Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Google Settles With State AGs On Privacy
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
11/23/2013 | 10:56:59 PM
Re: Narrow scope
Yeah, for true privacy, hidden services like Tor are still the way to go.

As Bruce Schneier put it in a September blog post on security in the wake of NSA revelations: "Use Tor to anonymize yourself. Yes, the NSA targets Tor users, but it's work for them. The less obvious you are, the safer you are."

Anything that makes it harder for a government agency to track you presumably makes it harder for marketers to track you.
Tom Murphy
50%
50%
Tom Murphy,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2013 | 4:07:38 PM
Re: Narrow scope
Now you're talking, Tom. The internet is a network controlled by the end user.  If we can block people from tracking us at that level, it's comparable to pulling down the shade in our homes -- and everyone should have that right. 

I wonder if that's a feature that computer makers can build right into the machine because, clearly, trying to build it into  browswer didn't work in this case. 
Or do we all need to start bouncing our signals aroudn the world like spammers to avoid being connected with our words.

 
Thomas Claburn
100%
0%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Ninja
11/22/2013 | 4:01:57 PM
Re: Narrow scope
The only way I see tracking diminishing is if those being tracked have equal power to obscure their footprints, as compared to those who are tracking them. And that's just not the way the law works: It's illegal to jam someone else's cell phone for example, to carry a set of lights to blind surveillance cameras, or to emit high-frequency radiation from a device to cripple nearby electronics. Tracking is set up as a right and tracking avoidance is considered suspicious. But it's time to revisit those assumptions. 
Tom Murphy
50%
50%
Tom Murphy,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2013 | 3:48:19 PM
Re: Narrow scope
Tom: You're right of course, but the concept of tracking is not. That's the point. One technology merely replaces another, and barring one in one context won't resolve the underlying issue. 
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Ninja
11/22/2013 | 3:44:47 PM
Re: Narrow scope
"While this could be a step in a long path to ending cookies..."

Cookies are already slated for obsolecence. See:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304682504579157780178992984

 
Tom Murphy
50%
50%
Tom Murphy,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2013 | 12:33:17 PM
Narrow scope
While this could be a step in a long path to ending cookies, this seems quite limited in scope. First, it's a settlement involving Google's efforts on Apple browsers -- both big players, but this won't affect the majority of users who use other browsers and/or search engines. Second, the language says: "Google shall not employ HTTP form POST functionality that uses JavaScript." That blocks a leading way to deploy cookies, but not any others.  Third, not all browswer makers will want to bar cookies given that some cookies are useful to consumers and the browser may not gain wide acceptance in the broader, cookie-addicted industry.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-privacy, but I think the FTC and other governmental organizations need to address the issue on a broader level than through expensive, time-consuming, one-off settlements.  And they need to do it without causing serious economic harm to a surprisingly still-fragile and still-evolving Internet economy.  This can help shape this economy as it matures and create a stable, secure business environment that respects privacy.

Is that asking too much from an industry that is less than 20 years old?  Isn't it better to tackle this now before these issues start gaining the patina of accepted practices?
melgross
50%
50%
melgross,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2013 | 12:21:06 PM
Some fine!
This is a slap on the wrist. Big companies assume that they might be caught at some point. They weigh the advantage of what they're doing against any fines and court costs they may incurr, and then go and do it. Google is notorious. User data is the lifeblood of their company. They are really just a glorified advertising company, after all. The fine for this should have been ten times as much, possibly more. Fines should be high enough to grab back any possible benefits the violation may have received, plus a tripling of the number. This will deter companies from doing this. What we have here is Google laughing all the way to the bank.


Stop Defending Everything
Kevin Kurzawa, Senior Information Security Auditor,  2/12/2020
Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
5 Common Errors That Allow Attackers to Go Undetected
Matt Middleton-Leal, General Manager and Chief Security Strategist, Netwrix,  2/12/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-20477
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
PyYAML 5.1 through 5.1.2 has insufficient restrictions on the load and load_all functions because of a class deserialization issue, e.g., Popen is a class in the subprocess module. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2017-18342.
CVE-2019-20478
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
In ruamel.yaml through 0.16.7, the load method allows remote code execution if the application calls this method with an untrusted argument. In other words, this issue affects developers who are unaware of the need to use methods such as safe_load in these use cases.
CVE-2011-2054
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
A vulnerability in the Cisco ASA that could allow a remote attacker to successfully authenticate using the Cisco AnyConnect VPN client if the Secondary Authentication type is LDAP and the password is left blank, providing the primary credentials are correct. The vulnerabilities is due to improper in...
CVE-2015-0749
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
A vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Manager could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack on the affected software. The vulnerabilities is due to improper input validation of certain parameters passed to the affected software. An attacker ...
CVE-2015-9543
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
An issue was discovered in OpenStack Nova before 18.2.4, 19.x before 19.1.0, and 20.x before 20.1.0. It can leak consoleauth tokens into log files. An attacker with read access to the service's logs may obtain tokens used for console access. All Nova setups using novncproxy are affected. This is rel...