<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Jeremy Duffy - Awareness Advocate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jeremyduffy.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com</link>
	<description>Helping to protect families and their loved ones from manipulation and fraud</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:53:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Compare Bing to Google</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/compare-bing-to-google</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/compare-bing-to-google#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:46:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Engines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The first search engine to ever challenge Google has finally arrived and it's from Microsoft. Once you quit laughing, you should really give it a try. Microsoft's Bing has a lot of potential and several features that are actually better than Google (here and there). 
If you want to just compare the two side by [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first search engine to ever challenge Google has finally arrived and it's from Microsoft. Once you quit laughing, you should really give it a try. Microsoft's Bing has a lot of potential and several features that are actually better than Google (here and there). </p>
<p>If you want to just compare the two side by side, try <a href="http://www.bingandgoogle.com/">http://www.bingandgoogle.com/</a>. Enter a search term and the site will submit it to both search engines for you and show you the first page of results side by side. Happy hunting!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/compare-bing-to-google/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>130 Million Credit and Debit Card Numbers Stolen</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/130-million-credit-and-debit-card-numbers-stolen</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/130-million-credit-and-debit-card-numbers-stolen#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accountability MIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retailers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[130 million sure sounds like a lot, but keep in mind how many individual transactions companies like 7-eleven have in a single day. Besides wondering why the company security was so weak, I'm more interested in why these companies had so many credit card numbers on file in the first place. Once my transaction is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://consumerist.com/5339585/hackers-indicted-for-stealing-130-million-credit-card-numbers">130 million sure sounds like a lot</a>, but keep in mind how many individual transactions companies like 7-eleven have in a single day. Besides wondering why the company security was so weak, I'm more interested in why these companies had so many credit card numbers on file in the first place. Once my transaction is complete, they shouldn't possess the data anymore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/130-million-credit-and-debit-card-numbers-stolen/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jailtime for Not Giving Up Your Encryption Keys</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/jailtime-for-not-giving-up-your-encryption-keys</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/jailtime-for-not-giving-up-your-encryption-keys#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:11:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Big Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[That crazy UK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you have encrypted files on your computer for privacy or safety reasons, you could face big trouble. In some backwards parts of the world (*cough*, the UK, *cough*), they have actually sentenced people to jailtime for not volunteering their encryption keys/passwords.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you have encrypted files on your computer for privacy or safety reasons, you could face big trouble. In some backwards parts of the world (*cough*, the UK, *cough*), <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/ripa_iii_figures/">they have actually sentenced people to jailtime for not volunteering their encryption keys/passwords</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/jailtime-for-not-giving-up-your-encryption-keys/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marketers Torture Barren Woman</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/marketers-torture-barren-woman</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/marketers-torture-barren-woman#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2383</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A New York Times article explains how a woman who couldn't get pregnant more than 10 years ago is still getting advertisements and marketing flyers for baby and child products. This is just another example of data rape at work.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A New York Times article explains how <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/business/09privacy.html?_r=2&#038;pagewanted=1&#038;em">a woman who couldn't get pregnant more than 10 years ago is still getting advertisements and marketing flyers for baby and child products</a>. This is just another example of data rape at work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/marketers-torture-barren-woman/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Symantec Partners with Lifelock</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/symantec-partners-with-lifelock</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/symantec-partners-with-lifelock#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corrupt Organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Identity Theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ripoffs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Symantec partners with Lifelock, loses credibility.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow. Symantec has always been a fairly reputable company that I've had little issue with other than that their security software is historically bloated and a resource hog. But now that <a href="http://news.download3000.com/symantec-offers-norton-security-solutions-bundled-with-the-lifelock-service/">they've partnered with Lifelock</a>, I can only assume one of two things: Symantec is willing to throw their customers under the bus for money or they have no quality control. Either way, I think it's definitely time to stick with McAfee.</p>
<blockquote><p>If you want to stay safe while working on your computer or browsing web sites, you can get Norton Internet Security or Norton AntiVirus with a 30-day LifeBook service and 10% off the subscription, along with two movie tickets. After the trial period ends you will be charged automatically with $9 a month, or $99 annually.</p></blockquote>
<p>Granted, McAfee also does this "free trial" BS in order to trick customers into subscriptions that they didn't know they were getting, but at least the free trial is for their anti-virus software and not some shady ID theft insurance deal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/symantec-partners-with-lifelock/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RFID In ID Cards Still a BIG Problem and Getting Worse</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/rfid-in-id-cards-still-a-big-problem-and-getting-worse</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/rfid-in-id-cards-still-a-big-problem-and-getting-worse#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Big Brother]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Our Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RFID]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[RFID in ID cards is very dangerous to a free society. Not just government, but commercial entities will track our every move if we don't pass laws to prevent it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>"There's a reason you don't wear your Social Security number across your T-shirt," Albrecht says, "and beaming out your new, national RFID number in a 30-foot radius would be far worse."</p>
<p>There are no federal laws against the surreptitious skimming of Americans' RFID numbers, so it won't be long before people seek to profit from this, says Bruce Schneier, an author and chief security officer at BT, the British telecommunications operator.</p>
<p>Data brokers that compile computer dossiers on millions of individuals from public records, credit applications and other sources "will certainly maintain databases of RFID numbers and associated people," he says. "They'd do a disservice to their stockholders if they didn't."</p></blockquote>
<p>Or put simply, everyone knows that this is scary beyond reason and we need to do something now BEFORE it's a problem. </p>
<p>Here is some more information from the <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHq9P54bYfXbHp-aDgs01gePq1twD99CDMT00">source article</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
In its October 2005 Federal Register notice, the State Department reassured Americans that the e-passport's chip — the ISO 14443 tag — would emit radio waves only within a 4-inch radius, making it tougher to hack.</p>
<p>Technologists in Israel and England, however, soon found otherwise. In May 2006, at the University of Tel Aviv, researchers cobbled together $110 worth of parts from hobbyists kits and directly skimmed an encrypted tag from several feet away. At the University of Cambridge, a student showed that a transmission between an e-passport and a legitimate reader could be intercepted from 160 feet.
