge to press freedom. The ruling has created a stopwatch on free expression – our journalism can be found only until someone asks for it to be hidden.
Business without any Ethics or Etiquettes is key to US Firms for global rapid growth.
What can we do? -
Video Restorer
- Jun 2003
- dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
This is VideoHelp. V-I-D-E-O.
Your post is off-topic, and therefore not in the right second.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
It's also arguably now a political post, something not allowed here. It's up the mods to care enough to deal with it.
-
Add perpetually drunk and/or stoned to your list.Originally Posted by jman98
He may be crazy.Originally Posted by Clockwork
He may be a troll.
He may just like to hear himself talk.
If's definitely the 3rd one and possibly #1 or #2 as well. He has a small number of threads where he continually updates them with more rantings. This is one of them.
He's on my ignore list, so I no longer have to read this idiot's unintelligible rants but unfortunately that does not prevent me from seeing the topics on the VideoHelp home page. -
Moved to OT.
Moderator redwudz -
Impala files EC antitrust complaint over YouTube
Another serious issue YouTube need to address and to fix is when YouTube Contents HiJacker Mafia (Insider) claims false "Copy Rights" for monetory gains by hurting Original Contents Producers who actually hold the Copy Rights.Independent association says it's 'red card time' for online video giant after threats to block labels' channels on video service
ndependent music body Impala has filed a complaint with the European Commission alleging that Google subsidiary YouTube is abusing its dominant position. The video subsidiary has threatened to take videos from small labels off its site completely if they don't sign up for its forthcoming music subscription service.
Impala, which has previously lobbied the European authorities about major label mergers, claims YouTube has breached European competition rules in five separate ways while trying to strike deals with its indie members, and asked for urgent action to block YouTube's proposals.
The complaint is the latest in a growing list of antitrust allegations made against Google and its subsidiaries in Europe, though the search giant has not been found to have formally breached any rules.
YouTube is accused of sending contracts to small labels offering worse terms than those already signed by major labels, and trying to force them to sign by threatening to remove their videos from its existing free service if they decline. That has infuriated the labels, which don't believe the two should be connected – and so say Google's business is abusing its monopoly in video to force a position in that of music subscriptions. If the EC's antitrust division agrees, and decides the move is anticompetitive, Google could face hefty fines.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ... -
@Moderator redwudz
Appropriate Section would be "Computer".
I would still request Moderators of this forum to move it to the "Computer" section.
Hope, you may reconsider. -
Google tells UK media which of their stories is REMOVED from search results
Each & Every Single Service from Cyber Bully Google is poised with "CRIMINAL PAGE" whichGoogle has informed several U.K. media which of their news articles it is hiding in search results shown to European Union users as a consequence of a recent EU court ruling that gives people the “right to be forgotten” by search engines under certain circumstances.
The Guardian, the BBC and the Daily Mail received a notice via Google Webmaster Tools telling them: “We regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google,” followed by a list of links.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
Google started hiding search results last week. Users may see a warning at the bottom of the results page on Google’s European domains saying some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
The Daily Mail and The Guardian called the deletion of search results censorship.
The Guardian called on publishers to fight back, saying that critical articles that raise serious political, moral or ethical questions should not be allowed to disappear. “To do so is a huge, if indirect, challenge to press freedom,” it said.
requires closer detailed look with Magnifying Glass.
Anyone who blindly support such Cyber Bully make sure they gift you Ashton Martin.
Otherwise please do not support Google's "CRIMINAL PAGE" blindly b'coz you like search engine.
All these North America Media Moguls will report a small water leak in basement somewhere in small town of Thailand as a FLOOOOOODed basement, But they will definitely censor all the news about HEAVY FLOOD in USA. Now, all these North America Media Moguls are on New Project of portraying dirty pictures of The president Barack Obama for unknown reasons.
Are we still talking or thinking about Freedom of Speech & Press? -
Goldman says client data leaked, wants Google to delete email
May be Google might be interested in snatching away Goldman Sachs Group's potentially wealthy customers and selling Google Services. This time also CRIMINAL PAGE with BRAIN SURGERY blame insider "rouge" Google Employee (An Accidental Mistake) - a scapegoat.(Reuters) - Goldman Sachs Group Inc said a contractor emailed confidential client data to a stranger's Gmail account by mistake, and the bank has asked a U.S. judge to order Google Inc to delete the email to avert a "needless and massive" breach of privacy.
The breach occurred on June 23 and included "highly confidential brokerage account information," Goldman said in a complaint filed last Friday in a New York state court in Manhattan.
Goldman (GS.N) did not say how many clients were affected, and wants Google's (GOOGL.O) help in tracking down who might have accessed the data. The Wall Street bank also said Google "appears willing to cooperate" if there is a court order.
Google, Goldman and Goldman's law firm did not immediately respond on Wednesday to requests for comment.
