Enter the Facebook Imposter Scam:
The Facebook Imposter Scam is the same exploit that hit myspace. Users accounts are hacked using phishing techniques. Basically, users are lured into clicking on what looks like a legitimate link, they are scammed into giving out their username and password (sometimes with a phishing site that looks like “facebook” a “facebook imposter”). Once the user enters the username password, the criminal has there information and can do whatever they want. What they typically do is use the account to advertise a product, service or scam to EVERY friend on the victims list. The facebook imposter will even use the victim’s account to scam others.

This scam earned its way on the Internet Crime Complaint Center.

The best way to avoid falling prey to this imposter scam, is to watch out for outbound links. Always hover over alink and look at the bottom right-hand corner of the browser to see where it is actually going. Type in the supposed link into the address bar rather than clicking on outboud links. Pay attention to phishing warnings that myspace, search engines, browsers and facebook give you.

I love Google, but it conflicts with my finely honed skill of not trusting. I use Google for just about everything knowing they have a dangerous amount of information about me and everything else readily available in a search friendly little package.

Google showed up as the most conspicuous tracker on third-party sites. Google Analytics, a free product that allows online publishers to gather statistics about visitors to their sites, was used on 81 of the top 100 sites. Cookies from the advertising company DoubleClick, which is owned by Google, were present on 70 of those sites. When combining trackers from those two services, Google had a presence on 92 of the top 100 sites. Others weren’t far behind. Cookies from Atlas, Microsoft’s DoubleClick rival, appeared on 60 sites, and trackers from two other analytics companies, Quantcast and Omniture, showed up on 54 sites.

– Ny time

I still love Google and I still believe, perhaps foolishly, that they are not evil. Even so, one day I think Google will turn evil, not unlike any empire that has become too powerful. The culture of the company will change in a generation and a new dynasty will reign using personal information as a weapon rather than a useful tool for making better searching. I hope I am very, very wrong.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s has been pretty lax with other people privacy. Since he determines our nation’s laws his comments and intensions on such matters are very important. The silly thing about all this is that he doesn’t agree with HIS privacy being exploited.

Professor Reindenberg of Fordham University challenged his students to find all public information on Scalia. Than this appearently pissed him off.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/6/721853/-Scalia-Owned-by-Students,-Flips-Out!

We love convenience so how can we go without our Google, Yahoo, MSN searches and our access to the Internet. Never mind the fact that all of these entities track or even record (and send to the government) every thing we do online.

Our nature places privacy last on the list, and convenience and comfort in the top five. I’m not looking down my nose at you. I’m guilty of all of the above privacy sins. I’m not judging your search engine usage or saying you should switch to anonymizers and clusty.com or go phone using an untraceable credit card.. I’ve got my tin foil hat in storage next to my year supply of MRE’s and shot guns.

I’m just pointing out the facts. We give our privacy away, to companies, the government and other organizations.

What is a bit bothersome to me are laws that allow the abuse of what we are willing to give in trust. The protection of the data we entrust to companies, federal, state and local government should not be allowed to be misused neither by

Violations of the 4th Amendment (use of your online history without probable cause) nor by criminal hackers and/or companies selling your information to the highest bidder.

Fair laws that are in favor of the buyer adherence to the 4th Amendment. I don’t think this is a reasonable request. I think the CIO’s who implement opt-out letters sent to clients expect some amount of respect for the information they put out.

Would be pissed if his financial information was stolen.

Dangers of the Internet are relative to the perspective of those accessing it. That is to say, on the Internet “dangers” are completely dependent on who is accessing what data from where and what their intentions are for accessing it. For example, researching a list of poisons could be a considered “dangers to the Internet” if a seriously disturbed person intends to kill his or her spouse. On the other hand, if a parent is just wondering what house hold products are poisonous with the intention of protecting her children, can that be considered a danger?

So protection from dangers on the Internet should be proactive and involve human judgment at some level. Policies must be written, planned and implemented in advanced or ad hoc to suit the environment and the users accessing the Internet. Children at a school with access from the classroom will more than likely be different from employees at a skating rink.

