STOP written declaration 29 NOW! This declaration wants every search engine query in the EU to be tracked and watched!
A more accurate analogy would be going fishing for tuna and accidentally catching a dolphin.
This is why another poster said that accidental would be if that had happened on one car in one city during a beta test.
Because after that, you look at the data you have gathered and discover your accident. Imho this should be discovered even before such a beta test, as any company that respects privacy should have internal audits set up that discover that kind of misconfiguration.
So, after Google went fishing for tuna and accidentally caught many dolphins, they must have noticed this but obviosly decided that they were absolutely okay with a process that illegally caught as many dolphins as tuna fish and even decided to do this all over the world for years.
Accident? I don't think so. Within that four years that Google has been sniffing the private data, many persons must have noticed that fact.
This means that Google does not give anything about privacy and does not even implement the most basic protections against accidental privacy violations in their workflow.
Google is probably the one company with the most intimate knowledge about a very large mass of people. They know all your search terms (Google Search), your emails (GMail), your documents (Google Docs), your journeys (Google maps) and even your health records (Google Health). Also they now have pictures of your car, your house and garden as well as the SSID of you WLAN, your MAC and in some cases even some data from within your WLAN.
Now, if such a powerful company with that large amount of private data demonstrates, that it is not even remotely capable of not driving through the whole world without violating everybody's privacy, don't you think that this should in fact concern me or anybody?
Just as a person shouting from a window has no reasonable expectation that passersby will somehow "shut their ears" [...]
Just as I should have a reasonable expectation that it will not be recorded and that such a recording would be published without my consent by a passersby when I talk to a friend on the open street, I should have a reasonable expectation that no large corporation is peeking over my fence into my garden or sniffing my WLAN traffic in order to publish/sell/give away that data.
DEP makes exploitation of the flaw much harder to do and the exploit that was used does not work with DEP enabled, but that does not mean that the underlying vulnerability can't be exploited with DEP enabled. It's just much harder to do. Even Microsoft admits that:
from the security advisory:
This vulnerability is more difficult to exploit successfully if Data Execution Protection (DEP) is enabled for Internet Explorer.
Even still, this blog post is fucking useless. What CMS? What input is not being validated? Is it an underlying problem with Drupal? Wordpress? Joomla? What version?
The blog post is completely fucking useless.
The parent asked for recommendations for what end users could do to protect themselves and whether AV detection would catch it. Now why is your comment informative and mine is modded offtopic? I just pointed out to the parent poster, that some of the informations he claimed to be missing was actually in right in the TFA.
Aliases: Trojan-PWS.Win32.Lmir (Ikarus, a-squared); TR/Hijacker.Gen (AntiVir); Trojan/Win32.Buzus.gen (Antiy-AVL); W32/Agent.S.gen!Eldorado (F-Prot, Authentium); Win32:Rootkit-gen (Avast); Generic15.CBGO (AVG); Trojan.Generic.2823971 (BitDefender, GData); Trojan.Buzus.croo (Kaspersky, QuickHeal); Trojan.NtRootKit.2909 (DrWeb); Trj/Buzus.AH (Panda).
This is the second of a two-part series on hiring hackers and criminal hackers into IT groups as programmers, network administrators and security personnel.
In a previous series of articles in this column in 2005, I discussed general principles of security when evaluating candidates for any position. A more extensive resource is "Personnel Management and INFOSEC" which, with some expansion, became the chapter on "Employment Practices and Policies" in both the Fourth and Fifth Editions of the Computer Security Handbook (CSH5).
Chapter 12 of the CSH5 is "The Psychology of Computer Criminals" by Dr. Q. Campbell and David M. Kennedy. The authors point out that research on computer criminals suggests that some criminal hackers may exhibit addictive or compulsive behavior resulting from "a combination of compulsive behaviors and curiosity." In addition, "the need for power and recognition by their peers may both be motivating factors for some cybervandals. Computer criminals report feelings of enjoyment and satisfaction when they prove themselves better than system administrators and their peers." [p 12.3]
In another section, the authors report research that suggests that criminal hackers may "alter their thinking to justify their negative actions.... Immoral behaviors can be justified by comparing them to more egregious acts, minimizing the consequences of the actions, displacing responsibility, and blaming the victim[s] themselves."
Another problem is that some criminal hackers may exhibit traits associated with clinical personality disorders such as the narcissistic personality disorder. One of the most important aspects of this disorder is the sense of entitlement. Campbell and Kennedy write, "Entitlement is described as the belief that one is in some way privileged and owed special treatment or recognition.... When corporate authority does not recognize an individual's inflated sense of entitlement, the criminal insider seeks revenge via electronic criminal aggressions."
Dr. Jerrold M. Post wrote Chapter 13 of the CSH5, "The Dangerous Information Technology Insider: Psychological Characteristics and Career Patterns." He agrees that many criminal hackers who are employees (insiders) show signs of personality disorders. In particular, he warns that several types of insiders who have a past history of criminal hacking may engage in dangerous hacking such as inserting logic bombs for extortion, theft of information for industrial espionage, and development of a sense of ownership over the entire system for which they have been hired as system administrators.[p 13.7]
Post has a list of recommendations for all IT hiring which are as follows:
I recommend the following precautionary measures be added to the usual hiring scrutiny when a candidate has revealed a questionable (criminal or borderline) hacking past (or present) or been discovered through a background check to have been or be involved in such hacking:
It is useful to test these questions on a couple of willing volunteers of known probity and long, loyal service among your technically-gifted employees to establish a baseline of responses from honest people and also for practice in asking the questions.
So before you hire a hacker, verify, then trust, then verify.
If your first priority is to be truthful and you are a follower but the government tries to get you to deny your believes, you have a problem. And this usually means most severe torture without the practitioner betraying his believes but instead upholding the ideals of Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance, even against those who turture them. Now tell me that this is not as good as one can be!
In case somebody uploaded your foto without consent, you can have them remove it and/or sue them but the information is already published and nothing will change that fact.
And how can I know about every photo of me that has been published? How can I search for them? How do I even know when a photo has been taken - say from traffic cams, hidden cams, etc.?
Don't get me wrong, I love this law and this is why google earth had to blur all faces in my country but it does not protect me from somebody uploading my photo. It does not even protect me from somebody then tagging my photo with my real name, e.g. in some social networking site I don't even know exists. And since I can't search for photos that show me but which I do not have (because someone else took it), I will never find out in order to get it removed which would be too late anyway.
The problem here is that the MAFIAA will use this againt the consumer, citing "loss due to piracy". They do not seem to take into consideration that their own behaviour might be turning away customers, it's always piracy.
In effect, consumers have virtually not the possibility to boycott the RIAA and friends as this only seems to strengthen their arguments. Oh, how I hate them and their monopoly.
The road to hell is paved with NAND gates. -- J. Gooding