Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts

Google+ vs Facebook (Privacy)


Of all the comparisons between the two, how the privacy differences between Google+ and Facebook stack up might end up being the most important.
If there’s anything Google+ can learn from Facebook’s experience, it’s that people are going to pay attention to its privacy policy. The Internet veteran has had its own user data battles to fight (particular overseas relating to its street view cam cars), but nothing quite gets consumers in an uproar like a social network’s privacy settings. While Google+ is still in its early days and things are likely subject to change, here’s an introductory look at how it sizes up against Facebook when it comes to guarding your information.

Readability

Digesting a website’s terms of service is one of the most mind-numbing, time-consuming activities imaginable – which is why most users don’t do it. Of course the same people who fail to go over the legalese are usually the ones most offended, but that doesn’t entirely mean the blame falls to them. When this portion of a site sounds like an instruction manual and falls above the eighth grade reading level, you’re asking for outrage. That might sound as if we’re advocating for dumbing things down, but sometimes and especially when it comes to user information that such a mass amount of the population uses, you should pander to the lowest common denominator.
This year Facebook tried to do just that by cutting down on the sophistication of how its privacy policy reads. Its new “controlling how you share” section simply and relatively briefly explains the basics of information sharing on the site. But that’s hardly where it ends. The amount of “learn more” links is overwhelming, and when you access the site’s actual privacy policy, there is a mountain of information. Also, we can understand how so many different URLs that pertain to Facebook privacy could be confusing, especially for younger users, of which there are many. The idea of including the new, simpler guide is full of good intentions, but it could also lead to confusion and may keep people away from perusing the entire privacy policy, which is always a wise choice to make.
Google+’s infancy actually helps it here. As far as readability goes, seeing as there aren’t any advertisers or applications for the site (yet), it doesn’t have quite as much to explain when it comes to sharing your information. And instead of a variety of places dissecting its policy, you have two main locations: The designated Google+ privacy page, and the official Google privacy policy. But if you want details, you can check out the +1 button, Picasa, and Google’s mobile privacy policies. And of course if you start getting into what Google+ may be broadcasting from your other Google accounts, you could potentially have a lot to wade through.
Winner: Draw – Google+ may have less to initially muddle through by itself, but diving into the Google privacy dashboard can lead to hours of staring at your screen. Google+ wins for its attempt at approachability, Facebook for laying all the cards on the table, even though all those cards might be confusing.

Customization

see howBoth Facebook and Google+ provide a way for you to see how other users view your profile and customize who sees what. The difference between the two really comes in with when and how they do this. Google+’s priority while you’re creating your profile revolves around showing you what you share and goes for opt-in versus opt-out. Circles are a major part of managing this and are one of the things you’re sent to again and again (i.e., every time you add a new person, you are prompted to determine in what category they belong; every time you post something you indicate who all will see it).
Facebook has a similar customization tool, but you are never sent to it. When you decide to limit access to something on your profile, you go there on your own – Facebook will never prompt you to visit your privacy settings. Once you’re there, of course, the experience is generally intuitive. But with so many people skimming privacy policies and only reacting after the fact, we think Google’s agenda by trying to bring who sees what to the surface is the better approach.
Winner: Google+

Tags

approve tagsFacebook tags are the one of the best and worst elements of the site. You can choose to make photos you’re tagged in visible to only some people, but the effort involved in this means most people would rather choose one of the prescribed settings, like “everyone” or “friends only.”
Google+ has the option to choose people who can automatically tag you and whether they can attach the location. You will need to change this, however, as the default lets people do it automatically, but including the option is a big bonus and something Facebook users have been asking for. Unfortunately, we’re not in love with Google+’s wording, which doesn’t precisely indicate you are asking for authentication rights for tagged photos. Considering the fact the tagged photos can be one of the most damning things out there, it’s a big step in the right direction that Google+ has this feature at all, and we advise using it.
Winner: Google+

