yahoo news
Symantec Corporation, an anti-virus firm, reported that 70 percent of all emails coming from Asia are spam. The company claims that China leads the continent with 30 percent of that total, and the almost 90 percent of emails sent from the Philippines are spam as well.
I would never have considered Asia to be the leading sender of spam mail. With such high restrictions on Internet use, as well as the underdeveloped technological resources in most parts of the continent in comparison with other countries, I don't see why so much junk mail is coming from Asia.
Nonetheless, the general problem with excessive spamming seems to be the bigger picture here. It is as if nothing is being regulated to stop spamers, and the only defense for email account holders are filters. Still, this leaves the problem of accumulated space junk mail takes up in accounts, as well as the hassle of having to delete so many messages. Moreover, once you open a spam email, it's as if there's no way of ever stopping them from coming. We need better ways to deal with spam mail where junk messages will be denied acceptance in the first place.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Internet gambling charges settled
KATC.com
Charges were dropped against online gambling company Sportingbet PLC and its chairman. The company operates out of England where online gambling is legal, but was prosecuted for violating anti online wagering laws in Louisiana. After a 400,000 dollar settlement, the case was settled.
Being that Louisiana is one of the few states that has prohibited online banking, it is no surprise that the Sportingbet case was one of the first of its kind since the 1997 ban. I don't see the difference between online gambling and playing tables at the casinos, other than enforcing the age restrictions. Moreover, with so few places enforcing the laws, how does jurisdiction apply? Since the company was located in England where their particular service is legal, and they are capable of running the company from that region, which laws apply?
I don't see online gambling as the threat that people make it out to be. If companies put a cap on wagers and limit users to a certain number of hours, I don't see the harm in online gambling. As far as addiction and abuse go, I think it would be much easier to limit people from excessive online gambling than actually gambling. There can be restrictions set on the hours the business operates, as well as limitations put on the money invested and withdrawn. Overall, I think the practice can be safe and fun with the proper regulations.
Charges were dropped against online gambling company Sportingbet PLC and its chairman. The company operates out of England where online gambling is legal, but was prosecuted for violating anti online wagering laws in Louisiana. After a 400,000 dollar settlement, the case was settled.
Being that Louisiana is one of the few states that has prohibited online banking, it is no surprise that the Sportingbet case was one of the first of its kind since the 1997 ban. I don't see the difference between online gambling and playing tables at the casinos, other than enforcing the age restrictions. Moreover, with so few places enforcing the laws, how does jurisdiction apply? Since the company was located in England where their particular service is legal, and they are capable of running the company from that region, which laws apply?
I don't see online gambling as the threat that people make it out to be. If companies put a cap on wagers and limit users to a certain number of hours, I don't see the harm in online gambling. As far as addiction and abuse go, I think it would be much easier to limit people from excessive online gambling than actually gambling. There can be restrictions set on the hours the business operates, as well as limitations put on the money invested and withdrawn. Overall, I think the practice can be safe and fun with the proper regulations.
Friday, March 16, 2007
CD with medical data of 75,000 is found
news.com
After three months of searching, Blue Cross Blue Shield found a missing CD with information on over 75,000 clients. It was mistakenly mailed to the wrong address and recovered Wednesday, March 14. Although the package was opened by the resident, the company has concluded there should be no grounds for concern and the information was not tampered with.
My main concern regarding this issue is the fact that the insurance company sent the CD unencrypted through the mail. It seems ignorant and rather primitive for such a large corporation to, first of all having the wrong mailing address, and, more importantly, sending personal information like social security numbers without data protection. Considering the CD contained medical histories and personal data of so many people, why would Blue Cross take any risks?
This raises many questions concerning recent proposals to make medical information available on the web. To my understanding, individuals wishing to participate would have a special code that they could put into an online system to access all of their medical files. Doctors would also have access to this information, given the patient's permission, and things like prescriptions could be coordinated with pharmacies. This would also provide immediate access to critical information like allergies and conditions in emergency situations.
Overall, I think the security measures in a system like such would be insufficient in protecting people from identity theft and the like. We have a hard enough time now with online banking and shopping. Plus, if Blue cross can't even handle mailing things correctly, what companies can be trusted to ensure the privacy of our health information?
After three months of searching, Blue Cross Blue Shield found a missing CD with information on over 75,000 clients. It was mistakenly mailed to the wrong address and recovered Wednesday, March 14. Although the package was opened by the resident, the company has concluded there should be no grounds for concern and the information was not tampered with.
My main concern regarding this issue is the fact that the insurance company sent the CD unencrypted through the mail. It seems ignorant and rather primitive for such a large corporation to, first of all having the wrong mailing address, and, more importantly, sending personal information like social security numbers without data protection. Considering the CD contained medical histories and personal data of so many people, why would Blue Cross take any risks?
This raises many questions concerning recent proposals to make medical information available on the web. To my understanding, individuals wishing to participate would have a special code that they could put into an online system to access all of their medical files. Doctors would also have access to this information, given the patient's permission, and things like prescriptions could be coordinated with pharmacies. This would also provide immediate access to critical information like allergies and conditions in emergency situations.
