Mediaboss Marketing

Earlier this month, Google Google stopped forcing Gmail users to create a Google+ account upon sign up. Google+ is considered the second largest social networking website after Facebook. The growth of Google+ was largely attributed to itsrequirement for using another Google-owned service like Gmail or YouTubes comments section. The requirement to create a Google+ account to sign up for Gmail started in January 2012.

We updated the signup experience in early September. Users can now create a public profile during signup, or later, if and when they share public content for the first time (like a restaurant review, YouTube video or Google+ post), said a Google spokesperson via Telegraph UK.

I created a test account to find out how to opt out of creating aGoogle+ account when signing up for Gmail. Here is what it looks like:

Notice how you can say No thanks to Google+ now?The No thanks button was added to theGoogle Docs account sign up page as well.A Google+ profile is still required to contribute restaurant reviews, comment YouTube videos with your identity and provide ratings for content in Google Play.When Google forced people to use Google+ for commenting on YouTube videos, a petition was filed against that policy on Change.org in November 2013. Over 200,000 people signed the Change.org petition soGoogle allowed YouTube users to make comments anonymously.

Vic Gundotra, who is considered the father of Google+, departed from Google in April after working there for eight years. He was replaced by Dave Besbris, the Vice President of Engineering for Google+. When Gundotra left, Google co-founder and CEO Larry Page wrote a Google+ post that said:

I really enjoy using Google+ on a daily basis, especially the auto awesome movies which I really love sharing with my family and friends. Good luck with your next project after Google. In the meantime well continue working hard to build great new experiences for the ever increasing number of Google+ fans.

However,Google has been separating Google+ with some of its other services over the last few months. About one week after Gundotra left the company, Googleremoved the word Google+ from the buttonswhere users sign into third party websites using Google credentials.Google+ stopped forcing users to add real names to their profiles in July.Last month, Google separated Google+ from Google Hangouts andshut down the Google Authorship program, which associated content with the Google+ profile of the author or owner in search results.

Even though the separation of Google+ from several Google services indicates an impending shutdown of the social network, there are still new features that are being added to it. In May, Google launched a feature that lets users weave photos and videos into an aesthetic travelogue called Stories.One month later, Google+ business admins were given several new abilities: an option tocontrol the content that is available to the public,restriction of access to Google Hangouts for specific units within an organization and a feature to hide employee profiles in external searches.Earlier this month, Google+ added an Applause feature for users to thumb up or thumb down Hangouts On Air in real-time so that the best moments will be highlighted.

There are millions of people that enjoy using Google+ more than any other social network because it has features like Stories, Auto Awesome, Google+ Communities and animated GIF support.Only time will tell what happens to Google+ in the future, but I thought it was a good idea to separate the social network from Gmail.

What are your thoughts about Google+ no longer being required to create a Gmail or Google Docs account? Let us know in the comments below.

Read the original here:
Signing Up For Gmail No Longer Requires A Google+ Account

Dubai: Many people who use social media are not concerned about being vulnerable to hackers.

As more and more people continue sharing their personal information on different social networking sites, they have opened the door to hackers to collect information and commit crimes. According to a survey published by Kaspersky Lab, 76 per cent of respondents in the UAE do not think they are of any interest to hackers or do not even think about the issue.

Sarah Hassan, 21, who studies at the American University in Dubai, says she tries to be very selective with the information she shares on social networks even if her profile is private, but when it comes to Whatsapp she admits that she shares a lot of personal information because she thinks it cannot be hacked.

On social networks like Facebook or Twitter, I make sure I dont share things that could be used against me, but on Whatsapp there were many times when I shared passwords, my airplane ticket number, my debit card number, and other personal information with my family and friends, said Sarah. What I really think is that we will never feel the threat until something bad happens.

Leen Faisal, 20, from Syria, says some of her accounts are public and that she doesnt feel like she is of any interest to hackers. She doesnt usually worry about such matters.

I always post my pictures publicly on Instagram and identify my location. I dont think theres anything risky about that, but when it comes to private chatting like using Whatsapp, Ive always thought its secure and no one can hack it to get the information I share, she said.

Saif Mhaisen, 22, a Palestinian, who has a public profile on most of the social networks, said: I dont usually think deeply about how the things I share could be accessed by hackers, but I know that there is a big possibility that people could stalk others.

Indira Kasaeva, Russian, 21, said: I may at times chat with people who sent me friend requests on social networks, but I dont allow them to see my profile unless I have made sure they are good people, said Indira.

Kasaeva says it doesnt worry her that she could be targeted by cyber criminals because she limits the personal information she shares on social sites.

Mamta Babar, a mother of two girls, believes she doesnt know much about what her eldest 15-year-old daughter does on Facebook because shes unable to monitor her activity.

Read the original:
Hackers not a concern to vulnerable social media users

Source: Radio Zamaneh

The Iranian judiciary has given the administration one month to block mobile social networking sites such as Whatapp, Viber and Tango.

Whatsapp war in Iran (cartoon by Mana Neyestani, Tavana)

Mizan, the judiciary's news agency, reported on Saturday September 20 that the chief deputy of the judiciary, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, has warned that "the technical grounds for effective blocking of social networking sites that contain criminal content" must be in place within one month or else the judiciary will take immediate steps to "confront whoever has disobeyed judicial orders."