Photos

We recently wrote about how much we love Google+’s take on photo albums. While that’s still true, its policy when it comes to your images deserves mention. Photofocus points out that part of its terms more or less say that when you share photos, “you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly display and distribute” them. Of course Google’s TOS also say “you retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post, or display on or though, the Services.” But if you’re a professional of any sort, you’re right to be a little wary when it comes to throwing your images up on Google+.
Facebook has the same sort of wording regarding intellectual property rights, but points out that this depends on your privacy and application settings. Meaning set photo sharing to “everyone,” and you’re giving up a lot of content. If you have a specific album you don’t want at the hands of anybody out there, you should make sure to clarify that in your settings. You can designate how people see your Google+ albums but it doesn’t say in Google+’s terms that Google itself will adhere to this, which Facebook specifically points out it is also subject to your privacy settings for photos.
Winner: Facebook

Circle vs. Lists

When you share something via Facebook, you’re likely sharing it with a lot of people. Even if you use the customization settings to the hilt, a post is rarely sent out to a handful of people. Part of this is because Facebook’s been around for awhile and users have accrued hefty Friends lists. Part of it is because customizing those types of features came later in the process. Google+ was able to learn from this and sharing anything on its network requires you to dictate who will see it then and there.
Facebook Lists helps you create specific groups, and then you can choose what your friends do and don’t see. The problem is that you aren’t reminded who you’re sharing something with, you need to think about it yourself. And when you do want to customize who sees a post, the lock icon doesn’t bring up the lists you’ve so carefully created automatically. Creating Circles is also much easier and its visual appeal definitely outdoes Facebook’s text-heavy interface.
circles vs lists
Winner: Google+
Source: Digitaltrends

Harry Potter partners with Google, snubs Apple and PayPal


Google has joined forces with the most famous wizard in the world, Harry Potter, which could mean a big boost for two of its services while also resulting in a huge missed opportunity for Apple and PayPal. The partnership with the new Pottermore website by Harry Potter author JK Rowling will make the e-book version of the seven Harry Potter books available on Google's eBooks reader. The deal also makes Google's payment service Google Checkout the official third-party form of payment for Pottermore. By partnering with Google eBooks, Rowling has found a way to put her seven highly-in-demand books on smartphones, tablets, e-readers and computers without having to split the sales with companies such as Apple or Amazon, who typically keep about 30% of sales. Rowling's distribution method gives publisher's more leverage when it comes to selling e-books, said Craig Vodnik, chief blogger for BuildingKeystones.com, a blog about digital product e-commerce.


"It could be a really, really big deal if this works out based off the titles she's written and she's just so well-known," he said. "From the publisher's perspective it's a big deal because it could give them some control over how they distribute their products." Vodnik said Google landing Rowling is similar to when Apple finally got the Beatles on their iTunes catalog. In what must have been the tradeoff in the deal, Google's payment service Google Checkout appears to be the only way besides debit or credit cards to purchases the books from Pottermore. The inclusion of Google Checkout is a huge snub for PayPal, the original and most used third-party payment service online.

Instead, Google Checkout will be exposed to millions of Harry Potter fans looking to buy digital versions of the wizard stories. In the last few months, Google has been strengthening its push into the e-commerce and mobile payment fields, announcing recently it had begun testing a service called Google Wallet, which allows consumers to pay using their Android phones using a technology called NFC. The Harry Potter books could become the most purchased e-books upon their release if the franchise's performance at the box office and at book stores are any indication. The final Harry Potter film had the best opening of all time, scoring $168.6 million in the U.S. and Canada in three days. Four years ago, the last Harry Potter book had a similar release, selling 8.3 million copies in its first day, according to Guinness World Records.

Quantum internet Coming Soon !


Is this the beginning of the quantum Internet? Researchers have shown that quantum and classical data streams can be interwoven within traditional fiber optics networks, enabling the distribution of quantum information to the home on existing cable. That means quantum key distribution (QKD) can work alongside traditional, classical data channels, a development that essentially lays the groundwork for a quantum Internet that exists alongside the classical one we have now.
The team, from the Tyndall National Institute at University College Cork in Ireland, has demonstrated in a new paper how qubits--the basic blocks of quantum computing--can travel over standard fiber optics networks. This has been shown before, but not in a real-world kind of way. In other words, you can move qubits over fiber optics in theory, sure. But to feasibly do so--especially alongside traditional data streams--is a huge step forward.
The problem has always been one of interference. Qubits are carried by single photons, while traditional data packets are carried by strong laser pulses. Those pulses flying throughout a network result in spontaneous Raman scattering of photons within the optical fiber, and that in turn interferes with the quantum channels, causing a rate of error that’s high enough to be prohibitive.
So the Cork team figured out how to squeeze the qubits in there in between the Raman scattering. When the pulses of laser light are moving through the optical fiber, the interference pulses along with it--that is, there are quiet moments in between bursts of Raman scattering that lead to interference or crosstalk on the network. By carefully controlling the timing and wavelength of the quantum data, the researchers showed that they could slip quantum data generated by a QKD scheme in between the noise areas, where they can travel untouched by the interference.
All that is key if we’re ever going to practically begin a shift over to widespread quantum computing (first we’ll need some good quantum computers of course, but it never hurts to be prepared). It would be really expensive to build a second quantum network alongside our existing classical data networks. Using this scheme, it appears you could get classical and quantum streams running alongside each another, making quantum IT more commercially viable.
Source: Popsci via PhysOrg

