03rd Feb2012

Google Is Destroying Our Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips

by iSpit

 

Many of us have constant access to information. We are so used to looking up the answer to any question immediately that it can feel like withdrawal when we have to wait. Of course, storing information outside of our brains is nothing new.

 

I came across this interesting study: “We investigate whether the Internet has become an external memory system that is primed by the need to acquire information. If asked the question whether there are any countries with only one color in their flag, for example, do we think about flags—or immediately think to go online to find out? Our research then tested if, once information has been accessed, our internal encoding is increased for where the information is to be found rather than for the information itself.”

 

The results suggest that our memory is adapting to the advent of new computing technology. The authors conclude:

 

We are becoming symbiotic with our computer tools, growing into interconnected systems that remember less by knowing information than by knowing where the information can be found. This gives us the advantage of access to a vast range of information—although the disadvantages of being constantly “wired” are still being debated. It may be no more that nostalgia at this point, however, to wish we were less dependent on our gadgets. We have become dependent on them to the same degree we are dependent on all the knowledge we gain from our friends and coworkers—and lose if they are out of touch. The experience of losing our Internet connection becomes more and more like losing a friend. We must remain plugged in to know what Google knows.

 

Has anyone run across anything on how the impact of outsourcing our memory to google and availability bias?

 

Here is the abstract from the study:

 

The advent of the Internet, with sophisticated algorithmic search engines, has made accessing information as easy as lifting a finger. No longer do we have to make costly efforts to find the things we want. We can “Google” the old classmate, find articles online, or look up the actor who was on the tip of our tongue. The results of four studies suggest that when faced with difficult questions, people are primed to think about computers and that when people expect to have future access to information, they have lower rates of recall of the information itself and enhanced recall instead for where to access it. The Internet has become a primary form of external or transactive memory, where information is stored collectively outside ourselves.

 

Source:Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips

02nd Feb2012

Identity Theft In 7 Easy Steps

by iSpit

Herbert Thompson seems like just another smart academic software developer who loves formulas and geeking out. But he’s also stolen the identities of several casual acquaintances. In fact in one case he gained access to a bank account in seven shockingly simple steps. And he used no special programming tricks, just common sense.

Thompson stole identities as an experiment back in 2008 to show the public how easy it is to get access to personal data and banking information. He proved it only requires some simple surfing for freely available personal data and cobbling it together in powerfully creative ways.  Thompson began his experiments by first receiving permission from people he barely knew to try to break into their bank accounts. What the following steps show is how vulnerable we all are to security breach.

The victim:
He knew her name was Kim, where she was from, where she worked and roughly her age. He also knew the name of her bank and her username although as Thompson says, this was easy to guess—it was her first initial and last name. (Note: Change your username to something a bit less obvious.)

Seven Steps:
1)    Google search. He googles her. Finds a blog and a resume. (Thompson called her blog a “goldmine.”) He gets information about grandparents, pets, hometown. Most important he gets her college email address and current gmail address.
2)    Next stop: Password recovery feature on her bank’s web site. He attempts to reset her bank password. But the bank sends a reset link to her email, which he does not have access to. So he needs to get access to her gmail.
3)    Gmail access. He attempts to reset her gmail password but gmail sends this to her college email address. Gmail tells you this address’  domain (at least it did in 2008 when Thompson conducted the experiments) so he knew he had to get access to that specific address.
4)    College email account page. Thompson clicks the “forgot password” link on this page and winds up facing a few questions. Home address, home zip code and home country? No problem, Thompson has it all from her resume. The same resume found from the simple google search done earlier. Then came a stumbling block: the college wanted her birthday. But he only had a rough idea of her age, no actual birth date.
5)    State traffic court web site. Apparently you can search for violations and court appearances by name! And such records include a birth date. (Facebook also makes this piece of data very easy to get even if people do not note their birth year…remember Thompson knew roughly how old Kim was.) But he had no luck with the Department of Motor Vehicles.
6)    Thompson goes back to the blog and does a search for “birthday.” He gets a date but no year.
7)    Finally, Thompson attempts the college reset password again. He fills in her birth date, and simply guesses the year. He gets it wrong. But the site gives him five chances, and tells him which field has the error. So he continues to guess. He gets access in under five guesses. He changes her college password. This gives him access to her gmail password reset email. Google requires some personal information which he is able to get easily from her blog (e.g., father’s middle name.) Thompson changes the gmail password and that gives him access to the bank account reset password email. Here again he is asked for personal information but nothing that he could not glean from Kim’s blog (e.g., pet name and phone number.) He resets the bank password and bingo, has immediate access to all her records and money.

From Thompson:

Needless to say, Kim was disturbed. Her whole digital identity sat precariously on the foundation of her college e-mail account; once I had access to it, the rest of the security defenses fell like a row of dominoes. What’s striking about Kim’s case is how common it is. For many of us, the abundance of personal information we put online combined with the popular model of sending a password reset e-mail has our online security resting unsteadily on the shoulders of one or two e-mail accounts.

