Ghostery Ghosterians! We have a new release ready for the masses. We found a few issues and made some updates. Before we get to the details. PLEASE NOTE: The version # for Firefox is 5.4.10. Here are the notes: Defects: A fix for multiple bugs related to the e10s Electrolysis build.Blank options menu in the old Panel > unable to revert to new panelConflict with Adblock Plus in FFX 43 Features: Capping the wizard setup reinitiation at 3, which should prevent people from getting stuck in the setup wizard loop.Purplebox off by defaultUpdated language in extension stores for Chrome, Opera, and SafariRelease note link has been updated to new siteRemoved an extra step from the Safari setup wizard Your current version should auto-update unless you have turned that off from your browser’s menu, but if not, you can get the new version HERE. As always, we appreciate your feedback., so please, drop us a line or visit our forum. ~Happy browsing!
The Official EasyList Website Why you should stay away from Unseen.is - joepie91's Ramblings It took a bit longer than I expected before I had the time to make this post, but here it finally is. Not too long ago, I ran across some Anonymous-related Twitter accounts promoting Unseen.is. Unseen is, in their own words, a "private and secure messaging, calling and e-mail application" - which seems great, but really isn't. As it turns out, there are plenty of reasons why you shouldn't ever use them. The mortal sin of cryptography. You should never, ever, ever roll your own cryptography - or rather, if you do, you shouldn't actually use it in production, or publish it at all. The unseen.is FAQ (mirror) page says the following: Messages on our service are sent using 4096-bit encryption, which is considered extremely strong. you generate your keys with extremely strong lattice based encryption. Aside from the clear snake-oil marketing there - the amount of bits is absolutely meaningless without context - there is absolutely no mention of what algorithm they use. Unseen's code is not.
PRIVACY - How We Protect You The only search engine that does not record your IP address. Every time you use a regular search engine, your search data is recorded. Major search engines capture your IP address and use tracking cookies to make a record of your search terms, the time of your visit, and the links you choose - then they store that information in a giant database. Those searches reveal a shocking amount of personal information about you, such as your interests, family circumstances, political leanings, medical conditions, and more. Major search engines have quietly amassed the largest database of personal information on individuals ever collected. In August 2006, the online world was jarred when AOL accidentally released three months' worth of aggregated search data from 650,000 of its users, publishing all the details in an online database. That database is still searchable. Shocked? When we search, we share our most private thoughts with our computers. Ixquick web search awarded the first
What Is Deep Packet Inspection? It’s easy to turn a deaf ear to the controversy surrounding recent copyright protection bills like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or the PROTECT IP Act, which threatened to curtail free speech on the Internet by allowing the U.S. Department of Justice to blacklist and block access to websites suspected of copyright infringement. Most of us don’t visit websites suspected of illegally distributing copyrighted material, so blocking us from accessing them seems harmless. To understand how deep packet inspection works and the potential threat it poses to your privacy, you need to know that your PC packages all the information you send and receive online into packets of data. When your Internet service provider engages in deep packet inspection, it uses powerful software from vendors like Procera Networks to scan all of the data packets that pass through its network.
Why and How iOS Apps Are Grabbing Your Data Early last week the personal diary app Path became the fulcrum of a massive discussion about how cavalier mobile apps are getting with harvesting your, presumably, personal information. Path was found by a developer to send the entire contents of its users Address Books, where, it was uncovered, it was being stored locally. Predictably, when privacy issues are concerned, there was an outcry about how Path handled the data, and many decried it for being underhanded or even flat out lying about its procedures. But, as with most things, there is a bigger story here and it turns out that what Path was doing was far from out of the ordinary. In fact, according to independent testing shared with The Next Web by developer Paul Haddad of Tapbots, many apps that are far more popular than Path are transmitting your data, and many of them have been doing it completely without your knowledge or consent until the Path story blew up, forcing them to immediately update their apps. No easy answer Facebook
Doxxing defense: Remove your personal info from data brokers Many women gamers and developers, as well as those who support them, have lately come under attack from online trolls. A common intimidation tactic that trolls use is "doxxing," or publicly exposing their targets' personal details, including home address, phone number and even financial records. Doxxing is often accompanied by threats of violence, sexual assault or murder. The message is clear: We're out to get you, and we know where you live. But anyone is susceptible to doxxing, as game developer Phil Fish discovered this summer after speaking up in defense of a female developer. Unfortunately, doxxers don't have to work very hard to find a victim's personal info. More bad news: There are hundreds of data brokers, not all of which offer opt-out processes. I selected these brokers based on the following factors: Opt out of the following services, and you'll have "gotten all of the big ones," says Stephens—but pay attention to the caveat at the end of this story. Spokeo Pipl ZoomInfo PeekYou
2 E-Mail Services Close and Destroy Data Rather Than Reveal Files An image of Silent Circle’s Web page, ending its e-mail. A spokesman said the company’s customers included heads of state, members of royalty and government agencies. The company will continue its encrypted phone and text messaging service. The shutdown of two small e-mail providers on Thursday illustrates why it is so hard for Internet companies to challenge secret government surveillance: to protect their customers’ data from federal authorities, the two companies essentially committed suicide. Lavabit, a Texas-based service that was reportedly used by Edward J. Snowden, the leaker who had worked as a National Security Agency contractor, announced the suspension of its service Thursday afternoon. Within hours, a fast-growing Maryland-based start-up called Silent Circle also closed its e-mail service and destroyed its e-mail servers. Mike Janke, the chief executive, said the company’s customers included heads of state, members of royalty and government agencies. Mr.
How to conduct a security audit of your Google account February 18, 2014, 10:04 AM — Image credit: flickr/s2art The privacy dangers of Google go beyond what Google knows about you -- you may have given dozens of sites access to your Google account information without realizing it. Here's how to conduct a security audit of your Google account, and how to take action to keep it safe. There are a number of reasons you might have given a site access to your Google account. You may have wanted to log into the Web site to gain access to its services or information, and rather than setting up an entirely new account there, you instead decided to use your Google log-in. So how do you see what sites have access to your Google account, and what kind of information they can get? You'll be sent a page with information about your account. Look on the page for "Account permissions" section, then click "View all." Click any and you'll get the rundown about the account, including what Google account information the service can access.
TrackMeNot Background Public awareness of the vulnerability of searches to systematic surveillance and logging by search engine companies, was initially raised in the wake of a case, initiated August 2005, in which the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a subpoena to Google for one week's worth of search query records (absent identifying information) and a random list of one million URLs from its Web index. This was cited as part of its defense of the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). While viewed from the perspective of user privacy this seems a good outcome, yet it does bring to light several disquieting points.