Android users beware, more than 50 mobile apps in the official Android Market have been discovered containing malware that could have compromised sensitive and personal data. While Google has already yanked the apps from the Market, this first big infection highlights the inherent vulnerability of Android's openness to developers. Check here for more info http://drawsomethingcheat.eu
Now that they have used the dubious excuse of 9:11 to put GPS tracking of every citizen into your phones, they now want to use the dubious excuse of malware and other scare tactics to make everyone have privacy-invading DPI chips in every phone.
If they do much more to "protect us" then we will be so repressed and have so few rights that we won't have a life worth protecting.
All we need is good, strong, open-source encryption.
If mobile software has vulnerabilities then it should be open-sourced so the community can fix it.
I recently saw an article on Android Anti-Virus Software. It pointed out that EVERYTHING in an Android is sandboxed. Therefore an Anti-Virus program can't see the programs it is trying to detect, by definition. Malware can't see your information, unless you say it can. What is crazy to me is that there are so many apps out there that require every permission in the book. On the one hand, that should set anyone's suspicions off. On the other hand, users shouldn't be required to look at a laundry list of permissions to decide whether a specific app should have them. Most are unable, and many have both legitimate and illegitimate uses. So, a program that uses it legitimately could use it illegitimately as well.
The best answer, I am sorry to say, is to take all those permissions away. I can be identified by my GPS location alone (I spend time at home, right?) any app that can see both my GPS and the Internet could be a stalking tool. The only solution is for the apps to be code inspected by a third party certification agency. Then the distribution package gets compiled by the App Store from the inspected code. The developer pays for this and doesn't know who the inspector is, of course.
It may sound extreme, but it is the only solution that will allow full flexibility in the apps and block the potential abuses.
Every app submitted will be evaluated by some app reviewer. This is done against a long checklists, so if your app just shows some information with some random button it will definitely rejected. In terms of privacy, if the app access user location, the system will pop up notification to ask for permission. So the user is making a conscious choice whether to allow or not.
But all this is hidden from the average user.
People reading this should be a few notches up the fodd chain of software/hardware, but even we have difficulty understanding all this.How is your grandma supposed to figure it out?
It is irresponsible because it creates a scare where there should be education. Nothing Mrs. Knesek mentioned is actually "malware". The definition of malware is "software that does bad things". Not "software that does as it is told". Heck, BT themselves backpedaled on her comments. And if you think the FBI is credible on those things then ask yourself why they, themselves, are so widely hacked and "owned". BT HAS a financial interest in people being scared because THEY sell security practices.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.