Gizmodo recently posted a huge scoop with photos and video for the next iPhone. But the police are questioning how editor Jason Chen acquired the iPhone prototype for his written review.

Last Friday night, California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team raided Chen’s home (while he was away, but with a search warrant) and confiscated four computers and two servers. There’s a lot of information regarding the situation and questions of legality are being thrown to both sides of the action.

According to TechCrunch, Gizmodo admits to paying $5000 for the alleged iPhone 4g prototype, but “contended the device was found at a bar, not stolen.” Gizmodo also contests, “the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.” This code, sometimes referenced in part of the Shield Laws, states “no warrant shall issue for any items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.” Basically, it protects journalists from having to reveal their source(s) and includes any unpublished information. Does that apply to online blogs, such as Gizmodo? Well, the DA has currently halted the police investigation as they thoroughly mull over Gizmodo’s defense statements.

Jason Kincaid at TechCrunch asked Stephen Wagstaffe, Chief Deputy at San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, if it was “typical for the DA to evaluate the relevance of these shield laws after removing evidence.” Yep, “Wagstaffe did concede that it was unusual.”

The Business Insider says Chen may face up to one year in prison if “convicted of a felony for receiving stolen property or aiding a thief.” SND Readers, what do you think? Was Chen in the wrong? Were the police too quick to raid?

• Oracle Database 11g
• Oracle Application Server 10gR2
• Oracle Identity Management 10g
• Oracle Collaboration Suite 10g
• Oracle E-Business Suite
• Oracle Transportation Manager
• Oracle Agile
• PeopleSoft Enterprise People Tools
• Oracle Communications Unified Inventory Management
• Oracle Retail
• Oracle Sun Product Suite

For a full list of products affected, users should visit the Oracle Critical Patch Advisory page. Here they will also learn how to obtain and apply the patches, get a summary of the security vulnerabilities, and links to other important documents. You will also find a risk matrix, possible workarounds and information about unsupported product versions. Products not listed under “Supported Products and Components Affected” do not require new patches.

As always, as an Oracle Gold Partner, SoftwareMedia.com is your source for Oracle Software. Please contact us with any questions you may have.

1. Norton Internet Security 2010 | SoftwareMedia.com
2. Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 | SoftwareMedia.com
3. AVG Internet Security 9.0 | SoftwareMedia.com
4. PC Tools Internet Security 2010 | SoftwareMedia.com
5. BitDefender Internet Security 2010 | SoftwareMedia.com
6. Avast 5.0 Internet Security
7. McAfee Internet Security 2010 | SoftwareMedia.com
8. Panda Internet Security 2010 | SoftwareMedia.com
9. Webroot Internet Security Essentials | SoftwareMedia.com
10. Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2010 | SoftwareMedia.com

Head over to PCWorld to read the full report of their findings.

Norton Internet Security 2010 (Internet Security - 1 User, 3 PC - Retail - PC - English)

Prices start at

$22.99

Avg user rating

0 user reviews

Merchant

Price

Rating

$19.99

29 Reviews

Baseline Software

$23.87

8 Reviews

PriceGo.org

$27.50

184 Reviews

$37.69

409 Reviews

$39.11

3534 Reviews

Prices and availability are subject to change by merchant without notice. Please check with merchant for details. For all prices or availability click here

The iPad is coming to stores soon… possibly.

Google mobile services have been partially blocked in China.

Nothing catching my eye just yet…

An iPhone for Verizon may debut before year end.

Microsoft has patched a number of vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer.

Hold on.

As I mindlessly scroll through Google Reader, a Washington Post article by Dana Scarton jumped out at me and caught my eye: Google and Facebook raise new issues for therapists and their clients. My mind wakes. It cranks into gear. The article makes me think. It makes me wonder. Scarton lays down a number of interesting thoughts to ponder over.

Is it ethical for a therapist to fish out a patient’s blog, Facebook, website or other readily available information on the Internet? Would that be a breach of privacy? Or a means to better understand a patient? I mean, after all, you are paying a therapist to get to know you — in a way. And the internet is publicly accessible…

Scarton describes a case where a patient overdosed on sedatives. The patient’s psychiatrist, Damir Huremovic, was forwarded a suicidal email containing links to a website and blog the patient wrote. What’s a concerned doctor to do? Well, in this case, Huremovic decided that it was okay to click on the links. Scarton writes, “after all, the Web site was in the public domain and it might contain some potentially important information for treatment.”