Yes in this case the personal information came from her blog but it could have easily come from a Facebook page or other online community pages.

Thompson provides sage advice on Scientific American:

Go and do a self-check. Try to reset you passwords and see what questions are asked to verify your identity. Some questions are better than others. Date of birth, for example, is bad. In addition to the DMV, there is a wealth of public records available online where folks can track down when you were born. Most account reset features give you a choice of questions or methods to use. Go for questions that ask about obscure things that you won’t forget (or can at least look up), like your favorite frequent flyer number. Avoid questions that are easy to guess, such as which state you opened your bank account in.

It’s also critical to remember that once you put data online, it’s almost impossible to delete it later. The more you blog about yourself, the more details you put in your social networking profiles, the more information about you is being archived, copied, backed up and analyzed almost immediately. Think first, post later.

30th Jan2012

Department Of Justice Sting Costs Google $500 Million

by iSpit

The U.S. government had a convicted federal prisoner pose as a businessman running illegal online pharmacies as part of an investigation into Google’s advertising practices.Google 00 millionto settle the investigation.The Wall Street Journal talked to David Whitaker, a convicted fraudster and federal prisoner who helped the Department of Justice in its investigation, as well as federal prosecutors in the case. 

Federal prosecutor Peter Nerohna claims that Google execs including Larry Page knew about the illegal ads but did nothing to stop them. Sources also told the Journal that former Google exec Sheryl Sandberg (who now is the COO at Facebook) raised concerns about the ads.

The sting itself is pretty remarkable.

Whitaker says he set up a fake Mexican online pharmacy selling steroids and human growth hormone. Google rejected it at first, but Whitaker claims that Google’s ad executives then worked with him to find a way around the rules. Whitaker says he paid Google’s advertising fees with a credit card provided by the feds.

Later, federal agents apparently set up other fake sites selling prescription narcotics, Prozac, and Valium without prescriptions, and bought Google ads for all of them. On one ad, Google ad execs allowed the feds to add the line “no prescription needed,” according to the Journal’s report.

Most damning of all, Whitaker told the Journal that he made phone calls in which he walked through the illegal parts of his fake Web sites with Google execs, and once told them that one of his clients wanted to become the biggest steroid dealer in the U.S. The calls were recorded.

Eventually, so many orders started coming in for the illegal drugs that the government changed the sites so that users would have to pay a membership fee before receiving them — that stopped orders cold.

The government presented the evidence to Google in 2009 and served grand jury subpoenas for emails and other documents. Google settled two years later — otherwise, emails proving that top execs knew about the illegal ads would probably have come out at trial, reports the Journal.

30th Sep2011

Meet Google’s Latest Beta Hit Product: GMale (Video)

by iSpit

14th Sep2011

The Google Map Is An Inaccurate Lie!

by iSpit


View Larger Map

  1. Look at the world map taken from Google maps above.  Looks familiar, right?
  2. Look at that huge land to North America‘s upper right.  That’s Greenland.
  3. Look at Africa; it seems like Africa is about the size of Greenland.

Now consider this fact:

Africa is 14 times larger than Greenland.

Size of Africa: 30,221,532 sq km
Size of Greenland: 2,166,086 sq km
30,221,532 / 2,166,086 = 13.95
(Data from CIA and Wikipedia)

Now look at the Google map again.  What the hell is going on?  Answer after the jump.

Map Projections
The world map that you and I are so familiar with is a very old cylindrical map projection, the Mercator projection, created in 1569.

Although this map serves its navigational purposes, it greatly misrepresents size relations between different areas.  There is no sensible reason to use it for educational, geostatistical and thematic purposes.  Not only is Africa depicted as being similar size as Greenland,

  • Europe seems to be larger than South America when South America is actually almost twice the size of Europe.
  • Alaska appears to be three times larger than Mexico, although Mexico actually is larger than Alaska.
  • Russia seems to be larger than Africa when the opposite is true in reality
  • The Northern Hemisphere is enlarged significantly making Europe appears to be larger and center of the map.

While it is impossible to create an absolutely accurate map by flattening out the Earth’s land masses, there are projections that do a MUCH better job of displaying the true size relations between land masses.

