21-03-2014, 16:42 #1
- Data de Ingresso
- Jul 2012
Microsoft cobra até US$ 200 por informação que passa ao FBIMicrosoft cobra até US$ 200 por informação que passa ao FBI
Suposta comunicação entre Microsoft e FBI conseguida pelo grupos de hackers Exército Eletrônico Síria mostra que empresa cobra até US$ 200 por informação enviada
Nunca se soube, no entanto, qual era o valor que as empresas pediam. De acordo com documentos que o grupo de hackers Exército Eletrônico Sírio alega ter conseguido, e que o site Daily Dot publicou, o valor varia entre 100 e 200 dólares por usuário.
Os documentos, que foram analisados por especialistas, são supostas comunicações entre a empresa e o FBI, além de documentos de cobrança.
Um deles, datado de dezembro de 2012, mostra uma cobrança de 145 mil dólares. Na ocasião, a Microsoft cobrava 100 dólares por informação enviada. Já em agosto de 2013, o valor estava mais alto: 200 dólares por informação. A conta final ultrapassava 352 mil dólares. O documento mais recente é de uma cobrança de novembro do ano passado, no valor de 281 mil dólares.
De acordo com o Daily Dot, todas as fontes consultadas (entre elas juristas e especialistas em tecnologia) não acreditam que seja um erro da Microsoft cobrar pelas informações. A empresa é obrigada a enviar as informações e é autorizada, judicialmente, a cobrar quantias razoáveis pelo trabalho.
O fato mais interessante dos números é ver qual é a frequência com a qual o FBI pede informações à empresa. Tomando como exemplo o mês de novembro, foram mais de 1,400 pedidos de informações.
O FBI e a Microsoft não se expressaram sobre o assunto ainda. É impossível saber se os documentos são realmente verdadeiros ou não.
21-03-2014, 16:46 #2
21-03-2014, 16:46 #3
- Data de Ingresso
- Jul 2012
Microsoft admits reading Hotmail inbox of bloggerMicrosoft is caught up in a privacy storm after it admitted it read the Hotmail inbox of a blogger while pursuing a software leak investigation.
On Thursday, the firm acknowledged it read the anonymous blogger's emails in order to identify an employee it suspected of leaking information.
Microsoft owns Hotmail, a free email service now called Outlook.com.
John Frank, deputy general counsel for Microsoft, said it took "extraordinary actions in this case".
While the search was technically legal, he added Microsoft would consult outside counsel in the future.
Microsoft's actions came to light this week as part of a legal case by US prosecutors against an ex-Microsoft employee, Alex Kibalko, who was a Russian native based in the company's Lebanon office.
In 2012, Microsoft had been alerted to the fact that the blogger, whose identity was kept anonymous in the court papers, had been given some stolen lines of code from the not-yet-released Windows 8 operating system.
The blogger then posted screenshots of the unreleased Windows operating system to his blog.
To figure out the source of the leak, Microsoft began an investigation and, as part of that search, looked into the blogger's accounts to find out the name of the employee.
The search was legal because it fell within Microsoft's terms of service which state that the company can access information in accounts that are stored on its "Communication Services", which includes email, chat areas, forums, and other communication facilities.
The terms of service add: "Microsoft reserves the right to review materials posted to the Communication Services and to remove any materials in its sole discretion."
Nonetheless, revelations of the search have led to renewed focus on the privacy violations of technology firms.
It has also left Microsoft in a difficult position, as the firm has often criticised rival Google for its automatic scanning of users' emails in order to serve them with advertising.
21-03-2014, 16:55 #4
"the search was technically legal"
"It has also left Microsoft in a difficult position, as the firm has often criticised rival Google for its automatic scanning of users' emails in order to serve them with advertising"
Assinado PR Google
22-03-2014, 15:38 #5
Michael Arrington: Google Spied On My Gmail Account
- Data de Ingresso
- Jul 2012
Venture capitalist and TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington wrote on his blog today that he's "nearly certain" Google once snooped into his Gmail account after he broke a story about the company.
Arrington writes that his source for the story later came up to him in person and said Google showed the source Arrington's email correspondence. Since the source used a non-Google email account to send the information, Arrington concluded that Google found the message by accessing his account without permission. Google later fired the source, according to Arrington.
The story comes after the revelation Thursday that Microsoft accessed a blogger's private Hotmail account after a former Microsoft employee leaked proprietary information about Windows 8. Microsoft defended its actions by saying it has the right to search its own servers without a court order if it has a strong suspicion of intellectual property theft.
Many email services like Gmail, Outlook, and Yahoo Mail have clauses in their terms of service that say the companies can access your account without permission if they suspect intellectual property theft.
We've reached out to Google and Arrington for comment.
Read more: Arrington Google Gmail Snooping - Business Insider
23-03-2014, 15:07 #6
Guardian: Apple reserves the right to read your iCloud e-mail
Like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and, it's likely, most other major webmail providers.
