12 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2020
    1. It tries to trick users into installing it or it piggybacks on the installation of another program.
    2. It is deceptive, promising a value proposition that it does not meet.
    1. open source

      So open-source that there is no link to the source code and a web search for this product did not reveal where the source code is hosted.

      They're obviously using this term merely as a marketing term without respect for the actual meaning/principles of open source.

  2. Apr 2020
    1. Basically, the attackers don't actually have video of you or access to your contacts, and they haven't been able to install malicious code on your computer. In reality, they're taking a password from a database that's available online, sending it to you, and hoping you're scared enough to believe their story and send them bitcoin.
  3. Mar 2020
    1. Most Google users will have a preferences cookie called ‘NID’ in their browsers. A browser sends this cookie with requests to Google’s sites. The NID cookie contains a unique ID Google uses to remember your preferences and other information, such as your preferred language (e.g. English), how many search results you wish to have shown per page (e.g. 10 or 20), and whether or not you wish to have Google’s SafeSearch filter turned on.

      They seem to claim (or hope that their description will make you think) that ‘NID’ is only used for storing preferences, but if you read further down, you see that it's also used for targeting.

      These should be separate cookies since they have separate purposes, and since under GPDR we have to get separate consent for each purpose of cookie.

    1. And if people were really cool about sharing their personal and private information with anyone, and totally fine about being tracked everywhere they go and having a record kept of all the people they know and have relationships with, why would the ad tech industry need to spy on them in the first place? They could just ask up front for all your passwords.
    2. But people clearly do care about privacy. Just look at the lengths to which ad tech entities go to obfuscate and deceive consumers about how their data is being collected and used. If people don’t mind companies spying on them, why not just tell them plainly it’s happening?
    3. The deceitful obfuscation of commercial intention certainly runs all the way through the data brokering and ad tech industries that sit behind much of the ‘free’ consumer Internet. Here consumers have plainly been kept in the dark so they cannot see and object to how their personal information is being handed around, sliced and diced, and used to try to manipulate them.
    1. The <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> tag or directive applies to search engine crawlers. To block non-search crawlers, such as AdsBot-Google, you might need to add directives targeted to the specific crawler
  4. Oct 2019
    1. A former union boss jailed over receiving a coal exploration licence from his friend, former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald, was an "entrepreneur" who found a "willing buyer" in the disgraced politician, a court has heard.

      This is a flawed proposition and both misleading and deceptive in relation to the subject matter, considering its prominence in a court media report of proceedings which largely centre on the propriety or otherwise of an approvals process.

      Using a market analogy mischaracterises the process involved in seeking and gaining approval for a proposal based on an innovative occupational health and safety concept.

      In this case, the Minister was the appropriate authority under the relevant NSW laws.

      And while Mr Maitland could indeed be described as a "entrepreneur", the phrase "willing buyer" taken literally in the context of the process to which he was constrained, could contaminate the reader's perception of the process as transactional or necessitating exchange of funds a conventional buyer and seller relationship.

      Based on evidence already tendered in open court, it's already known Mr Maitland sought both legal advice on the applicable process as well as guidance by officials and other representatives with whom he necessarily engaged.

      But the concept of finding a "willing buyer", taken literally at it's most extreme, could suggest Mr Maitland was presented with multiple approvals processes and to ultimately reach his goal, engaged in a market force-style comparative assessment of the conditions attached to each of these processes to ultimately decide on which approvals process to pursue.

      Plainly, this was not the case. Mr Maitland had sought advice on the process and proceeded accordingly.

      The only exception that could exist in relation to the availability of alternative processes could be a situation silimilar to the handling of unsolicited proposals by former Premier Barry O'Farrell over casino licenses which were not constrained by any of the regular transparency-related requirements including community engagement, notification or competitive tender.

      Again, this situation does not and could not apply to the process applicable to Mr Maitland's proposal.

      The misleading concepts introduced from the outset in this article also represent an aggravating feature of the injustice to which Mr Maitland has been subjected.

      To be found criminally culpable in a matter involving actions undertaken in an honest belief they were required in a process for which Mr Maitland both sought advice process and then at no stage was told anything that would suggest his understanding of the process was incorrect, contradicts fundamental principles of natural justice.

  5. Feb 2017
    1. Rather than viewing predatory publishers as a disease in themselves, I suggest we should regard them instead as a symptom of malaise within the academic research establishment

      Hear hear.