Category Archives: Apps
A new lawsuit alleges that Google violates users' privacy and data security by collecting and using private browsing information. Specifically, the suit states that Google systematically includes search queries in the URL of the search results page, even when the user is using private browsing mode. The researcher said this is an egregious violation of user privacy and demanded action from the Federal Trade Commission. The company has been sued by several groups, including Consumer Watchdog.
The lawsuit states that Google's practices violate privacy laws and should be stopped. This is a significant step forward for users' online privacy. The Internet giant's private browsing option has been around for some time, but the suit claims that Google is violating California law by gathering personal information even when users use "private browsing" mode. The law requires consent before a company can monitor private communications, so the company must get consent before it collects any personal information.
Google's data-collection practices have also been the subject of other lawsuits. This case is the latest in a series of similar actions. In 2012, the European Union imposed a fine of EUR50 million for violating the GDPR. The plaintiffs argued that Google failed to obtain clear consent from end users and did not make their actions transparent enough. Further, they alleged that Google did not disclose its partners' elements. Furthermore, a private browsing mode does not offer additional information on a website.
Other lawsuits alleging that Google violates user privacy have not been successful, but the company is still facing a number of other cases regarding its data-collection practices. The suit says that the company collects browsing histories and search queries, even if users' browsers are in private mode. The lawsuit further claims that Google intentionally deceives consumers by claiming that these actions are necessary for its business. If this lawsuit is successful, it would force Google to pay a huge sum of damages to its users.
The US government is currently suing the company for illegally invading users' privacy. The suit is also claiming that Google has knowingly collected information about its users. It is unclear exactly how it collects such information. The data is collected when a person uses the search engines in private mode. However, this is not the only violation that Google has been accused of. The data is used to improve the quality of their search experience.
While Google does not explicitly deny that it collects this information, it does not mention that it also gathers information about its users through third-party tracking cookies. As a result, the company is not required to disclose the specific details of the third-party tracking cookies that it collects. The company has no plans to replace these cookies with anything that is less invasive. The phasing out of third-party tracking cookies, however, will not have a negative impact on its advertising business.
Despite the fact that these practices are illegal, a class-action lawsuit filed in the US alleges that Google has violated user privacy by collecting third-party tracking cookies. The class-action claims that the company violates California's Computer Data Access and Fraud Act by violating privacy laws. In addition to these claims, it has also been cited as a violation of California's Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.
The suit further alleges that Google's privacy controls are deceptive, and the company collects information even without consumer consent. In addition, it is a requirement for third-party Android apps use the Firebase SDK, which is a third-party tool to allow advertisers to know the composition of their audience. This enables the company to analyze the content of the audience and use it for advertising purposes. It then uses the information to create hyper-personalized ads.
In a separate suit, the plaintiffs claim that Google has harmed the rights of millions of users by tracking their activities. This lawsuit has not been filed in the US courts, but it is still pending in the US. The Texas Attorney General's office has previously filed a similar suit against the company, and the lawsuit is based on the company's failure to follow the law. The company's privacy policies are the subject of a class-action lawsuit against it, but the proposed settlement has been thrown out because they have been a major violation of user rights.
The future of Auto Theft
We live in a time where auto theft is incredibly impractical. Criminals in 2015 struggle to figure out how to get past electronic security and alarm systems, reflecting an over 90% drop in NYC auto theft since the early 90's. These days, even a successfully stolen vehicle can be recovered with GPS tracking and incidences of theft are often caught on video.
It might seem like convenience is weakness but since car theft is way down, this might not hold true at the moment. The security holes that seem most vulnerable to exploitation revolve around a key fob. Fobs are those small black electronic keys that everyone uses to unlock their car these days. They work by using A pre-determined electronic signal that must be authenticated by the CAN system. If the authentication checks out, the doors unlock. In newer cars, the engine will start via push button if the fob is in the immediate vicinity of the car so the driver doesn't have to fish them out of her pocket.
Etymology of the word fob:  Written evidence of the word's usage has been traced to 1888. Almost no one uses a pocket watch these days but a fob was originally an ornament attached to a pocket watch chain. The word hung around as an ocassional, outdated way to refer to key chains. In the 80's, the consumer market was introduced to devices that allowed a car to be unlocked or started remotely. The small electronic device was easily attached to the conventional set of carkeys, and within a few years the term fob key was generally used to describe any electronic key entry system that stored a code in a device, including hotel keycards as well as the remote car unlocking device usually described by the word.
Let's take a look at three ways a fob key can be hacked.
Recording FOB signals for replay. This is one of those urban legends that's been around since at least 2008. The story goes: thieves record the key fob signal and can later replay it with a dummy fob. The car can't tell the difference and unlocks/starts as if the correct key fob has been used. It's easy for the thief to control the schedule and catch the victim unawares because it doesn't have to interact with the fob in real time. Sounds like the most effective way to hack a key fob, right? Problem is, each signal is unique, created with an algorithm than includes time. If the devices are not synchronized the fob can't open the lock. A recorded signal played back wouldn't open the lock. The conventional wisdom is that the devices, proprietary knowledge and experience needed to make this method work are not worth a stolen car's worth of risk. Secrets leak but honestly, a team organized enough to steal a car this way would be able to use the same skills to make a lot more money legally. Lastly, if you could reverse engineer and record fob signals the FBI would already be watching you. The demographic that used to steal cars in the 90's were largely not like the fast and furious franchise. The idea that a huge tech security op could be thwarted isn't necessarily far fetched but there are no recorded cases. Not one. For that to change, someone needs to figure out how the sync code is incorporated into the algorithm and apparently no one has.
