The U.S. Federal Trade Commission this past week announced it reached settlements with software giant Oracle and identity protection firm LifeLock over separate charges of allegedly deceiving users and customers about security. LifeLock agreed to pay $100 million for violating a 2010 promise to cease deceptive advertising practices. Oracle’s legal troubles with the FTC stem from its failure to fully remove older, less secure versions of Java when consumers installed the latest Java software.
Since March 26th I can no longer stay logged into my RBC online banking. It logs in fine then right away logs me out. Cookies that are blocked. Check the permissions for the domain in the currently selected tab in 'Tools - Page Info - Permissions'. It is a part of Window and the updater program uses it. The most significant corporations, institutional investors, asset managers, private equity firms, and governments around the globe recognize RBC Capital Markets as an innovative, trusted partner with an in-depth expertise in capital markets, banking, and finance.
The FTC sued Oracle over years of failing to remove older, more vulnerable versions of Java SE when consumers updated their systems to the newest Java software. Java is installed on more than 850 million computers, but only recently (in Aug. 2014) did the company change its updater software to reliably remove older versions of Java during the installation process.
According to the FTC’s complaint, since acquiring Java in 2010, Oracle was aware of significant security issues affecting older versions of Java SE. The FTC charges that Oracle was aware of the insufficiency of its update process.
“Internal documents stated that the ‘Java update mechanism is not aggressive enough or simply not working,’ and that a large number of hacking incidents were targeting prior versions of Java SE’s software still installed on consumers’ computers,” the FTC said “The security issues allowed hackers’ to craft malware that could allow access to consumers’ usernames and passwords for financial accounts, and allow hackers to acquire other sensitive personal information through phishing attacks.”
Few sites require Java to display content anymore, and most regular users can likely do without the program given the incessant security holes introduced by the program and its record of being abused by malicious software to infect millions of systems. See this post for a more detailed breakdown of why I’ve so often encouraged readers to junk Java, and advice for users who absolutely still need to have Java installed. If you’re not sure whether you have Java installed, check out this page that Oracle has put up to help users detect and remove installations of Java.
This contains 9 cantos or divisions. This book is where Kannagi and Kovalan start their married life and Kovalan leaves his wife for the courtesan Madhavi. The first book is largely akam (erotic love) genre. Maturaikkandam (: மதுரைக் காண்டம்), based in Madurai which then was the capital of the kingdom.
The FTC’s $100 million settlement with LifeLock represents a record for monetary awards obtained by the agency It stems from alleged violations of a previous deceptive advertising settlement the company reached with the FTC back in 2010.
According to the FTC, LifeLock failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect users’ sensitive personal information — including their social security, credit card and bank account numbers. The FTC also alleged LifeLock falsely advertised that it protected consumers’ sensitive data with the same high-level safeguards used by financial institutions, and that it would send alerts “as soon as” it received any indication that a consumer may be a victim of identity theft.
The court documents related to the latest LifeLock settlement are still sealed, so it’s unclear how exactly LifeLock allegedly failed to protect customers’ sensitive personal data. Interestingly, the lone dissenter in the LifeLock case was FTC Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen, who said she disagreed with the ruling because the commission hadn’t produced evidence that LifeLock somehow failed to secure its customer data, and noted that the company has complied with payment card industry security standards for accepting and handling credit card data.
For its part, LifeLock says in a statement that “there is no evidence that LifeLock has ever had any of its customers data stolen, and the FTC did not allege otherwise.”
This October 2015 story from About.com includes interesting perspective from Virginia Attorney Ken Cuccinelli, whose investigation into LifeLock’s business practices culminated in a class-action lawsuit pitting the FTC and 34 other state attorneys general against the company. According to that interview, Cuccinelli’s beef with LifeLock seems to have centered around allegations of false advertising about the level and quality of LifeLock’s identity protection service, as opposed to any specific data security issues at LifeLock.
“The problem, according to Cuccinelli, was not so much that LifeLock offered a flawed service, but that they were misrepresenting the level of security that they in fact provided,” wrote William Deutsch. “For years, LifeLock had been claiming to be an airtight guarantee against all forms of identity theft. LifeLock’s service is most effective against new account fraud, which is why members can expect an alert when someone tries to open up a new account in their name. But according to the Federal Trade Commission, the service wasn’t as effective in securing customers against the abuse of existing accounts, nor did it offer much protection against medical and employment related fraud.”
I have consistently urged readers to understand the limitations of credit monitoring services, which countless companies offer consumers each year in response to data breaches that expose customer personal and payment data. As I’ve noted time and again, credit monitoring services are unlikely to block thieves from opening new lines of credit in your name; the most you can hope for is that these services will alert you when the thieves succeed in getting new credit using your good name.
Credit monitoring services are useful for ID theft victims who are seeking help in removing fraudulent inquiries from their credit report. But if you want true protection against new account fraud committed in your name, place a security freeze on your credit file with the major credit bureaus. This article explains more about what’s involved in a security freeze and how to protect you and your family.