</p></blockquote>
<p>The article also mentions a video that shows the results of his experiment. I was able to find it <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&#038;oi=video_result&#038;ct=res&#038;cd=2&#038;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D9isKnDiJNPk&#038;ei=92pcSv-1J4ik8gSO9dXhDQ&#038;rct=j&#038;q=Chris+Paget&#038;usg=AFQjCNGxM2vqataggBwUeAEPf31do16BbA">HERE</a>.</p>
<p><center><div class='related' style='width:;height:;text-align:'><div class='related_header'>Related topic(s):</div><a href='http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-rfid-tags-could-be-used' target=_new>How RFID Tags Could Be Used to Track Unsuspecting People</a><br/></div></center></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/rfid-in-id-cards-still-a-big-problem-and-getting-worse/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lifelock Loses Court Battle and Two Bullet Points</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/lifelock-loses-court-battle-and-two-bullet-points</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/lifelock-loses-court-battle-and-two-bullet-points#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Good news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Identity Theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ripoffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lifelock]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lifelock was sued by Experian for placing fraud alerts for anyone and everyone when the alerts are supposed to be set by individuals themselves and only when they feel they are at risk for ID theft. While I think the whole fraud alert system is bogus and it doesn't really matter if you set one [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lifelock was sued by Experian for placing fraud alerts for anyone and everyone when the alerts are supposed to be set by individuals themselves and only when they feel they are at risk for ID theft. While I think the whole fraud alert system is bogus and it doesn't really matter if you set one or not, I can't help but snicker that the <a href="http://lifelock-scam.com/lifelock-service-ruled-illegal/">courts ruled that the practice of a 3rd party company setting them for customers (like Lifelock does) is not legal</a>.</p>
<p>Considering that the first 2 bullet points on Lifelock's "what we do" page is "set fraud alerts" and "set them again after they expire", their list of what you supposedly get for the money you pay is going to look quite anemic indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/lifelock-loses-court-battle-and-two-bullet-points/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seaworld Data-Raping Customers&#8217; Fingerprints</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/seaworld-raping-customers</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/seaworld-raping-customers#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Data Rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sea World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I understand that using a word like rape to describe companies that take data from people against their will is a bit coarse, but it's exactly how I feel. I found out this weekend that a friend of mine had his and his wife's fingerprints taken from them by Seaworld before they were allowed to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand that <a href='http://www.jeremyduffy.com/top-issues/data-rape'  target=_self>using a word like rape</a> to describe companies that take data from people against their will is a bit coarse, but it's exactly how I feel. I found out this weekend that a friend of mine had his and his wife's fingerprints taken from them by Seaworld before they were allowed to go into the park.</p>
<p>Though you might say "He could have just left", he had already bought a two-day pass for him and his family and invested a significant amount of time and money in the trip. Besides, no one should have to be treated like a criminal just because a theme park is concerned about a few dishonest people who are sharing passes. They could just as easily print their photos on every person's pass which would be even more efficient without the privacy issue.</p>
<p>I can't stand the trends that some of these places are setting and I hope they don't get away with it. If we're lucky, the ACLU or state of California are already looking into this issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/seaworld-raping-customers/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>China Bans Gold Farming</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/china-bans-gold-farming</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/china-bans-gold-farming#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:50:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gaming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WoW]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While playing online games like World of Warcraft and similar, you find advertisements for people who will get you rare items or in-game money (gold) for a fee. These so-called "gold-farmers" are often employed in different countries like China.
Well, China took note and passed a ban on gold farming based on the idea that the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While playing online games like World of Warcraft and similar, you find advertisements for people who will get you rare items or in-game money (gold) for a fee. These so-called "gold-farmers" are often employed in different countries like China.</p>
<p>Well, <a href="http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-amp-gaming/article/2009-07/china-tries-curb-gold-farming">China took note and passed a ban on gold farming</a> based on the idea that the economy of large online games could affect the real economy negatively.</p>
<p>Whatever the reason, I think that getting rid of the farmers will have a positive effect on the games themselves and I hope we see more of this in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/china-bans-gold-farming/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Firefox 3.5 Released and it&#8217;s FAST</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/firefox-3-5-released-and-its-fast</link>
		<comments>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/firefox-3-5-released-and-its-fast#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeremyduffy.com/?p=2359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to CNET, Firefox 3.5 is twice as fast as Firefox 3 which puts it above most of the browsers on the market (right behind Google's Chrome browser).
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to CNET, <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302846,00.htm">Firefox 3.5 is twice as fast as Firefox 3</a> which puts it above most of the browsers on the market (right behind Google's Chrome browser).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jeremyduffy.com/firefox-3-5-released-and-its-fast/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
