For those using the Google Chrome web browser, it is important to know that a critical privacy bug has been found in the browser software which has not yet been fixed by Google.
Specifically, Chrome routinely stores sensitive information, such as names, e-mails, contact information, and/or even credit card information which are typed by users into web forms at trusted websites. It appears that Chrome stores this information within the program in plain text which can be easily accessed by anyone with access to the user’s computer.
As such, until Google addresses this vulnerability, users should be extremely cautious in entering private data into websites using the Chrome browser if there is any chance that the user’s computers can be accessed by others. Furthermore, because the information is cached in the program without any encryption or any other security measures, any trojan horse or similar malware on a user’s computer could potentially access this information and forward it on to identity thieves.
While this clearly has serious potential repercussions for individuals using Chrome, the situation is even more serious for businesses, who could, as a result, be out of compliance with PCI-DSSsecurity rules which are usually mandated by credit card processing companies, if the business wants to be able to accept payments by credit card.
As such, individuals and businesses alike need to take this vulnerability very seriously.
An interesting look into the effects on public opinion (at least in the U.S.) that the current round of patent wars is having. Of course surveys like this do beg the question: “Will this kind of negative sentiment ultimately push companies away from scorched earth patent litigation (whether as a result of legal reform or out of concern for their reputation in the market place)?” The jury is still out.
A classic case of the tension between rights holders and technology companies. On one hand the technology companies (in many cases) enable greater uptake of the content. On the other, rights holders often see technology companies monetizing their content without and direct benefit to the rights holder. (Pinterest and Google are two of the big battlegrounds in this fight.) There is merit on both sides of this fight, and it is clear that not only do copyright laws need to evolve to logically deal with this tension, but so do the business models on both sides. There is not a clear new paradigm that works for both sides yet, but if one doesn’t arrive soon, there will be an awful lot of unnecessary casualties on both sides of this battle.
Google (s GOOG) has launched a broadside against a proposed law in Germany that would see search engines forced to pay license fees for linking people to news stories.
Well, actually that’s slightly inaccurate: the draft law would make search engines pay for reproducing newspapers’ headlines and first paragraphs. So, take those away and the links are fine. Even if nobody will have the faintest idea what they’re linking to.
Google’s North Europe communications chief, Kay Oberbeck, sounded off about the issue this morning in a guest post for a German press agency. That was in German, of course, so I got him to vent in English as well:
“Nobody sees a real reason why this should be implemented,” he said. “It’s really harmful, not just for users who wouldn’t find as much information as they find now, but such a law is also not justified for economic reasons or…
Oh Boy! Yet another patent slug-fest in the making. This time Google’s recently acquired Motorola Mobility unit is suing Apple for infringing upon a number of its patents, including locations reminders, e-mail reminders, and even “Siri”.
I am hoping that at some point soon, someone is going to realized that the current rounds of patent-based mutually assured destruction are a huge detriment to innovation (and the economy) and that some form or rational cross licensing of technology will take place, before the mobile ecosystem becomes a blighted wasteland.
While not necessarily fully indicative of the judge’s thought process to date in the trial, the fact that her is permitting amicus briefs from the pro-“fair use” camp is at least somewhat telling. It will certainly be interesting to see where this trial comes out!