Tags: Federal Trade Commission, FTC, java, Lifelock, Oracle, Virginia Attorney Ken Cuccinelli, William Deutsch
My non-expert view is that there is NO need to inform IRCC about being issued any new passport or travel document AFTER the application has been made. However, an applicant should bring any such documents, along with all those referenced in the application, to the interview.FWIW - Observations/Explanation about updating information generally:This query offers an opportunity to examine and illuminate the question about -what- and -when- to update information while a citizenship application is pending. It is important to update information when that is required. But changes in circumstances do not necessarily mean information provided in the application has changed.It is important to notify IRCC of certain information. But otherwise, generally the bureaucratic process tends to proceed best, with the least risk of things-going-bump-in-the-dark, the less the process is tampered with, the more the process stays solidly inside the routine-processing lines.Examples:- change in residential or mailing address should be promptly updated- change in employment does not need to be updatedReminder: the applicant agrees to advise IRCC ' if any information on this form changes before the applicant take the Oath of Citizenship.'
As alludes, the issuance of a new passport after the date of applying does not really constitute a change to the information provided in the application. Similarly, a change in jobs does not change the information provided in the application.The idea of informing CIC (my application was processed prior to the change to IRCC) that my passport had been cancelled, and that I had been issued a replacement, did not occur to me other than to be sure to present both passports, the cancelled one and the new one, at my interview.While I had no problems, none at all let alone any problem due to this, that does NOT mean for-sure that was the proper way to do it. (As I have oft emphasized, what worked for one applicant ONLY indicates what CAN or might work, because it has worked, NOT what the rule is, NOT what will work for someone else let alone what will always work.)In retrospect, nonetheless, my sense is that my approach was the proper way to go about it. I conclude this because (again, as alludes) the issuance of a new passport after the date of applying does not really constitute a change to the information provided in the application.The relevant item in the current application is item 14. It explicitly references 'travel documents during your eligibility period,' instructing the applicant to 'Tell us about all your travel documents and/or passports covering your eligibility period.'
A later issued passport, again as observes, is outside the eligibility period.The relevant checklist item similarly instructs the applicant submit photocopies for travel documents and passports ' covering the five (5) years immediately before the date of your application.' Here too, a later issued travel document or passport is outside that period.General Observations About Updating Application/Applicant Information:I have gone into detail regarding this, as to passports, to illustrate the reasoning process in deciding WHAT information needs to be updated, and to some extent similarly WHEN. The new passport situation seems to be an instructive example for how to approach what or when to update generally.In many respects, historically, many applicants have had a tendency to NOT provide updated information when they should.
This has especially arisen when applicants move, so that their residential address changes. A change in residential address, in the place where one lives, is information the applicant most definitely should update as soon as practical.As others have noted, generally being forthright and forthcoming is the better approach, and it is better to err on the side of disclosure.BUT citizenship application processing is a bureaucratic process and bureaucratic processing tends to go a lot smoother, tends to run into fewer problems, when there are NO wrinkles, and the risk of wrinkles tends to increase anytime there is some action taken on the file. There are, of course, certain necessary actions that must be taken. And this can include necessary updates. Again, change in address is the more obvious example.Unnecessary updates to the file, in contrast, are an unnecessary risk.Take note, for example, how often participants in this forum report a problem related to their address even though they have followed the procedure for updating a change in address. And that is an action on a file which should be about as routine as any.Nonetheless, sure, it is probably better to err on the side of updating information UNLESS the applicant is fairly confident there is NO need to update.Some detailed analysis:MOST of the information in the application form is historical. It is established as of the date of the application.
This kind of information does not change.As already noted, for example, travel document information in the application specifically references the 'eligibility period.' No update is necessary for later issued documents (but be sure to bring to interview).Similarly, the work history information is specifically about what the applicant was doing during the eligibility period.
Thx, this was excellent. I had created a dataset in Google Fusion Table which I wanted to add on top of another map – and what would be better than using Illustrator for that purpose?In order to use my kml-data in indiemapper, I had to extract the latitude and longitude coordinates for the adresses. Done!Link: indiemapper.com/app (Sorry, this project is dead)Status: Tested it, works. Inviare a google mapx file kml.
(Applicant should be prepared to disclose current work circumstances at the interview.)Address history likewise. So any change in address does not require an update to item 10.a in the current application form. However, Item 7 is an open-ended question, so any change to the information in this item, including home address OR mailing address, needs to be updated.PROHIBITIONS EXCEPTION (an important exception):Item 16 is imprecise in a number of ways.
As I have previously observed (other threads), it tends to indicate that if any of the situations applies to the applicant, that means the applicant is prohibited. That is not necessarily true. Some situations, such as convicted of an offence outside Canada, might apply but will not necessarily constitute a prohibition (if the offence is not one which is an indictable offence if committed in Canada); similarly, the situation 'have you ever been' under a removal order might apply, but if that order was resolved in the applicant's favour, it does not constitute a prohibition.Some may focus on the 'are you now' language in parts of Item 16 to mean 'now' literally as of the date of the application. Absolutely not.
It is absolutely imperative for an applicant to notify IRCC if the applicant is arrested, charged, or convicted of an offence after applying and while the application is pending, right up to the day the oath is taken.(Note: edit to resolve formatting problems.).