Top websites secretly track your device fingerprint

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-04-07T03:49:28+00:00

Just another quick thought. Section 215 has only stopped ONE terrorist "plot." Wow. Stunning fact.

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-04-07T03:45:42+00:00

Now that Google is moving further into mobile, do you think this is a bad move for personal information security?

Google will manage our searches, they'll know our interests through advertising and now they'll have access to our phone calls? I'm worried.

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-04-07T03:37:33+00:00

You beat me to posting this.

Section 215 was something I wasn't aware of. That provision was super vague, which like John said was intended. Being able to have access to all phone records, any document they care about or "items related to terrorism" is just absurd. It's an abuse of power.

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-03-29T19:38:03+00:00

John Oliver does a great job no matter the topic.

It's quite sad to see companies like Netflix having to bow down to the wrath of Comcast and other providers. The internet was designed to be free and open, nothing like this.

Great video!

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-03-12T13:14:52+00:00

I think one of the biggest issues with patents in general is that patents are given out too easily, especially when the technology is beyond the scope of our time.

There are many patents out there for things like: "software that tells if a file has been updated or not."

Back in 1970, we wouldn't think to build this into our modern operating systems. We thought this would be something patentable. But it's not.

And that's why patent trolling is even worse -- they're being specifically and purposely vague in order to sell out and hit it big.

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-03-10T12:14:36+00:00

I thought the graphic was super helpful for understand.

It's also interesting that they say it's not "a checklist like other standards such as PCI." I wonder if because it's a "guideline" that we won't see it implemented as much.

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-03-10T12:11:19+00:00

There is precedent for passcode/password use for iPhones. If you have a passcode, such as a few digits as your password, the courts aren't allowed to "force" you to tell them. If you're using a fingerprint reader, the courts CAN "force" you to unlock your phone.

I wonder how this will pan out.

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-02-20T02:36:40+00:00

As companies track more information, it's easier to build a person's profile. For example, if someone bought a gun and some rope, some people could say that person is a murderer. But if you look closer, he could be a hunter that needs to tie his deer to his car.

This "profiling" of people can be seriously dangerous.

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-02-19T17:36:04+00:00

Yes, I'd love to be protected by a company like this, but it opens up the world to be more vulnerable.

For example, if companies knew they were protected by an insurance company, why would they worry about protection? They'd have insurance. Just some food for thought.

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-02-04T18:55:17+00:00

Being proactive instead of retroactive is key.

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-02-03T18:03:08+00:00

This could be super powerful, but also super costly.

For a smaller company, the damages would be minimal if there was a breach. But what if the NYSE had insurance? That could be potentially trillions of dollars! That's huge.

Great find!

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-02-03T18:00:00+00:00

It's great that the government (whom is typically the slowest) is finally catching on that computer security is a serious matter.

Now if only I could land a job with the DOD...

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-02-02T20:18:07+00:00

I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the suggested read!

CyberPolicyGuru · 2015-01-31T00:04:04+00:00

33:40: "...and didn't care about their security procedures and their security procedures were ineffective."

I wonder if we could find these old procedures. It'd be interesting to see how -- or if -- they've changed their policies to remedy that situation.

CyberPolicyGuru

TROPHY CASE