Amplifying FOB signal to trigger auto unlock feature. Not only is this method genius but it is rumored to be already in use. Eyewitnesses claim to have seen this in use and it sparked theories about the methodology. Unlike recording a signal, amplification is a lot cheaper and requires almost no proprietary knowledge of the code to pull off. It works like this: A device picks up a range of frequencies that the key fob is giving off and increases the range. Some cars feature the ability to sense the authentic key fob in a five foot range and auto-unlock or autostart their ignitions. With a signal amp, the engine can theoretically be started if the real key fob is within 30 feet. So, the keys can be on your nightstand but the car thinks you are at the car door. The thief can then open the door, sit in the drivers seat and the ignition can be pushbutton triggered as if the key fob was in the car with the thief. I thought about repeating some of the anecdotes I found online about this method but none of them are confirmed. No one has tested it but it looks like a signal booster can be bought online for pretty cheap if you know what to buy($17 – $300). Last week, NYT ran a piece about signal boosting. You can read that here.
Random signal generator. So unique frequency codes means you can't record the signal and reuse it without a proprietary algorithm but signal amplification might not work on some systems in the near future. The rumors of it working successfully already have car companies working on a sensitive enough receiver that it would be sensitive to distortion and interference caused by the amp. But there are exceptions, where the signal is not random, such as a service codes. Manufacturers have overriding unlock codes and reset devices to assist with lost key fobs and maintenance/emergency cases. When these codes are leaked, they often open up a brief but large hole in security, during which thousands of cars can be swiped. The main reason it isn't happening already is more about organized crime not being organized enough to plan and exploit that security hole. Or, you know, maybe the codes just haven't leaked yet.
Hardware construction.
Constructing the hardware components needed takes specialized knowledge of hardware. Searching for information about this stuff if bound to attract NSA attention when followed by parts being ordered. The kind of guy who likes to sit in a workshop ordering parts and tinkering all day isn't always the one who wants to go out and take risks with newer, higher-end cars. That is the kind of multifaceted thief NYC was famous for back before the numbers plunged in the 90's but the hardware is becoming more and more esoteric. People are not as apt to work on devices that have such small parts on projects that run with such high risk. For that reason, there is more money to be made in producing a bunch of low-cost black market devices that are already calibrated and tested to work. Buying this device on the street and using it before selling it off again might leave a smaller trail than building it in a sketchy apartment-turned-lab that is sure to be searched if a heist goes wrong.
Paper trail & identity theft.
Technology has made it really difficult to even take the car int he first place but once you have a stolen car they are almost impossible to get rid of these days. There can be multiple tracking devices and serial number locations in one car and if the operation isn't extremely current, the likelihood of the car being found in red hands goes up quickly.
Once the car is stolen, a tech-savvy thief would need special equipment to access the on-board computer and do things like disable the GPS system, take any additional tracking system offline, and disable tech support from manipulating the vehicle's electronics. Equipment to hack the car's CAN system has been expensive and shrouded in mystery for the last couple decades but in recent days the internet has united hackers and security researchers to create custom hardware like CANtact Device Lets you Hack a Car's CPU for $60.
Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY
Revisiting the Death of Michael Hastings
Could emerging tech present new forensics in the suspicious early demise of controversial Rolling Stone reporter, Michael Hastings? How cheaper hardware and open-sourced coding could shed new light on a murder as the possibility of remotely hacking today's cars gains traction.
Hacking your car might already be possible. This tweet by NYT tech writer, Nick Bilton, is a great example:
Just saw 2 kids walk up to my LOCKED car, press a button on a device which unlocked the car, and broke in. So much for our keyless future.
— Nick Bilton (@nickbilton) April 6, 2015
Weeks back, I wrote a short piece about CANtact, a $60 device that enables you to interface with a car's onboard computer through your laptop's USB port. Eric Evenchick presented CANtact at Black Hat Asia 2015 security conference in Singapore. The onboard CPU of a motor-vehicle is called the CAN, for Controller Area Network. Evenchick hopes his device's affordability will spur programmers to reverse engineer the firmware and proprietary languages various CAN systems use.
Read more about CANtact: CANtact Device Lets you Hack a Car's CPU for $60
I got feedback on the CANtact story about a seemingly unrelated topic: The Death of Michael Hastings. Hastings was Rolling Stone and Buzzfeed contributor who became very vocal about the surveillance state when the U.S. Department of Justice started investigating reporters in 2013. Hastings coined the term "war on journalism" when the Obama Administration sanctioned limitations on journalists ability to report when the White House considered it a security risk. Buzzfeed ran his last story, "Why Democrats Love to Spy On Americans", June 7, 2013. Hastings is considered suspicious by many Americans after he died in an explosive, high -speed automobile accident, June 18, 2013, in Los Angeles, CA.