According to Goldman, the outside contractor had been testing changes to the bank's internal processes in connection with reporting requirements set forth by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
Goldman said the contractor meant to email her report, which contained the client data, to a "gs.com" account, but instead sent it to a similarly named, unrelated "gmail.com" account.
The bank said it has been unable to retrieve the report or get a response from the Gmail account owner. It said a member of Google's "incident response team" reported on June 26 that the email cannot be deleted without a court order.
"Emergency relief is necessary to avoid the risk of inflicting a needless and massive privacy violation upon Goldman Sachs' clients, and to avoid the risk of unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs," the bank said.
"By contrast, Google faces little more than the minor inconvenience of intercepting a single email - an email that was indisputably sent in error," it added.
Goldman is based in New York, and Google in Mountain View, California.
The case is Goldman, Sachs & Co v. Google Inc, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 156295/2014. -
Man, you burnin' up the highways, ain't cha!!
-
These CRIMINALS already burned small business and many ethics alive.Man, you burnin' up the highways, ain't cha!!
-
Google de-listing of BBC article 'broke UK and Euro public interest laws'
US Tech Goliaths - Cyber Bullying Gang as a NSA Alliances hurt countless businesses not only in North America but though out the Globe. And, most of the time they remained highly successful to vanish Internet Identity of small businesses. US Tech Goliaths - Cyber Bullying Gang supported only those businesses generated nice revenue for them.Google's publicity stunt this week, in which it de-linked selected mass media articles and posts from its search results and informed the journalists in question it had done so, appears to have been illegal.
The gigantic advertising company now faces the prospect of having to re-link to articles it has de-linked in the UK in recent weeks.
Newswires suggest that Google has performed a U-turn on the de-linking. Yesterday we predicted the high-risk strategy might backfire.
Google was trying to cast the recent European "right to be forgotten" ruling in a bad light. The recent court decision permits citizens to request that old, out of date or irrelevant material be de-linked from a search - for instance of their name - if (and that's a big "if") there isn't a public interest. The beaks decided that the continuous re-publication of old and irrelevant material, in such a massive, pervasive medium as Google's search engine, could be a huge invasion of an individual's privacy.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
The Guardian's James Ball received one and predictably, he walked into the trap*. Ball warned of a grave and imminent threat to free expression, and opined that the burden of compliance with the ruling should fall on publishers - not on Google.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
The risk to Google is that the Information Commissioner might choose to serve an enforcement notice on it, and ultimately issue a fine. However, the maximum fine is merely Ł500,000.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
Chinese Business Kung Fu Pandas remained very successful to maintain their business identity within China and World-Wide because most of the these US Tech Goliaths Products and Services is banned by Chinese Government since long.
Another Game started by this US Tech Goliaths - Cyber Bullying Gang is messing around DNS Settings, and Router Settings plus serving irrelevant search engine results.
US Tech Goliaths - Cyber Bullying Gang and NSA remained very successful messing around major part of the GLOBE except China who grounded these US Tech Goliaths and maintained positive GDP. -
Google launches new venture fund for European start-ups
With an IDEA of having CRIMINAL base in UK, CRIMINAL PAGE with BRAIN SURGERY think they can enjoy Full Criminal Control over whole European Territories by funding millions in UK.Google is launching a venture capital fund to invest in promising European technology companies.
The $100m (Ł58m) fund will "invest in the best ideas from the best European entrepreneurs", according to Bill Maris, managing partner at Google Ventures, overseeing the project.
"We believe Europe's start-up scene has enormous potential."
The new operation will be based near London's Silicon Roundabout start-up district.
But Google is open to further geographic expansion in the future.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ... -
Google Glass hack allows brainwave control
But, in hackable cyber world, applications of this sort can be downloaded and installed into the device silently without any notifications to the owner of the device.Google Glass has been hacked so that it can be controlled by brainwaves.
By combining the smart glasses with an electroencephalography (EEG) headset, the software makes it possible to take a picture without moving a muscle.
London-based start-up This Place said the tech could be utilised in high-pressure hands-free situations - such as during surgery.
It has released the MindRDR software for free in the hope that developers will adapt it for other uses.
Google made it clear that it does not support the app.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
If applications of this kind can also generate certain kinds of negative waves to be tuned, to be mixed up and to mess-up with Brain Signals, it can generate CRIMINAL ARMY. -
Hello Ladies
- Jul 2003
- Studio 54
-
Is every post based on some conspiracy?
A true conspiracy is in my signature -
Ninth Circuit Doubles Down in Garcia v. Google
After months of waiting, a Ninth Circuit panel has finally responded to Google's plea, supported by public interest groups (including EFF), journalists, librarians, other service providers, and law professors, to reconsider its disastrous opinion in the case of Garcia v. Google. The good news is that we managed to get the panel to revisit its opinion. The bad news is that it essentially doubled down.