What do SND readers think? Scarton’s Washington Post article knocked out some great points to both sides. And goes on to take into account, what if the roles were reversed?

In a detour from our typical light-hearted overtone at SND (and killing the buzz a little — anyone watch that Community episode last week?)… I asked the opinions of a few staffers here at SoftwareMedia.com what they thought about the issue.

From the lot of people I quickly polled, we seemed to be fairly split. About half the surveyed staffers didn’t have a problem being searched online, the other half had concerns. Almost everyone agreed it wasn’t straight out black and white though. From my “discovery,” here are a few highlighted quotes:

Ashley — “I think it’s fine.  I mean, you’re going to the therapist to basically divulge your whole life anyway.  If you really want help, you should be willing to let them know everything about you. On the other hand, the therapist needs to maybe not take EVERYTHING from the internet as truth.  I feel like anything done on the internet is an extreme of yourself.”

Brandon — “(I’m) all for it. If someone has published something online, then it is available for anyone who wishes to view it. Thus if someone has something published about them without their permission they need to seek out the source and have them remove the information. Because the internet is such an open and public place, people need to be very careful about what they post.  Social networking sites are a huge source of this private information made public. And many people don’t realize just how public their information is when they publish it. But the onus is on the publisher, not the reader.”

Emily — “I think there is a lot wrong with that but honestly it’s probably a good tactic.”

Allison – “At first it seems invasive but if you are turly trying to understand & help this individual I do not see any harm in it. Besides prospective employers are now doing (it), landlords. People need to watch what they share (online).”

Dave — “Well, I’m torn. On one hand, the information is out there in the public domain. On the other hand, I think it’s somewhat inappropriate (and) the information could likely be untrue.”

Okay, okay. So I’ll be fair and also throw in my two cents. I have to agree. The Internet is public domain. When I asked Kevin for his opinion he told me he had no problems with it. “My name is generic and people can never find me anyways,” he told me. Well, “Lansia” isn’t exactly a common name. An Italian car, perhaps… but I’ve never met another with my name. Hence, the slight caution I always consider when publishing personal information to the world wide web. I know that what’s published may be searched by millions (billions?) of Internet users.

With the Internet bringing the world smaller, information may not be retrieved and gathered on a completely whole new level. Just the other day, I used it to my advantage by comparing prices at the local retail store to their online competitors. There’s been no doubt about it; I’ve definitely saved a bit on my minor shopping addiction since the birth of Internet. My friend recently switched physicians with the help of the Internet. And employers and jobseekers, alike, have used the Internet to gain an upper hand. What does this potential employee portray himself? Facebook could tell. The web is a fountain of information, although sometimes dangerous. What’s true? What’s false? And what’s going too far?

Perhaps, my opinion of it all..  it’s okay for therapists to search patient information online. A random person can conduct that same search, why can’t someone that you are paying do so as well? However! It should all be taken in with a grain of salt. Someone online may not be the same person in life – literally and figuratively.

I also believe disclosure should also be important. Keely Kolmes, a psychologist who also writes on Internet ethics, says, “A lot of patients really want to think about you as existing in just that one space (while at therapy), and suddenly they’re seeing you on Twitter and blogging.” That certainly changes the way a patient may want to be perceived by his therapist. Awkward? It may be a side that the patient does not want the therapist taking into account.

Clearly, there’s much more to be debated. As Stephen Behnke, ethics director at the American Psychological Association, points out, “To write rules that allow our field to grow and develop and yet prevent (patient) harm at the same time: That’s the challenge.”

All right. Buzz kill over! Hey, lookit that… these peeps sure are ready for Easter this weekend.

A BitDefender spokesperson assures the public that “Substantially less people have been affected than people think.” Although, those that have been hit with the malfunction, have been hit fairly hard. Read the IDG Connect article for more.

Figuring out how to make good on our promise to stop censoring search on Google.cn has been hard. We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement. We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we’ve faced — it’s entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China.