Ejei expressed disappointment that the government has not already restricted these sites.

He listed several reasons for the order to block these mobile phone sites: "the widespread publishing of criminal content; various actions against public decency, Islamic morality and public security; the widespread publishing of offensive content about Imam Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Revolution; and the administration of these networking sites by enemy countries."

The Rohani administration has not yet reacted to the judiciary's demand, but President Hassan Rohani has already expressed opposition to blocking mobile phone social networking sites such as Whatsapp.

... Payvand News - 09/22/14 ... --

Continued here:
Iranian Judiciary Gives Deadline For Blocking Sites Like Whatapp

From Berry v. Leslie (11th Cir. Sept. 16, 2014):

It was a scene right out of a Hollywood movie. On Aug. 21, 2010, after more than a month of planning, teams from the Orange County Sheriffs Office descended on multiple target locations. They blocked the entrances and exits to the parking lots so no one could leave and no one could enter. With some team members dressed in ballistic vests and masks, and with guns drawn, the deputies rushed into their target destinations, handcuffed the stunned occupants and demanded to see their barbers licenses. The Orange County Sheriffs Office was providing muscle for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations administrative inspection of barbershops to discover licensing violations.

We first held 19 years ago that conducting a run-of-the-mill administrative inspection as though it is a criminal raid, when no indication exists that safety will be threatened by the inspection, violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. See Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995). We reaffirmed that principle in 2007 when we held that other deputies of the very same Orange County Sheriffs Office who participated in a similar warrantless criminal raid under the guise of executing an administrative inspection were not entitled to qualified immunity. See Bruce v. Beary, 498 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2007). Today, we repeat that same message once again. We hope that the third time will be the charm.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Its protections apply to commercial premises, as well as to private homes. In general, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant supported by probable cause to effectuate a constitutional search. Indeed, this Court has explained, The basic premise of search and seizure doctrine is that searches undertaken without a warrant issued upon probable cause are `per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendmentsubject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.

One of those limited exceptions involves administrative inspections of closely regulated industries. Because an owner or operator of commercial property has a reduced expectation of privacy in this context, the standard for what may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment is correspondingly broader.

To fall within this exception, a warrantless inspection must satisfy three criteria: (1) a `substantial government interest [must] inform[] the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made; (2) the inspection must be necessary to further [the] regulatory scheme; and (3) the statutes inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, [must] provid[e] a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. The regulatory statute must [also] be sufficiently comprehensive and defined such that it limits the discretion of inspecting officers. Where a statute authorizes the inspection but makes no rules governing the procedures that inspectors must follow, the Fourth Amendment and its various restrictive rules apply.

But even when the criteria set forth above are met, to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, an administrative inspection must be appropriately limited in both scope and execution and may not serve as a backdoor for undertaking a warrantless search unsupported by probable cause. Above all, such inspections may never circumvent the Fourth Amendments requirement for reasonableness. In this regard, an administrative screening search must be as limited in its intrusiveness as is consistent with satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies it.

As detailed earlier, the regulatory framework for barbershop inspections in Florida is embodied in Fla. Stat. 476.184 and its implementing rules. In particular, 476.184 requires all barbershops to have a license issued by the DBPR and directs the Florida Barbers Board to adopt rules governing the operation and periodic inspection of barbershops licensed in Florida. Rule 61G3-19.015(1), Fla. Admin. Code, in turn, provides that the DBPR may conduct inspections biennially on a random, unannounced basis. The regulatory framework, which sets forth who may conduct such inspections, notifies barbers that only the DBPR is so authorized. In this case, no one disputes that the DBPR possesses statutory authority to conduct warrantless inspections of barbershops, nor do the parties assert that the statute authorizing such inspections is constitutionally impermissible.

Instead, the plaintiffs contend that the search of Strictly Skillz, which they allege was undertaken with an inordinate display of force, failed to conform to the Fourth Amendments requirement for reasonableness. Because we have twice held, on facts disturbingly similar to those presented here, that a criminal raid executed under the guise of an administrative inspection is constitutionally unreasonable, we agree.

Unlike previous inspections of Strictly Skillz, which were all conducted by a single DBPR inspector without the aid of law enforcement, the August 21 search was executed with a tremendous and disproportionate show of force, and no evidence exists that such force was justified. Despite the fact that neither OCSO nor the DBPR had any reason to believe that the inspection of Strictly Skillz posed a threat to officer safety, the record indicates that several OCSO officers entered the barbershop wearing masks and bulletproof vests, and with guns drawn; surrounded the building and blocked all of the exits; forced all of the children and other customers to leave; announced that the business was closed down indefinitely; and handcuffed and conducted pat-down searches of the employees while the officers searched the premises. Such a search, which bears no resemblance to a routine inspection for barbering licenses, is certainly not reasonable in scope and execution. Rather, [i]t is the conduct of officers conducting a raid.

Continued here:
Volokh Conspiracy: When administrative inspections of businesses turn into massive armed police raids

er!k: The NSA Stole My Pen
er!k reads his activist poem: The NSA Stole My Pen at the Occupy Central Vermont Climate Change Song, Anthem, Poetry Competition.

By: ORCA Media

Here is the original post:

er!k: The NSA Stole My Pen - Video