Social Networking Website by 'Anonymous' Hacktivists against Google+

AnonPlus: Social Networking Website announced by 'Anonymous' Hacktivists against Google+

The infamous hacktivist group Anonymous has announced its own social networking website, AnonPlus, after being banned from Google+ social network.

Google+ has recently been enforcing a policy of shutting down profiles which contain fake names or those that represent organisations rather than individuals, so it's not exactly surprising to see Anonymous-related profiles being zapped.
 

Google in a recent move, not obly kicked Anonymous out of its newly launched social network, Google Plus, but also blocked their primary access to all of its services including Gmail, Google Calendar, Picasa, YouTube, etc. Because all Google products and services are intergrated together and drive through its primary Gmail account.

Anonymous announced the suspension on a Tumblr blog, but it is not clear exactly why their Google account is suspended. A screen shot of the message from Google posted on their Google+ account Your Anon Newssays:

AnonPlus: Social Networking Website announced by 'Anonymous' Hacktivists against Google+
On AnonPlus.com, Anonymous has listed a team of 17 Java developers, who it says will develop AnonPlus, alongwith its manifesto Social Networking Anonymously, saying:

This lil info dump of a site is here simply to dispence info, soon the actual site will go up and you can begin to interact with it," Anonymous said on the site. "This project is not overnight and will take many of those out there who simply want a better internet. We will not be stopped by those looking to troll or those willing to stop the spreading of the truth. One thing i would like to point out that this project is for ALL people not just anonymous, this idea is a presstorm idea and only takes the name anon because of the Anonymity of the social network.
However, experts doubt that Anonymous have enough capacity, resources and infrastructure to take this challenge to success. Graham Cluley, a senior technology consultant at Sophos, wrote on his Naked Securitybog:
Yes, Google - with all the resources it has available - appears to have done a good job with Google+, but surely a loosely-knit amateur collective like Anonymous, which rejects organisational constructs, will have a much steeper challenge.

It will be interesting to see if AnonPlus becomes popular if/when it launches with the very people it is intended to help - those who are being prevented by oppressive regimes from sharing information freely and safely with the rest of the world.

OnLive Creator Claims He Can Bring Ultrafast Wireless to Everyone, Seemingly Violating Laws of Physics


Steve Perlman, founder of the cloud-based gaming-on-demand service OnLive, claims to have discovered a new method of wireless communications that would not only drastically outpace what we have now, but would actually disprove many of the accepted rules of how wireless communications in general work.

First things first: This theory popped up in a presentation Perlman gave at the NExTWORK conference, and only received a small mention. There was no demonstration, no real proof given, and since his proposal flies directly in the face of the Shannon-Hartley Theorem, a guideline for wireless technologies, we're not inclined to really believe his claims. But! Sometimes somebody says something so crazy with such confidence that you have to sit up and take notice, and this particular idea would have such massive effects on communications technology that we're bound to at least encourage discussion about it. That's not to be taken as an endorsement, though.
Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, here's what Perlman (all to briefly) proposed. DIDO is an entirely new radio system, with different towers and different chips that work in an (as yet undisclosed) entirely different way. He claims that DIDO would also be able to broadcast through solid objects that usually block cell signals, that it needs no bigger tower than a small base station "the size of a router," and that the base stations can broadcast a signal much farther than usual towers--up to 30 miles, at which point they'd be dealing with the curvature of the Earth, which Perlman says does not deter them.
Perlman said that his DIDO (distributed-input-distributed-output) system overcomes the traditional broadband system in which each user gets a small piece of the overall bandwidth of the tower to which they're connected. Instead, with DIDO, each user would be able to access the full speed of the tower.
Wired interviewed an electrical engineering professor who noted that elements of the Shannon-Hartley Theorem have in fact been disproved, or at least altered, with multiple-input-multiple-output systems, currently being used in the latest 4G tech. But nobody has yet seen Perlman's DIDO system in action, though he has patented it and insists he is "as confident" about DIDO as anything else he's ever designed. Us? We're skeptical--but that doesn't mean we wouldn't welcome a revolutionary wireless system.
Source: Popsci via Wired

