Amazon did something very scary last week - they removed legally purchased eBooks from Kindles. Sure, it doesn't sound that bad on the surface, but it could set a precedent that no Web consumer should stand for - the right of companies to remove digitally downloaded products from consumer devices at a later date.

Imagine if all companies that sold digital products could just reach into your computer and remove music, games, movies, pictures, software, and anything else they want to, whenever they want to. Seems a little far fetched doesn't it? Well, Amazon did just that with their Kindles and many speculate Apple may do just such a thing with their iPhones some day. Amazon could do this for all of their digital products from eBooks and software to music and movies. If a movie studio decides they don't want their movies for sale on Amazon anymore, does that mean Amazon is going to remove all those movies from anybody who has already purchased and downloaded the movies?

Apparently many are saying it's completely legal for Amazon to do what they've done, though it's mind boggling to see how that can be the case. Sure, they are going to refund the money, but how does that make it okay? If I went into Best Buy and bought a movie, does that mean Best Buy could just come into my house and take back the movie if the movie's publisher decides they don't want to have their movies in Best Buy anymore? Nobody would stand for that, so how can we stand for Amazon doing basically the exact same thing with digital books?

Thankfully the Web is up in arms over the whole ordeal, and Amazon has even admitted it was a stupid thing to do, promising they won't do it again. While that all sounds good on paper, it doesn't really get the bitter taste out of my mouth.

It's not all that uncommon to see articles on the Web that have clearly been stolen from another source. These acts of content theft, however, are usually done by unprofessional, less than reputable people. With that said, I'm actually quite surprised to see that a writer for a well known online magazine such as GamePro has been caught plagiarizing another online source.

I'm not quite sure how the writer thought he'd get away with it, seeing as many gamers read multiple reviews of a game before purchasing it. You'd think it'd be pretty obvious that many paragraphs were almost 50% word for word with an IGN review. One of the funnier things about the story is that many people from NeoGAF (the site that initially broke the story) actually were upset the plagiarizer was fired. I don't understand why people would defend a so called "journalist" who steals from other journalists. It's writing 101 that you don't plagiarize another person's work.

Anyway, the guy got fired so all is right in the world... for now at least.

A new ruling by a federal judge in Seattle may have significant repercussions in future online privacy litigation. That ruling, made by Judge Richard Jones, held that an IP address is not personal information because it doesn't directly identify a person, but rather, a computer. While this ruling was made regarding a class-action lawsuit brought against Microsoft, the decision could impact everything from future RIAA and other piracy lawsuits to Web and software agreements.

In the referenced court case, the issue at hand was that Microsoft was collecting IP addresses from its software users. Some of those users sued, claiming their personal information was being taken, which was against Microsoft's own user agreement. Now that the court ruled IP addresses are not personal information, it means collecting IP addresses is completely acceptable even if a user agreement says no personal information will be collected. If that sounds scary, it shouldn't.

Many people seem to be up in arms about the ruling, mostly due to unfounded fears they have that they will now be tracked by anybody and everybody online. This is fear is so off-the-wall/conspiracy theory-like that it's hard to argue with people with this belief. Ok, so it may be hard to argue, but I'll try anyway...
continue reading...

Advertisers using a CPC model (cost per click, where you pay a certain amount for each click) are constantly struggling with click fraud. For those that don't know, click fraud is a practice that usually involves a publisher displaying CPC ads and then clicks on those ads so that they get paid. That fraudulent activity can either by done manually or by an automated program.

Companies that provide CPC solutions, such as Google's AdSense, try to prevent click fraud, but are apparently losing that battle as a new report suggests click fraud to have grown to 17.1% last quarter.
continue reading...

Identity theft has been an increasing concern for many. With credit card theft, online account hacks, and a multitude of other identity related crimes constantly on the rise, law enforcement agencies seem to always be a few steps behind. For one FBI agent, however, three years undercover proved to be quite a revealing and successful operation.

Mularski, the undercover FBI agent, was able to infiltrate a popular online identity theft black market, where people would buy and sell stolen credit cards, accounts, and machines used for counterfeiting. Not only was he able to grant access to the site while posing as an identity thief, he was able to eventually work his way up to administrator where he was given access to all transactions on the site as well as user information that law enforcement agencies were able to use to track down and arrest 59 people while preventing an estimated $70 million in bank fraud.

It's quite an interesting read so be sure to read the full story.