Posts tagged Blocking
Google Kicks Ad Blocking Android App Out of Google Play Store
Mar 14th
Google pulled ad blocking app AdBlock Plus. Google says it “interferes with or accesses another service or product in an unauthorized manner”, which Google said is a violation of section 4.4 of its Developer Distribution Agreement.
View full post on Search Engine Watch – Latest
Is Your Local Pricing Strategy Blocking Search Engine Spiders?
Feb 12th
eMarketer’s recent report on Global e-commerce growth showed online sales globally exceeded $1 trillion in 2012. They further indicate that global e-commerce will grow by an additional 19% in 2013, with the Asia-Pacific region surpassing North America in online sales. This reemphasizes the…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
Is Microsoft Blocking Antivirus Apps from Windows RT?
Sep 5th
If you’re looking to buy a Windows RT tablet, security vendors said, don’t expect to be able to protect it with third- party antivirus or other security software. In fact, it seems that Microsoft may block third-party antivirus vendors from developing security solutions for Windows RT.
Microsoft won’t allow such software to be sold on its online store, which is the only way to load applications onto Windows RT devices, security vendors say. It’s not known whether Microsoft will develop its own security solution for Windows RT, although most security observers assume Microsoft will do so.
Unlike Windows 8, with which it shares code and most of a name, Windows RT is both a different operating system and a new business model for Microsoft. While Windows 8 runs on traditional Intel processors, Windows RT is compiled for the low-power ARM chips that power the vast majority of the world’s smartphones and tablets. Applications written for Windows RT can run on Windows 8, but a Windows 8 app must be specially compiled to run on both Windows 8 and RT – something most apps apparently do, Microsoft says.
Security Is Locked Out Of The Windows Store
Thats only part of the difference. Users can load whatever they software they wish onto Windows 8 machines, via DVD or online distribution. but Windows RT apps can only be downloaded from Microsoft’s online store. And that’s the problem, according to Gerry Egan, a senior director of product management for the Security Technology and Response Group at security vendor Symantec.
McAfee’s Marcio Mello, Sr. Director of Product Management, agreed. “Windows RT (as a SKU) is completely closed on the Desktop side. There’s no Win32 API there and there’s no way for an [anti-malware anti-virus] vendor to deliver their apps on Windows RT/ARM.”
So despite the uncertainty, will Symantec design a version of its software for Windows RT? “The answer is yes,” Egan said. “The question is whether we can, or whether there will be a need to. We predict that there will be a need to, and we’ll have to work with Microsoft to figure out how we can, and remain in compliance with their store policies.”
So far, the “jury is still out on the dynamics of the Windows RT marketplace,” Egan explained. “We don’t know what Microsoft’s next moves are going to be.”
Microsoft: “No Comment”
When asked to clarify the situation, Microsoft representatives declined to comment. “Microsoft has nothing to share on the topic at the moment,” a Microsoft spokeswoman said via email. “We’ll let you know if that changes.”
Until Windows RT is successfully attacked – and it hasn’t been yet, at least publicly – any confusion will be from longtime Windows users, who have become accustomed to installing an antivirus package to defeat malware. The questions will be whether or not Windows RT will actually need antivirus software – and whether or not consumers will ask for it out of habit. Security vendors noted that Windows RT may act like Apple’s iOS – security solutions are available, but most consumers simply don’t bother.
A representative from security competitor Kaspersky Lab confirmed that the company’s Kaspersky Internet Security and Kaspersky Antivirus would not run on Windows RT. “Our KAV/KIS 2013 should work fine on the Surface Pro but will not work with RT,” he said in an email.
Microsoft hasn’t publicly revealed whether WindowsRT on ARM will be able to run legacy products, like older versions of the Kaspersky software, the Kaspersky spokesman said. “We hear that Symantec is developing plug-ins for the RT ARM version, but we’re not committed one way or the other on developing something for RT,” he said.
A spokesman for AVG, a popular antivirus software package, said that the company also hasn’t decided whether or not to develop a Windows RT solution. But the typical development time would be between 5 to 8 months, he said, pushing a release well beyond Windows RT’s October launch date.
Stores’ Security Can Vary
Microsoft’s strict Store policies are actually a security measure in their own right, Symantec’s Egan noted. Both Apple and apparently Microsoft maintain high levels of control over their online apps stores, and the amount of malware on Apple’s iOS app store is very small.
On the other hand, Google has curated the apps on its Google Play store much more lightly, and allows users to “sideload” apps downloaded from other stores. That, in part, has led to an enormous spike in Android malware; up 472% from July 2011 through November 2011, with thousands of new versions of Android malware found recently.
