Longrider

It seems that Google has decided that Longrider and Felix Domesticus are both distributing badware. If you search on Google, this is what you see. These sites are not distributing badware. Felix Domesticus suffered a corrupted database following a failed upgrade of Wordpress. Otherwise, nothing has changed with the sites.

According to stop badware.org, the reasons for this warning are:

1. Badware available for download on your site

2. Badware available on sites that you link to

3. Badware distributed through ads running on your site

4. Badware links posted in user-generated areas of your site

5. Hacking attacks to your site

I don’t offer any downloads. I link to other blogs and news sites and I don’t have ads. I always checkout links posted by people who comment, so can confirm that they do not lead to badware sites. That last one sent a chill down my spine but a check reveals no evidence of hacking. Indeed, the only recent change in circumstances was the failed Wordpress upgrade. Generally when looking for a fault, the last thing that went wrong is where it is to be found. A check with AVG confirms what I already established – there are no threats on my sites. Google is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it is verging on the paranoid.

Seriously, I’m pissed off with Google – if their bots can’t tell the difference between a corrupted database and malware, and consequently tarnish the whole site, then I am not impressed. I’ve requested a review, so we will see what happens. Interestingly other search engines are fine. It’s Google that sees badware where none exists and blackens my name with no good reason. If they don’t fix this quickly, I’ll simply block their bot from the sites completely. I’ll be losing nothing by doing so.

Bastards!

———————————

Update: Google have done the decent thing and removed the warning. Thanks chaps. I withdraw the bastards comment. However, there is a caveat; you still got it wrong, there was never any risk to peoples’ PCs from my sites.

Mr E in the comments drew my attention to the Information Commissioner’s response to Phorm.

Ad-targeting system Phorm must be “opt in” when it is rolled out, says the Information Commissioner Office (ICO)

European data protection laws demand that users must choose to enrol in the controversial system, said the ICO in an amended statement.

Irrespective of any other considerations – such as the Phorm system collecting data anyway as the traffic passes through their equipment, opt-in must be an absolute as must full, clear and unambiguous information so that consumers may exercise informed consent. Of course, informed consent is not what Phorm wants, is it?

The decision could be a blow to Phorm which before now has said it would operate on an “opt out” basis.

Naturellement. Now, why might that be? Because, perhaps, fully informed consumers will tell them en masse what they can do with their spying and adware – and that will amount to “fuck off”.

Kent Ertugrul, Phorm’s CEO came up with a beaut of a statement in response to all of this:

“The more people understand what we are doing the more comfortable they get with it,” he said.

No, Kent, as you have seen from the somewhat vociferous comment around the web, the opposite is true. Why do you think thousands of us have downloaded Adblock? It is because we don’t want to see adverts and we certainly don’t want slimy little salesmen stealing our browsing activities and using it to make a fast buck by shoving those unwanted adverts in our faces – and the more we see and hear about your company, the less we like it.

I repeat what I have said before; if my ISP so much as hints at getting into bed with Phorm, I will cancel my contract immediately. My web browsing habits are not for sale. I am not a product to be traded by sleazeballs inhabiting the slimy underbelly of the Internet.

So, Phorm, fuck off!

According to this report from the Beeb, another analysis of Phorm has come to the conclusion that it is illegally accessing peoples’ data:

Technical analysis of the Phorm online advertising system has reinforced an expert’s view that it is “illegal”.

The analysis was done by Dr Richard Clayton, a computer security researcher at the University of Cambridge.

What Dr Clayton learned while quizzing Phorm about its system only convinced him that it breaks laws designed to limit unwarranted interception of data.

Indeed, every analysis I have seen so far has reached this conclusion. It doesn’t take a technical or legal analysis to determine that there is something highly unethical about intercepting peoples’ surfing habits – no matter what the reason behind it. The whole concept stinks like a barrel of rotting fish heads. Phorm, however, seek to justify their parasitic behaviour:

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) was drafted in the earliest days of the internet. It is not designed to criminalise legitimate business activities - online targeted advertising is an accepted part of the internet landscape today.

Ah, so because the world has moved on, it’s okay to spy on people and not tell them about it, which is exactly what Phorm and BT did with their trials. No, it remains unethical and RIPA remains valid and intercepting peoples’ data is not legitimate business activity – it is criminal.