Overall, I think the security measures in a system like such would be insufficient in protecting people from identity theft and the like. We have a hard enough time now with online banking and shopping. Plus, if Blue cross can't even handle mailing things correctly, what companies can be trusted to ensure the privacy of our health information?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
eBay CEO: Phishers threaten user trust
news.com
In aims to stop phishers from targeting eBay and Paypal users, eBay has taken three steps to "plug the holes in the system". First, in collaboration with Microsoft, eBay has made a 'blacklist' of fake sites that can now be detected by Internet Explorer. While these sites may look legitimate, they are designed specifically to steal customers' personal information.
Second, the company is digitally signing and encrypting all emails sent from eBay and Paypal, as well as encouraging email providers to filter out emails without this 'domain name signiture'. They have also made available a Paypal key fob which provides additional security with user passwords. eBay intends to uphold the trust with its customers by implementing these three solutions, as well as continuing to improve the system.
With identity theft and online privacy amongst the current Internet concerns, it seems like eBay is trying to maintain a secure system. I have used eBay in the past and trust the company and Paypal, and it is important that they maintain their customer-client relationship. They provide a unique service with the means to exchange pretty much anything, as long as someone is willing to buy, and are responsible for eliminating any security breaches. The way things are going these days, however, I think the safest thing for online shoppers to do is not rely on the company, but themselves. Some banks offer separate checking accounts where money can be transferred through online banking as necessary, which I think is the best option right now. Even if the companies fail and you are using an insecure or fake site, you would only loose the money for that purchase and all of your personal information, other than your name and address, is maintained.
In aims to stop phishers from targeting eBay and Paypal users, eBay has taken three steps to "plug the holes in the system". First, in collaboration with Microsoft, eBay has made a 'blacklist' of fake sites that can now be detected by Internet Explorer. While these sites may look legitimate, they are designed specifically to steal customers' personal information.
Second, the company is digitally signing and encrypting all emails sent from eBay and Paypal, as well as encouraging email providers to filter out emails without this 'domain name signiture'. They have also made available a Paypal key fob which provides additional security with user passwords. eBay intends to uphold the trust with its customers by implementing these three solutions, as well as continuing to improve the system.
With identity theft and online privacy amongst the current Internet concerns, it seems like eBay is trying to maintain a secure system. I have used eBay in the past and trust the company and Paypal, and it is important that they maintain their customer-client relationship. They provide a unique service with the means to exchange pretty much anything, as long as someone is willing to buy, and are responsible for eliminating any security breaches. The way things are going these days, however, I think the safest thing for online shoppers to do is not rely on the company, but themselves. Some banks offer separate checking accounts where money can be transferred through online banking as necessary, which I think is the best option right now. Even if the companies fail and you are using an insecure or fake site, you would only loose the money for that purchase and all of your personal information, other than your name and address, is maintained.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
"Fox: It's prime time for show downloads"
news.com
While Fox TV shows have only been available on limited sites with annoying commercial ads interrupting the feed every six minutes or so, Fox is making deals with a number of companies that will allow people the buy and download episodes and seasons via the Internet. Episodes will cost about $1.99, and whole seasons up to $39.99, all available to any Internet-friendly device.
Overall, I think the expansion of Fox On Demand is a good move. With the current trends in a society completely focused on convenient and efficient technology, making prime-time TV available whenever-time is a strategy a lot of networks are moving towards. The company will profit off of sales per episode and season, as well as the advertising on the site, and customers can now download missed shows onto their computers, phones or iPods for less than two dollars.
My only skepticism of the Fox On Demand project is concerning the on-line distribution of entire seasons. Personally, I don't really see any great benefits for the network over selling them in stores. Because the episodes are only available after they have aired on Fox, someone would have to wait until the entire season ends for it to be available, which I think contradicts the company's intentions with the program in the first place. Even if people are buying previous seasons that they missed out on, it seems illogical to wait for all 13 episodes to download to your computer when you can go to the nearest Target and get the eight disc set for basically the same price. Also, I think this will provide an even easier way for people to copy and distribute the media illegally, something the article did not mention in terms of prevention on Fox's part.
While Fox TV shows have only been available on limited sites with annoying commercial ads interrupting the feed every six minutes or so, Fox is making deals with a number of companies that will allow people the buy and download episodes and seasons via the Internet. Episodes will cost about $1.99, and whole seasons up to $39.99, all available to any Internet-friendly device.
Overall, I think the expansion of Fox On Demand is a good move. With the current trends in a society completely focused on convenient and efficient technology, making prime-time TV available whenever-time is a strategy a lot of networks are moving towards. The company will profit off of sales per episode and season, as well as the advertising on the site, and customers can now download missed shows onto their computers, phones or iPods for less than two dollars.
My only skepticism of the Fox On Demand project is concerning the on-line distribution of entire seasons. Personally, I don't really see any great benefits for the network over selling them in stores. Because the episodes are only available after they have aired on Fox, someone would have to wait until the entire season ends for it to be available, which I think contradicts the company's intentions with the program in the first place. Even if people are buying previous seasons that they missed out on, it seems illogical to wait for all 13 episodes to download to your computer when you can go to the nearest Target and get the eight disc set for basically the same price. Also, I think this will provide an even easier way for people to copy and distribute the media illegally, something the article did not mention in terms of prevention on Fox's part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)