What does China have to say about it? Well, Xinhua, the official press of the People’s Republic of China, has a very brief comment on the matter…

Not too long after that comment, Xinhua got a bit more defensive and issued this brief article…

Could China be censoring Google by blocking the redirect anyway? It’s possible. SND readers, what do you think? Share your thoughts!

Mozilla confirmed

Currently, this only affects the latest Firefox release, version 3.6. This release came out just a couple of months ago in January.

Although developers have already fixed the issue, they are currently undergoing quality assurance testing before releasing the patch. The patch is scheduled to come out with Firefox version 3.6.2 on March 30. In the meantime, Mozilla suggests download the beta build which already contains the fix.

The Register reports that “half the roster of Fortune 1000 companies harboured machines infected by Mariposa at one time or another.” In fact, Christopher Davis, chief exec at Defence Intelligence in Canada, says, “It would be easier for me to provide a list of the Fortune 1000 companies that weren’t compromised, rather than the long list of those who were.”

After Davis first discovered Mariposa in May 2009, he teamed up with Georgia Tech Information Security Center, PandaLabs and law enforcement personnel to form the Mariposa Working Group. After months of collaboration, Panda Security, other security experts and law enforcement were able to shut down Mariposa on December 23, 2009.

In a panic to gain back control of Mariposa, botmaster Netkairo (aka “hamlet1917″), made a connection to the network using his home computer. Past connections had almost always been through a VPN (virtual private network) to mask IP addresses from the authorities. Netkairo’s mistake left a digital trail for investigators to follow, which then led to a string of arrests two months later.

In a press release today, Panda Security senior research advisor Pedro Bustamante tells us, “Our preliminary analysis indicates that the  botmasters did not have advanced hacking skills.” It just goes to show “how sophisticated and effective malware distribution software has become, empowering relatively unskilled cyber criminals to inflict major damage and financial loss.”

Defence Intelligence and Panda Security are making their way through a list of affected organizations to contact. If you would like to find out whether your organization has been compromised, email compromise@defintel.com or info@pandasecurity.com.

“Microsoft is investigating new public claims of a vulnerability involving the use of VBScript and Windows Help files within Internet Explorer,” says Jerry Bryant, senior manager with the Microsoft Security Response Center. So far, “the current state of our investigations shows that Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2, are not affected.” In addition, Bryan also notes Microsoft hasn’t seen any attacks yet stemming from this vulnerability.

The Microsoft Security Response Center blog reminds us that “only Windows 2000 and Windows XP are impacted” and “Windows 2003 Server is also impacted, but the issue is mitigated in the default configuration due to the presence of the Internet Explorer Enhanced Security Configuration.”

A security advisory issued by Microsoft earlier today tells us, “the main impact of the vulnerability is remote code execution.” Basically, the F1 key (which activates Windows Help) could be used to execute malicious code that may pass along sensitive information of the user. Microsoft is currently working on a security patch to fix this flaw, so in the meantime, don’t hit that F1 key! You could also protect yourself by locking down the Windows Help system. Further instructions can be found on the MSRC blog post.

If you’re ready to drop IE, like Google did yesterday, you could always entertain the idea of switching to FireFox or Chrome…

In Apple’s 2009 audit for 102 of their supplier facilities, 17 “core” (another word for “serious”) violations were discovered. This includes three cases of underage labor where, “Apple discovered three facilities that had previously hired 15-year-old workers in countries where the minimum age for employment is 16.” In addition, the auditors also “found records of 11 workers who had been hired prior to reaching the legal age, although the workers were no longer underage or no longer in active employment” at the time of audit.

There were also eight cases of workers paying “recruitment” fees over the limits of local law and workers at 24 factories that were earning less than local minimum wage — recruitment fees were collected for the benefit and privilege of being able to work.

Oh, and what else? Well, there were 48 factories cheated their workers of overtime and 57 factories that cheated workers out of rightful sick leave and other benefits.

Business Insider and the Huffington Post both have great in-depth coverage if you are interested in more. To read Apple’s 2010 Supplier Responsibility Progress Report, see the Supplier Responsibility site or download the PDF.