Security image courtesy of Shutterstock.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
AT&T To Limit iPhone’s FaceTime – Challenges FCC’s “No Blocking” Rule
Aug 23rd
AT&T’s decision to make Apple’s FaceTime video chat feature available on its cellular network only through its premium data plan has raised questions over the interpretation of the federal government’s “no blocking” rule for wireless carriers – and whether smartphone users will have to pay more for video conferencing and other services.
Starting with the next version of Apple’s iOS operating system, expected in mid-September, FaceTime will be available over cellular network as well just Wi-Fi connections. AT&T is the first major carrier to announce plans to rein in that use by making the service available only to subscribers of its new Mobile Share data plans. Subscribers with a tiered or unlimited plan are out of luck.
So far, other carriers have been silent on FaceTime. Verizon Wireless did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and Sprint essentially said no comment: “We cannot specifically comment on future pricing decisions,” a spokeswoman said in an email.
AT&T Denies It’s Violating Net Neutrality
AT&T’s handling of FaceTime has sparked debate on whether AT&T’s decision violates the net-neutrality rules set by the Federal Communications Commission. The carrier adamantly in rejects such allegations.
First of all, FaceTime is still available on Wi-Fi without any restrictions, so the AT&T says it can’t be accused of preventing someone from using the app. Secondly, the carrier is not blocking a competing service, because it doesn’t offer a video chat app.
AT&T goes on to argue that the FCC rules do not require carriers to make “preloaded apps” available, only downloadable apps that compete with their voice or video telephony services.
“Nonetheless, in another knee jerk reaction, some groups have rushed to judgment and claimed that AT&T’s plans will violate the FCC’s net neutrality rules,” AT&T said in a statement Wednesday. “Those arguments are wrong.”
Critics Say AT&T Is “Pretending”
One of the groups that would fit AT&T’s “rushed to judgment” categorization is Public Knowledge, a nonprofit group focused on Internet law. Public Knowledge says AT&T’s interpretation of the rule is wrong, because the carrier is pretending that the FCC categorizes apps.
“The FCC’s Open Internet rules do not distinguish between pre-loaded and downloaded apps,” John Bergmayer, senior staff attorney at Public Knowledge, said in a statement. “They prevent carriers from blocking certain kinds of apps – period.”
Bergmayer argues that AT&T just wants FaceTime fans to pay more. At the same time, the carrier wants to stifle the use of video conferencing apps like FaceTime, Skype and ooVoo, because they compete with other AT&T services.
“There’s no doubt that these apps are a competitive threat to AT&T’s voice service,” Bergmayer said. “But as the FCC made clear in its Open Internet rules, mobile providers must compete with these new services fair and square, and not by engaging in discriminatory behavior.”
No Word From The FCC
The FCC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Ultimately, the commission will decide which interpretation of its rules is closest to its intent. The “no blocking” rule, as it applies to wireless carriers, states: “Mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.”
Beyond the net neutrality issues, AT&T is concerned with the impact a data-intensive app like FaceTime will have on network performance and customers’ wallets. For several years after the release of the first iPhone in 2007, AT&T struggled to accommodate the huge increase in data traffic. The poor performance of its network in some major cities made the carrier the butt of jokes from comedians on national TV, as well as ridicule from customers.
Having learned its lesson, AT&T said it would be watching FaceTime usage. “We will be monitoring the impact the upgrade to this popular preloaded app has on our mobile broadband network, and customers, too, will be in a learning mode as to exactly how much data FaceTime consumes on those usage-based plans,” the carrier said. For users of measured data plans, FaceTime usage could quickly become expensive.