Quick background: several months ago, and over a vigorous dissent, a panel majority ordered Google to remove copies of the notorious Innocence of Muslims film from YouTube. Why? Because one of the actors in the film insists she has a copyright interest in her performance and, based on that interest, claims to have a right to have the video taken offline. Actress Cindy Lee Garcia—who was tricked into appearing on-screen, overdubbed, for five seconds—sued Google to have the footage removed. The district court refused and Garcia appealed. The Ninth Circuit concluded Garcia's copyright claim was "doubtful" but nonetheless ordered Google to remove the film from YouTube and take steps to prevent future uploads.
The uproar was immediate, for good reason. As we and others explained, the order amounts to a prior restraint of speech, something that should never happen where the underlying claim is "doubtful." (In fact the Copyright office later refused to register Garcia's performance). The majority dismissed that concern by claiming that the First Amendment doesn’t protect copyright infringement, which missed the point. The First Amendment does protect lawful speech, which is why courts shouldn’t issue censorship orders in any but the rarest circumstances, and only where it is highly likely that the speech is actually unlawful. What is worse the panel’s ruling was accompanied by a gag order forbidding Google from discussing the ruling for almost a week.
The amended opinion issued today recognizes some of our concerns but continues to sidestep the key issues. Notably, the amended opinion does not address our most basic concern: that the court applied the wrong standard altogether. The takedown order was a mandatory preliminary injunction, which should never occur unless the law and the facts clearly favor the person asking for it. What is worse, the court gave short shrift to the public interest. Innocence of Muslims is doubtless a highly offensive video, but it is also part of the historical record. Thanks to the injunction, the public can continue to discuss the video—but we can't see what we are discussing.
The amended opinion dismissed several other concerns on procedural grounds, insisting that the district court can consider them later:
Nothing we say today precludes the district court from concluding that Garcia doesn’t have a copyrightable interest, or that Google prevails on any of its defenses. ...
After we first published our opinion, amici raised other issues, such as the applicability of the fair use doctrine, see 17 U.S.C. § 107, and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, see 47 U.S.C. § 230. Because these defenses were not raised by the parties, we do not address them. The district court is free to consider them if Google properly raises them.
And:
First Amendment protections are ‘embodied in the Copyright Act’s distinction between copyrightable expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas,’ and in the ‘latitude for scholarship and comment’ safeguarded by the fair use defense.” Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 890 (2012) (quoting Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985)). Google hasn’t raised fair use as a defense in this appeal, see page 11 supra, so we do not consider it in determining its likelihood of success. This does not, of course, preclude Google from raising the point in the district court, provided it properly preserved the defense in its pleadings.
This is profoundly disappointing. When a case clearly implicates the public's right to access the historical record, courts shouldn't kick the can down the road. And as the amended dissent recognizes, the panel had ample legal authority to address the flaws in its opinion, rather than referring them to another court.
Google's request for a rehearing en banc (i.e., a rehearing by the entire court rather than just a three-judge panel) is still pending, so the Ninth Circuit has another chance to revisit the case. Let's hope it does so.
garciaamended.pdf -
Flaw in Google's Dropcam sees it turned into SPYCAM
And, that makes your home easy accessible by the intruders to break-in while you are away with a nice dream of your secured home.Dropcam, according to Nest, allows consumers to "check in" on their homes while they're away. The company's wirelessly controlled cameras bill themselves as cheap, unobtrusive security systems, allowing either Android or iOS users to remotely peek at what the camera sees from afar.
Hackers could inject fake video into popular home surveillance kit Dropcam and use the system to attack networks, researchers Patrick Wardle and Colby Moore say.
The wide-ranging attacks were tempered by the need for attackers to have physical access to the devices but the exploits offer the chance to inject video frames into cameras - handy for home robberies - intercept video, and exploit the Heartbleed vulnerability to pull passwords and SSL server's private key.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
Wardle (@patrickwardle) and Moore (@colbymoore) of security firm Synack, California, reverse-engineered Dropcam hardware and software and discovered vulnerabilities that could allow malware to be implanted on the devices which would attack home or corporate networks.
"If someone has physical access, it's pretty much game over," Wardle told DarkReading. -
Google Is Hiring A Team Of All-Star Hackers (To Fix The Internet???)
As I read after getting drunk,Now, Google is taking another measure to make sure hidden internet vulnerabilities don't get out of hand with an effort known as Project Zero.
Google's "Project Zero"
"We're not placing any particular bounds on this project and will work to improve the security of any software depended upon by large numbers of people, paying careful attention to the techniques, targets and motivations of attackers....blah...blah...blah
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
Here's how Google describes the initiative:
You should be able to use the web without fear that a criminal or state-sponsored actor is exploiting software bugs to infect your computer, steal secrets or monitor your communications. Yet in sophisticated attacks, we see the use of "zero-day" vulnerabilities to target, for example, human rights activists or to conduct industrial espionage. This needs to stop. We think more can be done to tackle this problem.