If people want to advertise their wares on their Internet sites, let them. We don’t need Phorm or any other slimy creeps spying on us in the process. Frankly, like many others, I don’t want to see adverts at all, so I block them. Nor am I prepared to be targeted – which is why I avoid surveys and ruthlessly delete tracking cookies. Where I go is my business – it is not a free for all for advertisers to shove their wares in my face.

I will also promptly sever any contract with my ISP if they even so much as enter talks with companies such as Phorm about doing this. Phorm are the nasty underbelly of the Internet and BT, Talk Talk and Virgin are doing themselves no favours by getting into bed with them.

Jacqui Smith demonstrates her facile, shallow intellect when talking about plans to control sex offenders’ access to Internet sites:

 Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she wanted children to be “free from fear”.

Quite apart from not appreciating the difficulties these proposals mean when they attempt to put them into practice – throw-away email addys anyone? That statement is, without doubt, one of the most stupid I’ve heard coming from the mouth of a politician for a while – and, it is not without some stiff competition.

Fear is good. Fear is what keeps us alive. Fear is nature’s survival mechanism. A little fear instilled into children will prepare them for the realities of life in the real world. The real world is a big bad place and there are people out there who want to do bad things to us – so a little healthy fear keeps us on our toes. A world where we have no fear is a world where we are wrapped in cotton wool and, cosseted by a loving, caring, controlling state, we suffocate to death.

What a stupid, stupid woman.

The police – despite being told to fuck off on a fairly regular basis, despite being told that a DNA database of the population will not magically make their lives easier, still keep coming back with their desire to impose a totalitarian state:

Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain’s most senior police forensics expert.

So, because a child might commit an offence in adult life, they should be tagged by the police. And you thought Minority Report was a piece of fiction. To these control freaks, it’s an instruction manual.

Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.

Some experts believe is it possible to identify future offending traits – theoretically. And on the basis of this theory we need a debate on tagging children with the aim of turning them into suspects before any offence has taken place. I’m sorry, but am I the only one who finds this morally bankrupt suggestion abhorrent in its entirety?

Sure, let’s have a debate. It should go something like this:

Control freak: Let’s tag children who might commit an offence in adult life.

Public: Go fuck yourself. Leave our kids alone (sorry, couldn’t resist).

Unfortunately, such is the political climate we now live in, these nasty little fascists are given a credence they do not deserve.

‘If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,’ said Pugh. ‘You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won’t. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.’

If that comment doesn’t send a chill down your spine, then you have no concept of the horrors of a totalitarian society. Go read up on 20th Century European and Soviet history. Ask yourself what would those regimes have done with this technology? How would a child so identified ever shrug off the stigma? Also, bear in mind that they will be suspects forever, never knowing when there would be a knock on the door and the police waiting to cart them off to the station to “help with their inquiries”.

A disruptive child does not necessarily grow up to be a criminal. We once had this quaint concept of innocent until proven guilty. The idea of pre-crime, of identifying children and treating them as suspects for the rest of their lives is deeply, deeply repugnant in a civilised society. Gary Pugh is a monster; no other epithet adequately fits.

Pugh admitted that the deeply controversial suggestion raised issues of parental consent, potential stigmatisation and the role of teachers in identifying future offenders, but said society needed an open, mature discussion on how best to tackle crime before it took place.

Oh, my, how generous of him to consider the little matter of parental consent and stigmatisation. These two things alone should rule out his nasty idea. If Gary Pugh was remotely mature, he would have ruled this idea out as antisocial – indeed, sociopathic – and said no more about it.

I would humbly suggest that come the revolution, we reserve a length of hempen rope and a lamp post for Gary Pugh. The man is evil – and that is not a word I bandy about lightly.

————————————————————————————

There’s a footnote at the bottom of the article regarding Oyster cards:

Concern over the issue of civil liberties will be further amplified by news yesterday that commuters using Oyster smart cards could have their movements around cities secretly monitored under new counter-terrorism powers being sought by the security services.

Sigh… This is a damn good reason not to have one. And I never will.

Every day, I find this country more despicable. Not the people, not the place, but the malignant control freaks who run it. The sociopaths who want to treat us all as suspects and spy on our every move, who use the bogy man of terrorism to scare us into compliance.

There probably isn’t enough rope…

———————————————————————————-

Update: Doing the rounds, I see Mr E and Tim have both commented on this story. Their views are predictably similar to mine.

I’ve been using satellite navigation on the bike for a number of years now. My first excursion involved linking up a hand-held Garmin receiver with my Psion hand-held computer. It involved pulling over and setting up, but was marginally better than reading a map.