Even the items commonly considered dangers on the Internet relate directly to how much access individuals and organizations allow to and from the web. Common “dangers” may include (but should not be limited to) the following:

Accessibility to personal – applies to educating users on the dangers of putting personal information on the Internet and protecting organizational data bases

Sensitive data – For a school sensitive data is likely linked to the grades and personal information of staff and student, but for a business sensitive information could include proprietary information that would hurt the bottom line if it were leaked to competition.

Financial fraud & criminal hackers/scammers- This applies to educating users about criminal hacker techniques such as malware, social engineering, email and website phishing

The access of impressionable and/or psychologically disturbed individuals to potentially harmful and destructive information – This is rather subjective however it should be a concern to schools from elementary – colleges, rehabilitation facilities and mental institutions. There are ways to block certain obvious material with web-blocker type applications, but no one can stop them all. Monitoring is a must if this danger is to be handled seriously.

The risks and damage of these dangers are dependent on the environment & the users involved. It is up to the system owners to ensure that the policies are properly planned, implemented and maintained as exposure to any Internet danger can disrupt the safety, mission and/or values of an organization or individual.

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 01, with Steve Rambam

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 02, with Steve Rambam

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 03, with Steve Rambam

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 04, with Steve Rambam

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 05, with Steve Rambam

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 06, with Steve Rambam

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 07, with Steve Rambam

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 08, with Steve Rambam

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 10, with Steve Rambam

PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT Pt 11, with Steve Rambam

All ‘PRIVACY IS DEAD – GET OVER IT with Steve Rambam’ Lectures

Invasion of privacy laws are imperative because the loss of privacy can mean not only a small inconvenience but major loss of assets and/or opportunity. Loss of privacy can mean (among other things) identity theft, financial fraud or and inability to get a job.

Many first world and emerging technological countries must deal with this challenge. There are many invastion of privacy laws designed to protect common citizens:

United States, Privacy Act of 1974, designed to hold those that handle private information accountable for its protection.

* Health Information Privacy Accountability Act — Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
* Financial Services Modernization Act (GLB), 15 U.S. Code §§ 6801-6810
* Final Rule on Privacy of Consumer Financial Information, 16 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 313
* Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S. Code §§ 1681-1681u

Australia, Privacy Act of 1988, sets out principles in relation to the collection, use, disclosure, security and access to personal information.

Canada Privacy Law

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in connection with commercial activities and personal information about employees of federal works, undertakings and businesses. Wiki

I’m not saying we should not be more cautious or more aware. I’m not saying that more security is not necessary. What I am saying is that Taking away liberties is not necessary. And even if you feel it is necessary to spy on all citizens indefinitely to “catch terrorist” shouldn’t there be checks and balances on the watchers. Who will watch the watchers? How will we ensure that their powers are not abused.

New Technologies:
Smart CCTV – There are now smart security cameras with pattern recognition that allow them to alarm when some one does something suspicious such as climb a fence, or put down a bag and walk away. That technology has been developed by companies like ObjectVideo Inc. Defense Advanced Research Products Agency (DARPA) hopes to take it a step further by creating systems that can learn everyday patterns and send alarm when things are outside of their known pattern, also known as anomaly detection.

http://govtsecurity.com/mag/fighting_terror_technology/


read more | digg story

Companies are in the business of selling your personal information. You that little Privacy Statement that your credit card company send to you. If you read the fine print, they are usually telling you that they are about to send your personal information to their “partners” an/or third party organizations unless you send them a written document to opt out.

I got one from Dexonline once. The law seems to favor these corporations, because it can be difficult to get off of all these lists. Its like a Anti-Privacy Virus. Once one company has your data, they send you information to there third party partners (with your silence as permission) then the third party vendors attempt to sell you an item and do the same thing (with your sheep like compliance) and so on. Pretty soon your personal information is on 10 or 20 revolving marketing lists.

I’m not opposed to some solicitations, but US law is pretty flimsy on the privacy of individuals. The CAN-SPAM act is just no enough anymore. Consumer should have to sign-up not just opt-out in written form via mail. But what happens is that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Visa, Master Card and many, many others put their right to give out your information right in the USER Agreement (which nobody reads). Since there are few alternatives that protect your privacy, they don’t feel any pressure to side with your privacy. By law, they have to provide a method of opt-out prior to selling your information, but like I said, I don’t think its enough.

Local government privacy is even worse, I’ve been reluctant to write about it because I fear that I will make it easier to for more bad guys to do bad things just because they can.

read more | digg story