Project Zero is our contribution, to start the ball rolling. Our objective is to significantly reduce the number of people harmed by targeted attacks. We're hiring the best practically-minded security researchers and contributing 100% of their time toward improving security across the Internet.
Now, Google is taking another measure to make internet more vulnerable and don't get out of hands of Cyber Bullies known as Project Zero.
Here's how Google describes the initiative:
You should NOT be able to use the web without fear that a criminal or state-sponsored actor is exploiting software bugs to infect your computer, steal secrets or monitor your communications. Yet in launching sophisticated attacks, we will use of "zero-day" vulnerabilities to target, for example, human rights activists or to conduct industrial espionage. This do not need to stop. We think more can be done to hack this problem.
Any way...
We are never feared to use Internet b'coz We are aware of what we are doing & What can go WRONG?
Security Professionals should not reject Google's Offer if Google is rewarding Ashton-Martin to all participants and make all SPs filthy rich, Make sure you get paid first rather than fake promises. -
Google's Smart Contact Lens
And,Lenses would help diabetics monitor glucose or help seniors with presbyopia focus
Swiss drugmaker Novartis has struck an agreement with Google to develop "smart" contact lenses that would help diabetics track their blood glucose levels or restore the eye's ability to focus.
The device for diabetics would measure glucose in tear fluid and send the data wirelessly to a mobile device, Novartis said. The technology is potentially life-changing for many diabetics, who prick their fingers as many as 10 times daily to check their body's production of the sugar.
Success would allow Novartis to compete in a global blood-sugar tracking market that is expected to be worth over $12 billion by 2017, according to research firm GlobalData. Diabetes afflicts an estimated 382 million people worldwide.
The second approach is for presbyopia, in which aging eyes have trouble focusing on close objects. Novartis hopes the lens technology will help restore the eye's ability to focus, almost like the autofocus on a camera.
Non-invasive sensors, microchips and other miniaturized electronics would be embedded into the contact lenses.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
The third HIDDEN approach is total sightlessness either by long term usage and eye exposure to continuous electrical current carrying copper and semi-conductors circuitry or by a possible electrical short circuit which can damage a human eye permanently.Last edited by enim; 17th Jul 2014 at 10:34.
-
FBI warns Google driverless cars could be used as 'Lethal Weapons'
When FBI made above statement, FBI might have already thought of all possible CRIMINAL MIS-USE like driverless remotely controlled CRIMINAL WAR HEAD.Internal report sees benefits for road safety, but warns that autonomy will create greater potential for criminal 'multitasking'.
Google’s driverless car may remain a prototype, but the FBI believes the “game changing” vehicle could revolutionise high-speed car chases within a matter of years. The report also warned that autonomous cars may be used as “lethal weapons”.
In an unclassified but restricted report obtained by the Guardian under a public records request, the FBI predicts that autonomous cars “will have a high impact on transforming what both law enforcement and its adversaries can operationally do with a car.”
In a section called Multitasking, the report notes that “bad actors will be able to conduct tasks that require use of both hands or taking one’s eyes off the road which would be impossible today.”
One nightmare scenario could be suspects shooting at pursuers from getaway cars that are driving themselves.
Read more
You should not be surprised to read news head lines that XYZ country bans all US High Tech (poorly designed and poorly engineered) Gadgets & Toys. -
There's almost a million fake apps targeting your phone
Can You Guess WHO?
Fake apps dressed up to look like official ones but actually designed to steal user data are increasingly targeting Android phone users, according to a study by Trend Micro.
The company looked at the top 50 free apps in Google’s Play Store and then searched Google’s app store and others to see if fake versions existed. It found fake versions existed for 77 percent of the apps. The fake apps are often made to look like the real ones and have the same functions, but carry a dangerous extra payload.
“We’ve been tracking the activity of malicious or high-risk apps for nearly five years,” said JD Sherry, vice president of technology and solutions at Trend Micro. “The potential for people to slip things past the gate and appear legitimate is much easier.”
Tokyo-based Trend Micro, which makes antivirus and antimalware software that guard against such risks, said it cataloged 890,482 fake apps in a survey conducted in April this year. More than half were judged to be malicious of which 59,185 were aggressive adware and 394,263 were malware.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
Sherry said he thought Google’s announcement was “ironic” considering the large number of problems Trend Micro found in Google’s own backyard.
“I strongly suggest they take aim at the Android marketplace and Google Play,” he said.
Who is eating up Developer's Revenue?
(Few Developers must be millionaires at least for billions installations.)
Does it has any thing to do with Google's swelling revenues for Q2 of 2014?
Quote
Visit Homepage