Google brings Search by Image and Voice Search to desktops


While Google is still by far the most dominant search engine on the Web, it can't afford to rest on its laurels with Microsoft constantly adding new features to its Bing search engine. At Google's 'Inside Search' event, the company has announced several new features designed to ensure it stays on top of the lucrative search engine game. Users will now be able to search using images, enter search terms by voice and have the top search results pre-rendered so they appear instantly.
Google Goggles has been letting users conduct searches based on pictures taken on mobile devices since 2009 and now Search by Image brings the same functionality to the desktop. Users can drag and drop an image from the Web or stored locally on their computer over the Google search box and Google will try and identify it and bring up relevant results. Users can also Search by Image by copying and pasting an image URL or uploading an image by clicking on the camera icon in the search box. Google is also releasing extensions for Chrome and Firefox browsers that will let users search an image on the web by right-clicking on it.
The company says it is rolling out the feature globally in 40 languages now, but it doesn't look to have been activated in my neck of the woods yet so I wasn't able to put it the test by attempting to identify the location of my holiday snaps. If you point your browser to images.google.com and see a camera icon in the search box, however, you should be good to go.
Another feature making its way from mobile devices to the desktop is Voice Search. The feature is limited to Chrome 11 or higher users who will see a microphone icon in the search box. Users can click on the icon and speak their search - provided their computer has a built-in or attached microphone.
Also revealed at 'Inside Search' is Instant Pages, which is basically an evolutionary step of its Instant Search feature introduced last year that provides search results as you type. To speed up things even further, Instant Pages will pre-render the top search result in the background so it will appear instantly when clicked. Instant Pages will be included in the next beta release of Chrome but can be tried now with the developer version.
Check out the videos below for examples of the new Google features.
Search by Image 
Voice Search 



Instant Pages 


World record 26 terabits per second data transmission achieved


With video content consuming ever more bandwidth, the need for faster data transmission rates has never been greater. Now a team of scientists at Germany's Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) are claiming a world record in data transmission with the successful encoding of data at a rate of 26 terabits per second on a single laser beam and transmitting it over a distance of 50 km (31 miles). The scientists claim this is the largest data volume ever transported on a laser beam and enables the transmission of 700 DVD's worth of content in just one second.

With no electronic processing methods available for a data rate of 26 terabits per second, the team developed a new opto-electric data decoding process. This process relies on purely optical calculations to break down the initial high data rate into smaller bit rates that can then be processed electrically. The record-breaking data encoding also employed the orthogonal frequency division multiplexing(OFDM) scheme based on Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) mathematical routines that is commonly used in mobile communications networks including digital TV and audio broadcasts.
Because energy is required for the laser and a few process steps only, the team says the new method is not only extremely fast, but also very energy efficient.
"Our result shows that physical limits are not yet exceeded even at extremely high data rates," says Professor Jürg Leuthold, who led the KIT experiment. "A few years ago, data rates of 26 terabits per second were deemed utopian even for systems with many lasers and there would not have been any applications. With 26 terabits per second, it would have been possible to transmit up to 400 million telephone calls at the same time. Nobody needed this at that time. Today, the situation is different."
The latest breakthrough follows on from the previous high-speed data transmission record set by the KIT scientists in 2010, when they successfully exceeded the data rate of 10 terabits (or 10,000 billion bits) per second.
The KIT experiment involved companies and scientists from all over Europe, including members of the staff of Agilent and Micram Deutschland, Time-Bandwidth Switzerland, Finisar Israel, and the University of Southampton in Great Britain. The experiment is detailed in the journal Nature Photonics.
Source: Gizmag