By Philip Elmer-DeWitt March 23, 2014
FORTUNE -- Microsoft is not the only company that reserves the right to break into its customers' e-mail accounts. According to The Guardian's Alex Hern -- who actually read the user agreements that most of us blindly accept -- Apple, Google and Yahoo do as well.
The issue came to light last week when Alex Kibkalo, a Russian-born former Microsoft employee living in Lebanon, was arrested on charges that he was selling off chunks of Windows 8 source code.
The complaint filed against him in a Seattle federal court included Hotmail exchanges between Kibkalo and a French blogger -- e-mail that Microsoft read, according to a statement released Friday, without a specific court order.
Curious whether other webmail providers reserve the right to poke around their customers' e-mail accounts, The Guardian's Hern did what few people do: He actually read the legal boilerplate the providers allow you to skip past by clicking the "Agree" button.
This is the relevant portion of Apple's iCloud agreement:
You acknowledge and agree that Apple may, without liability to you, access, use, preserve and/or disclose your Account information and Content to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or a third party, as Apple believes is reasonably necessary or appropriate, if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or request; (b) enforce this Agreement, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users, a third party, or the public as required or permitted by law.
24-03-2014, 02:56 #7
- Data de Ingresso
- Jul 2012
Mirror, meet tech companies. Tech companies, meet mirror
Tech companies are rampant in their criticism of the NSA. But is there really any difference between the way they treat ordinary citizens and the way that the government does?
I was moved by a tweet Microsoft's new CEO Satya Nadella emitted last week.
It read: "Spying is in the air in Redmond!"
At least, that's what my eyes saw, until I realized the 'y' was actually an 'r.'
I hope I can be excused.
It's been a week in which Microsoft reminded everyone, as quietly as it could, that if it suspects you're using a Microsoft account to do something it believes is legally against Microsoft's interest, the company's going to take a quick peek at your supposedly private e-mails. (And, who knows, at your supposedly private Photoshopped giraffe images too.)
Microsoft is one of many companies so very unhappy about the government's, um, liberal use of technology to achieve its ends.
This week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt met with the president to personally complain about the NSA and its activities.
This was brave. How could they be sure the room wasn't bugged? Perhaps, to give themselves a little security (just in case it affects their business), they made sure someone back in the Valley gave any government Gmails and Facebook messages a quick once-over before and after the meeting.
It would surely have been tempting.
In a TED 2014 interview with Charlie Rose, also last week, Google's CEO Larry Page declared that the government had done itself a great disservice.
Did he really mean that it had done Google a great disservice?
If it suddenly, finally strikes people that the Web and all its services are fundamentally insecure, then they might go back to other forms of communication. Like meeting in parks. And talking to each other in person.
Or, as the Wall Street Journal reports, people will take more active steps in an attempt to protect themselves from the excessive leakiness of the Web.
Oddly, Page's chat occurred on the same day that this headline appeared: "Google admits to data-mining student e-mails."
Which was shortly followed by a post from Michael Arrington wanting to tell the world "About that time Google spied on my Gmail."
Page, in all sincerity, told Rose that many companies are generally quite evil entities. It's just that Google, he insisted, isn't.
I suppose that's just another example of American exceptionalism.
He laid out his own vision of the future -- where self-driving cars fight heartily against all the roads and parking lots that allegedly blight urban landscapes.
He described how, at heart, Google's mission was to make machines intelligent.
Because we all look at our vacuum cleaners daily and shriek: "Why can't this damn thing run my meetings for me?!" We all stare down our cars and hiss: "Why can't you tell me the square root of 14,012, you halfwit?"
Honestly, my amplifiers are so stunningly stupid that I have no idea what to do with them.
It isn't too hard to reach the conclusion that Google and other tech companies face exactly the same (im)moral dilemmas as the government and react in many of the same ways.
Perhaps they even secretly wish they were the government (as long as they didn't have to sit in all those dull meetings with Messrs. Reid and McConnell.)
Again last week, the former head of Occupy Wall Street, now slumming it as an engineer at Google, suggested that Eric Schmidt should be the newly-appointed CEO of America.
Left unmentioned was whether he would have the power to hire and fire members of Congress. That might be genuine scientific progress.
It's hard not to be charmed by such a notion because Google already behaves like a socio-political entity. It's constantly telling us, often less than subtly, that it knows best.
Yes, we all want to wear glasses. We just don't realize it yet, because we're behind the curve drawn by Google.
Ultimately, though, the tech companies are betting that their so-called disruptive view of the future will begin to dictate to government.
What's odd is that they seem not to see that their own continued lapses in respect for privacy mirror their own criticisms of government behavior.
Their defense is that they are doing things for your own good -- a social and commercial good. But the government's argument is similar -- the idea of keeping you safe is good.
Perhaps no one should be surprised that the NSA claims that the tech companies knew about its activities all along, whether it's true or not.
The tech companies talk about the Open Web. The government talks about transparency. Once they've done that, they go about their business.
We're all in the same boats. And they're all being rowed by self-preservationists.
24-03-2014, 08:36 #8