The CIA uses the Robinson projection.
In 1973, Arno Peters introduced the Gall–Peters projection (first appeared in 1855) and promoted it as much more realistic perception of the world than the Mercator projection.  It’s a equal-area cylindric projection and “all areas, both land and water, are of relatively proportional size: one square inch anywhere on the map represents 158,000 square miles on the Earth’s surface.”  It would be better suited for educational purposes comparing to the Mercator projection because of its realistic portrayal of proportion.
Although the Gall-Peters projection portrayed a more realistic view of the Earth, map publishers didn’t see the need to replace the Mercator projection because of its popularity.  People feel more familiar and comfortable with the Mercator projection; it remains to be a popular choice for schools, wall maps and popular illustration.
Why is Google Maps using the Mercator projection?
Many people had the same urge as me to ask this question.
The Mercator Projection distorts the world, giving the false impression that Greenland is the size of South America, Asia is ginormous and Alaska is bigger than Mexico – all inaccuracies that are being presented by Google. Google’s reputation for accuracy means that these distortions are reinforced in our conscience as facts.
The Mercator Projection is 440 years old and provided one practical purpose – bearings can be accurately drawn. The utility of this begins and ends with nautical navigation – clearly not the primary purpose of Google maps.
I urge Google to be responsible with the world’s knowledge and follow the advice of numerous cartographic associations that request that the Mercator Project not be used. For anything. Ever.

And this,

if you zoom out of any google map you will notice a huge difference in sizes and incredible inaccuracies for example, according to google maps Greenland is bigger than South America. and Antartica looks like its the size of North America, South America, EuropeAfrica, and Asia combined. Why would Google start off with the most outdated map known as Mercator’s Map of the 18th century and not go with the most accurate map out there known as the Cahill-Keyes map made in 1975

The world deserves to know what the world really looks like rather than a distorted perception of the world.

A Google employee’s response:

D view of the world.

Okay, so the Winkel tripel projection doesn’t work because of the angles; but what about the Gall-Peters projection?

So…
Different map projections serve different purposes and all of them have distortion of some kind.  However, the distortions in the Mercator projection are pretty ridiculous considering its popularity.  I see parallels between the Mercator Map and our old common senses.  Even when we know they’re bull, we continue to use them and teach them to our children for our own comfort.  Maybe we should try sticking this on the wall for a change:

Of course, the most accurate world map is a globe.  You could see it at http://earth.google.com/.

At last, I’ll leave you with this video clip from The West Wing:


Download Video or MP3 -Iamnotarapperispit.com

18th Jul2011

Google Braces For Illegal Drug Ad Fine

by iSpit

Internet search operator Google is bracing for a fine that could top $500 million, after a federal probe of illegal online pharmacy ads placed on the website over the past three years.

Law enforcement sources told CNN that federal prosecutors in Rhode Island, along with undercover agents from the Food and Drug Administration, are heading a massive investigation aimed at Google (GOOG, 00). The prosecutors are trying to prove that Google knowingly took advertising money from websites selling highly addictive drugs without a legitimate prescription.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Providence told CNN he could “neither confirm nor deny” reports of the probe. Google declined comment “since this is a legal matter.”

But in early May, Google filed a notice with the Securities and Exchange Commission saying it was setting aside $500 million to potentially resolve a case with the Department of Justice. In its filing, (more…)

14th Jul2011

Google Street View Snooping Lawsuits Will Proceed

by iSpit

A federal judge has denied Google’s request to dismiss several lawsuits accusing the company of illegally collecting private information from open Wi-Fi networks.

The ruling, filed in California court Wednesday, is a setback for Google as it tries to put its “Street View” debacle behind it.

In May 2010, Google admitted that the cars it uses to capture images for the “Street View” map feature accidentally collected about 600 gigabytes of data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries.

Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., apologized in a blog post and called the data collection “a mistake.” Google also said that it never used the data and would work to dispose of it as quickly as possible.

But several lawsuits hit a few months later, accusing Google (GOOG, 00) of violations of state and federal wiretap laws. The complaints have been consolidated into one case seeking class-action status.

In Google’s motion to dismiss, the company maintained that the data collection wasn’t illegal because open Wi-Fi networks are “readily accessible to the general public.”
5 data breaches: From embarrassing to deadly

Judge James Ware disagreed, writing that “presumption of accessibility”
applies only to “traditional radio broadcast mediums and do not address any broader radio-based communications (more…)

08th Jul2011

The Org Charts Of All The Major Tech Companies

by iSpit

07th Jul2011

The U.S. Government Asks For Data On Google Users More Than Other Country

by iSpit

27th Jun2011

U.S. official: Digital Music Lockers Could Reduce Online Music Piracy

by iSpit

Could digital music lockers in the cloud from the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google could be just the way to curb online music pirating? Some U.S. government officials certainly think so.

As reported by Reuters, Victoria Espinel, the coordinator of U.S. intellectual property enforcement, said that innovation and working with corporate partners is going to be a more successful route to cutting down on the amount of digital music piracy rather than just strict law enforcement here and there.

“If it is possible to construct it so that it cannot be compromised, it may have the effect of reducing piracy by giving value to consumers — the ability to own forever and access almost anywhere — that cannot be obtained with illegal copies,” Espinel said.

“The flexibility of the cloud may help spur the development of compelling legal alternatives.”

One of the most significant and talked-about features announced during Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ keynote at WWDC 2011 on Monday as (more…)

Switch to our mobile site