關於安全知識的英語美文

　　安全生產你管我管，大家管才平安。事故隱患你查我查，人人查方安全。小編精心收集了，供大家欣賞學習!

　　篇1

　　Fewer than one in eight Google users have bothered to read the internet giant's new privacy policy, a poll found yesterday.

　　The great majority are in the dark about the way the biggest search engine operator will use information about what they look for and what they do on-line, it said.

　　The findings came amid deepening concerns about the abuse of private information by internet companies.

　　At the weekend it was disclosed that people who download smartphone apps may be ignoring small print that allows large-scale intrusion into their lives by outsiders.

　　The rights they unwittingly hand over even includes the legal power to make their camera phones take pictures and video on the command of a app company.

　　Google has been widely criticised for the way it handles information made available to it by the millions who turn to its search engines and other services.

　　Its new privacy policy, which comes into effect on Thursday, sets out how the search engine company will exploit detailed information on its users, down to the locations where they use their smartphones, and how it will distribute it to other organisations.

　　The company's new policy replaces around 60 different existing privacy policies.

　　The poll, carried out by YouGov for the Big Brother Watch pressure group, found that 92 per cent of adults who use the internet go through a Google service at least once a week.

　　But only 12 per cent of them have read the company's new privacy policy, which Google has been advertising prominently for weeks.

　　Nearly half of the adult population said it did not know Google was bringing in a new privacy policy, and only 40 per cent of Google users said they thought the new policy should be brought into operation.

　　Nick Pickles, of Big Brother Watch, said: 'The impact of Google's new policy cannot be understated, but the public are in the dark about what the changes actually mean.

　　'Companies should not be allowed to bury in legal jargon and vague statements how they may monitor what we do online, where we use our phones and even listen to what we say in calls.

　　'This change isn't about Google collecting more data, it's about letting the company combine what's in your emails with the videos you watch and the things you search for.'

　　Mr Pickles added: 'If people don't understand what is happening to their personal information, how can they make an informed choice about using a service?

　　'Google is putting advertiser's interests before user privacy and should not be rushing ahead before the public understand what the changes will mean.'

　　The pressure group has called for an inquiry into how the new Google policy complies with British data protection law.

　　篇2

　　Last week's online privacy fracas-of-the-week was about the revelation that Google ***and other advertisers*** had learned to circumvent Safari's settings to let third-party cookies track users more easily. Apple's browser's default setting messes with the way advertisers track users.

　　The gist is this: Cookies are set by the site you're on, but some allow third-party sites to set a tracking cookie through them. That's how advertisers ***like Google*** personalize ads for you all around the Web. By default, Safari allows cookies from the site you're on, but it blocks third-party cookies. Google and others found a way around that. That sucks... I guess.

　　For the most part, I'm with my colleague, Dan Rowinski: track me all you want, just don't think we won't catch you if you do something wrong. I don't think Google's new privacy policy is a big deal. All browsers worth their salt make it very easy to either block cookies or go totally incognito, and Google lets you dump your entire Web history if you so desire. So while I'm public, track me. I'd rather have personalized ads than totally irrelevant ones.

　　I don't have a problem with the idea of ad tracking. But this end-run around Safari's settings has wider implications. I just read a post by Jonathan Mayer at Web Policy about this topic, and he makes some excellent points. There's a slippery slope here. Even if Google's tracking is innocuous now, cracking other companies' preferences sets some bad precedents for users.

　　"No account, login, or user preference was required for circumvention. The circumvention behaviors affected all users, independent of whether they had a Google account, were logged into a Google account, or had made a choice about social advertising."

　　Users who have a Google account can change their Google privacy settings. They can tell Google not to track them, and they can delete their histories. But Google tracks users without accounts, too, and there's nothing they can do about it.

　　"Circumvention is not a commonly accepted business practice. We only identified four advertising companies that deployed technology for circumventing Safari's cookie blocking, and all have since stopped the practice."

　　That doesn't look good.

　　"Furthermore, a self-regulatory organization for the online advertising industry cites Safari's cookie blocking feature as a way to stop cookies from advertising companies: '[Safari's] default setting will block all third-party cookies, including those of our member ad networks and those of other, non-member ad networks.'"

　　And, as Mayer points out, Apple makes it pretty clear that this setting is intended to block ad tracking. Whether or not Google's tracking is inherently bad, it's messing with Apple's user experience without regard for Apple or its users.

　　But, importantly, Safari has worked this way since long before Google was advertising this way. Apple just wants its users to have this privacy when they're browsing the Web.

　　Google argues that its users had "opted to see personalized ads" in their Google preferences, so it thought it was fine to honor those preferences over Safari's. But first of all, what about people who didn't have Google accounts? Secondly, why do Google's Web preferences get to overrule the user's browser preferences? Google used to say Safari's default preference "effectively accomplishes the same thing" as opting out of its tracking. As of last Tuesday, that's gone.

　　Again, it's my opinion that Web ad tracking, in and of itself, is not a big deal. But Mayer's points are important. Google and the three other advertisers who did this ***and stopped when caught*** were breaking into the agreement between Apple and its users, even when they had made no agreement whatsoever with Google or the others. That's not kosher.

　　篇3

　　It looks like the Internet sex site YouPorn just took one in the eye. A years-old coding error has exposed the emails and passwords of over a million of its smut-loving chat users.

　　The YP site itself wasn't hacked but rather its associated sex-chat site—which is run by an outside company—somehow left bales of unencrypted sign-up information on a public web server. The error was apparently discovered after the sensitive info was uploaded to an FTP server and made available in Torrent form. The Torrent has been reportedly removed from circulation, though one can still find the indexes and some of the older files on archive.org. The breach itself was noticed through a discussion thread on Flashback.org.

　　"Looking at the data, it seems like a careless programmer accidentally left debug logging on to a publicly accessible URL as early as November 2007, and it has been storing all registrations ever since," said Anders Nilsson, CTO at Swedish security distributor EuroSecure, in a blog post. "The data was found by someone sweeping websites for publicly accessible, but non-linked ***'hidden'*** folders, looking for either porn or sensitive material like this, and struck gold"

　　YouPorn has already taken steps to contain the breach. The company has completely disabled the chat function, which will remain so until a third-party security analysis has been completed. "YouPorn continues to ensure that all appropriate measures and tools are in place to maintain the security of its infrastructure, and to safeguard the privacy of its users," Manwin Holding SARL spokeswoman Kate Miller said in a statement.

　　While it's only the chat site that's been offlined ***since yesterday***, we still recommend following the standard practice of changing your passwords in light of this security breach. It should help prevent further hacking against you stemming from this leak.