AT&T is not treating FaceTime any differently then competing apps. Rather, the debate reflects the passion of Apple’s fan base. Nevertheless, the FCC will need to clarify the no-blocking rule, or carriers will be free to interpret it anyway they wish.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
When Censorship Hurts Businesses’ SEO; The Curious Blocking of Ferrari in China – International Business Times
Mar 20th
|
When Censorship Hurts Businesses' SEO; The Curious Blocking of Ferrari in China
International Business Times By Ryan Buddenhagen Censorship has been a topic that has received a great deal of attention in the technology and internet sector simply because there are markets that do experience a great deal of censorship. My article on Friday, for example, … |
View full post on SEO – Google News
Google Enables Blocking AdWords Results With Block Site Feature
Feb 20th
In 2011 Google enabled the ability to block search results with a new block sites feature. It now appears that you can block sites from showing up in the paid search ad results. Here is a picture with the “block all domain.com ads”: What is interesting is that this works for both those…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
Scroogle Says Google Is Blocking Their Privacy Search Engine
Feb 14th
If you try to conduct a search at Scroogle, the portal that lets you search Google in private, Scroogle will tell you that Google is blocking them. I just tested it and Scroogle returns an error message that reads, “so sorry… Google is temporarily blocking this Scroogle server.”…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
Matt Cutts Convinces Some South Korean Govt. Websites To Stop Blocking Googlebot
Jan 31st
Matt Cutts, international diplomat? That might be the more appropriate title for Google’s chief spam cop. According to the Wall Street Journal, Cutts is in South Korea this week and, in a presentation Monday night for about 80 government officials, webmasters, lawyers and journalists, managed…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
Even Without DNS Blocking, the Protect IP Act Could Still Stifle Innovation
Jan 13th
One of the co-authors of the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate has said that he will make a manager’s amendment to the bill to strike out the section where Internet Service Providers will be required to block a foreign website found to be infringing on copyrighted content. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D – Vt.), said yesterday that the DNS blocking portion of the bill may be stricken before it comes to a vote on the Senate floor Jan. 24. While this could be a big win for SOPA/PIPA opponents, there is still plenty in the bill that is detrimental to the Internet ecosystem.
Sponsor
Specifically, Leahy is talking about Sec. 3 of PIPA (S.968 in U.S. Senate parlance). That section is titled: Enhancing Enforcement Against Rogue Websites Operated and Registered Overseas. The most pertinent section regarding the ISPs is in article (d), “Required Actions Based on Court Orders:”
IN GENERAL- An operator of a nonauthoritative domain name system server shall take the least burdensome technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent the domain name described in the order from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address, except that –
The removal of said clause in Sec. 3 of PIPA would effectively cripple the entire section of the bill because that is the most active part, the means of taking down the alleged copyrighted website. Sec. 3 is important because it is the foundation for a good portion of the bill.
What else is concerning about PIPA? Oh, let’s say … every other section.
Sec. 4, titled “Eliminating the Financial Incentive to Steal Intellectual Property Online” contains several of the same proposals as the Stop Online Privacy Act in Congress. Notably, the ability of the Attorney General to issue an order for online payment processors and advertisers to stop doing business with alleged infringing site. From Sec. 4 article (d):
(2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection:
(A) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDERS- A financial transaction provider shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order.
(B) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES- An Internet advertising service that contracts with the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order to provide advertising to or for that site, or which knowingly serves advertising to or for such site, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed to–
- (i) prevent its service from providing advertisements to the Internet site associated with such domain name; or
- (ii) cease making available advertisements for that site, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or placements that provide access to the domain name.
Eliminating the language from Sec. 3 supports the ISPs, such as cable operators Comcast and Cox, which support the bill though have objections to that particular clause. Yet, Sec. 4 remains would remain in the bill. Sec. 4 effects online advertisers like Google and payment processors like eBay/PayPal, both of which oppose PIPA. Essentially, Leahy is placating the bill’s supporters while still imposing upon its opponents.
Looks like politics as usual in Washington.
Sec. 5 of PIPA outlines how payment providers and advertisers can voluntarily comply with Sec. 4 meaning that they can be proactive in shutting down payment options to alleged sites. Sec.6/7 defines the clauses and evaluation aspects of the bill. Sec. 8, the last section of the bill, has a particularly troubling clause.
Sec. 8 – “Preventing the Importation of Counterfeit Products and Infringing Devices.” Note the term “infringing devices.” Essentially, what the bill says is that products with have been ruled to infringe on intellectual property will be seize by customs.
Think about this for a second. What is the largest technology company in the world? What products does it make? What is its legal arm doing in U.S courts and around the world?
That would be Apple. Apple is raging a patent battle against nearly all of the original equipment manufacturers that build Android devices. All Apple has to do is win a patent suit against the OEMs and Sec. 8 would effectively stop the importation of the “infringing” devices. Apple has not made an official statement on whether or not it supports SOPA/PIPA but it was part of the Business Software Alliance that had originally supported the bills. The BSA officially withdrew its support citing, “valid and important questions have been raised about the bill.”
What it comes down to is that PIPA is still a bill that could stifle and censor innovation on the Web, even without the teeth of Sec. 3. Will Leahy’s “manager’s amendment” be enough to placate the opponents and push it through the Senate?
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Why These Ads? Google Explains Ad Targeting, Allows Blocking
Nov 3rd
Google is always trying to make ads more relevant to users online. Earlier this week Google released improved transparency. When you search a query in Google today you will see up in the top right corner of the ad “Why these ads?” This system is&n…
View full post on Search Engine Watch – Latest