Check out one of the last interviews with Michael Hastings and scroll down for a description of the oft repeated conspiracy theory surrounding his untimely death.
The Michael Hastings Conspiracy Theory:
Unlike a lot of post-millennium conspiracy theories, which usually start online, this one actually began on television. Reporters were already contentious about the limitations the Obama admin. were attempting to impose and it seemed like extremely suspicious timing that one of the leaders of the criticism against censorship was suddenly killed. The internet ran with it and some Americans considered the crash as suspicious at the time. Public opinion is often without the merit of hard evidence, though, and this case was no different. Not everyone considered the media coverage unbiased, considering the political stake journalists had in the issue.
The first solid argument that Hasting didn't die by accident came from Richard A. Clarke, a former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism(what a title~!), who called the crash "consistent with a car cyber attack". The conspiracy theory gestating around water coolers and message boards was truly born when Clarke went public with this outright accusation:
"There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers—including the United States—know how to remotely seize control of a car. So if there were a cyber attack on [Hastings'] car—and I'm not saying there was, I think whoever did it would probably get away with it."
Next, WikiLeaks announced that Hastings reached out to a Wikileaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson only a few hours before the crash.
Army Staff Sergent Joe Biggs came forward with an email he thought might help in a murder investigation. The email was CCed to a few of Hastings' colleagues, stating he was "onto a big story" and planned to "go off the radar". Perhaps the most incriminating detail is that he warned the addressees of this email to expect a visit from the FBI. The FBI denied Hastings was being investigated in a formal press release.
LA Weekly admitted Hastings was preparing a new installment of what had been an ongoing story involving the CIA. Hastings' wife, Elise Jordan, confirmed he had been working on a story profiling CIA Director John O. Brennan.
The case against foul play:
I have to admit, I got sucked in for a second but Cosmoso is a science blog and I personally believe an important part of science is to maintain rational skepticism. The details I listed above are the undisputed facts. You can research online and verify them. It might seem really likely that Hastings was onto something and silenced by some sort of foul play leading to a car accident but there is no hard evidence, no smoking gun, no suspects and nothing really proving he was a victim of murder.
The rumor online has always been that there are suspicious aspects to the explosion. Cars don't always explode when they crash but Frank Markus director of Motor Trend said the ensuing fire after the crash was consistent with most high-speed car crashes. The usual conspiracy theorist reaction is to suspect this kind of testimony to have some advantage or involvement thus "proving" it biased. It's pretty difficult to do that in the case of Frank Markus, who just directs a magazine and website about cars.
Hastings' own family doesn't seem to think the death was suspicious. His brother, Jonathan, later revealed Michael seemed "manic" in the days leading up to the crash. Elise Jordan, his wife told the press it was "just a really tragic accident"
A host of The Young Turks who was close with Hastings once said Hastings' friends had noticed he was agitated and tense. Michael often complained that he was being followed and watched. It's easy to dismiss the conspiracy theory when you consider it may have stemmed from the line of work he chose.
Maybe the government conspiracy angle is red herring.
Reporting on the FBI, the Military, the Whitehouse, or the CIA are what reporters do. People did it before and since. Those government organizations have accountability in ways that would make an assassination pretty unlikely.
If it wasn't the government who would have wanted to kill Hastings?
A lot of people, it turns out. Hastings had publicly confirmed he received several death-threats after his infamous Rolling Stone article criticizing and exposing General McChrystal. Considering the United States long history of reactionary violence an alternate theory is that military personnel performed an unsanctioned hit on Hastings during a time when many right wing Americans considered the journalist unpatriotic.
Here's where the tech comes into play:
Hastings had told USA Today his car had recently been "tampered with", without any real explanation of what that means but most people in 2013 would assume it means physical tampering with the brakes or planting a bug. In any case he said he was scared and planned to leave town.
Now it's only two years later, and people are starting to see how a little bit of inside knowledge of how the CAN computer works in a modern vehicle can be used to do some serious harm. We might never know if this was a murder, an assassination or an accident but hacking a car remotely seemed like a joke at the time; two years later no one is laughing.
iPad Game Helps Track Endangered Species
Monitoring wildlife is an arduous task but a new app released from researchers at the University of Surrey plans to make it a fun (and easy) one. The iPad app — called Wildsense — uses citizen science to help endangered species in the form of a game. How does it work? The app contains photos from… Continue reading →
NASA's New App Allows You To Hunt Asteroids Through Your PC
Since the early 20th century, astronomers have relied on the same technique to detect asteroids — they take images of a section in the sky and look for star-like objects that move between frames. However, with an increase in sensitivity of ground-based telescopes, it has become increasingly difficult for astronomers to sift through the massive pile… Continue reading →
Health Apps Created by Surgeons Put Patients in Control
Thomas Harte is a trainee orthopaedic surgeon who also knows what it's like to be on the business end of a scalpel – he's undergone three urology operations since October to fix a kidney ailment. As he recovered from those procedures, he realised he often couldn't tell if his post-op symptoms were normal or alarming –… Continue reading →