When Garmin introduced their colour screen StreetPilot series with auto routing, things really took off and I wrote about it at the time.

My recent change of employment has made the satnav a crucial business tool – and, despite still working well after eight years, the slow screen refresh was becoming tiresome.  Not least when navigating through London. So, too was having to load maps onto a memory stick. An upgrade was in order.

After looking at what the market had on offer, I decided eventually to buy a Garmin Zumo 550. This is designed specifically for the bike and is supplied with both a bike mount and a car windscreen mount so I can switch it from the bike to the car with ease. I did this with the StreetPilot III and appreciate maintaining this facility.

The Zumo shows just how much technology has moved on in the intervening years. Despite costing a fraction of that paid for the StreetPilot, the Zumo is packed with extras missing from its forebear. It links to a bluetooth enabled phone, giving hands free operation of this through my Autocom system. Not that I’m much in favour of using the phone on the move, but the facility to use it without having to remove my helmet and dig around for it in my bag makes for convenience. I’ve also added the traffic receiver system for a few extra quid – so now I know where those hold ups are occurring. The unit gives me the option of avoiding the jams – or, as I’m on the bike, more likely I’ll just trickle through the queue as before. Still, forewarned is forearmed.

I did wonder how I would get along with the 3D display. In practice, I found it immediately intuitive and as it is constantly refreshing rather than completely changing to an enlarged view of the junctions as you approach them, the refresh problem has gone. Also, unlike its predecessor, all the maps are loaded on the internal memory, so I don’t have to keep loading different mapsets each time I plan a journey. The updateable “safety” camera database is a useful tool, too. A series of “bings” assault the eardrums when approaching a speed camera site – along with a message stating the allowed speed limit. So if you did miss the signs, there is no excuse for getting caught out. If you persist in exceeding the speed limit, it bings at you in capital letters until you take notice. Irritating, yes – but that’s the point. If you ignore it, you stand to get a ticket – the choice is yours.

The bike mount comes with a special security screw and bespoke screwdriver. This is supposed to provide some measure of security when the unit is in the mount. However, as I take it off the mount when leaving the bike, the security screw is proving to be something of a pain – far too fiddly for my liking.

The voice prompts have improved from the StreetPilot, too. Now they give road names as well as directions, so I can concentrate on navigating without peering at the screen when riding through unfamiliar cities.

One other extra is the MP3 player. The BMW has a radio and I tended to leave it set to Radio 2. Trying to play tapes was more bother than it was worth. The Garmin MP3 player though is another matter. I’ve loaded a 2Gb SD disk with my choice of music and can hear it clearly through the Autocom’s headset.

So, overall, a sound purchase and one that I am happy with and happy to recommend. Garmin have produced a quality product at a reasonable price - the extras are a bonus. I bought mine from these people.

Further to my comments on Phorm, Simon Davies seems convinced that privacy is not going to be an issue:

Campaigner Simon Davies said: “We were impressed with the effort that had been put into minimising the collection of personal information.”

That, we had already established. However, consumers may not be so easily convinced:

“The problem is that may not be good enough for consumers.”

He added: “Behavioural advertising is a rather spooky concept for many people.”

Indeedy – and, as I pointed out when discussing this before; many of us just don’t want advertisements thrust in our faces, so gathering information in order to target advertising at us based upon our web browsing habits is a pointless exercise. I use Adblock with Firefox – I don’t want my browsing experience used as a platform for advertisers to shill their wares, so I block all of them.

The crux hinges on two points; exactly what and how much information is being gathered (and is it legal?), and crucially will it be opt-in or opt-out?

Mr Davies said the onus would be on Internet Service Providers to ensure customers had enough information about the scheme in order to have “informed consent”.

He said unless ISPs were extremely clear they could run foul of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

“RIPA is pretty clear that the provision for notification for consent, and informed consent, have to be extremely clear,” he said.

A spokesman for BT said it was confident that Phorm met all applicable regulations and laws.

Well, the would say that, wouldn’t they?

And opt-in or opt-out?

The spokesman for BT said the firm had made no decision about whether a wider deployment of Phorm would be opt in or opt out.

Ah. Right. So that’ll be opt-out, then, will it?

My position remains the same; if my ISP signs up to this, they lose my custom with immediate effect. When I buy a service from them, I am not volunteering my web browsing as a source of advertising revenue.

Phorm may well preserve Internet users’ privacy, but that is only one part of the problem – I don’t want the advertising at all. And, going by the reactions of others I’ve come across, it seems that I am far from alone.