Hasta La Gadget!

Mac users who are now enjoying the latest version of OS X, Mountain Lion, might have also noticed that Safari 6.0 for Mac has also rolled out. In fact, it seemed that Safari for Windows had gone missing entirely from Apple’s site. There is still a direct download which you are able to take advantage of, but this move had led many to speculate that Safari for Windows might have been on its last legs all this while, and the browser itself has been gracefully “put to sleep”, so to speak.

There is also this particular page which was put up by Apple that detailed Safari 5.1.7 for Windows, making us scratch our heads simply because version 5.1.7 rolled out in May this year alongside OS X 10.7.4. MacRumors noted that in the past, Apple did list Safari 5.1.7 for both Mac and Windows on the same page, too. Do you think that it is time to start looking for an alternative, or are you all right with Safari for Windows where it stands at the moment?

By Ubergizmo. Related articles: New Attack On Internet Explorer Via F1 Key, In Europe 100M users will choose their browsers,

OS X Mountain Lion has been released today, although we’re sure that there are many OS X Lion users who might be thinking that an upgrade is not necessary at this point. Either way if you’re still running on OS X Lion but you want some of the perks that was announced at WWDC for OS X Mountain Lion, Apple has released Safari 6 for OS X Lion users, bringing a plethora of features in the update such as offline reading. According to Apple, these are some of the features and changes made in Safari 6 that they can expect: (more…)

By Ubergizmo. Related articles: Does Safari for Windows have a future?, Apple Patent Shows Off Safari 3D,

HP’s plans to open-source webOS included mention of Enyo 2.0, a framework designed to spread webOS’ learnings to other platforms — to spread the love around, so to speak. The code foundation, while behind schedule, has just left beta: any developer with a mind to producing web apps can now create interface elements and whole apps using the technology derived from Palm’s legacy. Any reasonably modern browser will run the end result, whether it’s running Android, iOS or a full-fledged desktop release. We may never recreate the exact feeling of using an HP TouchPad on our iPads and Galaxy Tabs, but we know that some of its software design heritage will carry on.

Filed under: Cellphones, Tablet PCs, Software

Enyo 2.0 released in finished form, shares webOS’ web app legacy with everyone originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:12:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Phone Scoop  |  Enyo  | Email this | Comments

Talk of a $22.5m fine for Google over Safari user tracking has thrown the search giant into the spotlight once more, with opinion split over whether the proposed penalty fits the misdemeanor. The sum – which, if approved, would be the US Federal Trade Commission’s biggest fine to-date – is a drop in the pond for Google, and it raises questions over whether quick checkbook fixes are encouraging cavalier attitudes toward privacy.

It’s hard not to see $22.5m, even if a vast amount by individual standards, as being little more than a mild rap on the knuckles for Google. The company made that much in the space of five hours in 2011, based on its overall income, and it represents a tiny slice of the sums Google execs are used to dealing with every day.

FTC regulations permit a potentially far more challenging penalty. Going by the book, the agency can apply a fine of $16,000 per violation, per day. That’s a tough thing to face if you’re a small business with one or two personal data spillages to cough up for, but Google’s privacy gaffe covers possibly millions of users over an extended period.

So, if the FTC had wanted, it could have presumably pushed for a significantly tougher punishment than the one it apparently “negotiated” with Google. Exactly why it did not is unclear; Google has always maintained that the tracking behavior was the inadvertent side-effect of it legitimately using Safari functionality that kept browsers logged into its services, and not an intentional workaround for tracking. It’s possible that Google’s protestations to that affect were what swayed the Commission into diluting the sanctions.

Undoubtedly it’s worse to have deliberately tracked users who wanted to opt out of such monitoring rather than to have unwittingly done so. However, there remain questions as to whether “I didn’t realize” is sufficient excuse to justify watering down a fine to the point where it’s all but negligible to a company. Google may not have meant to violate Safari users’ privacy, but it did, and you could well argue that further testing of the log-in system at fault could have identified the flaw prior to it being rolled out publicly.

Does the FTC have a responsibility to levy fines that dissuade beta-style software and subpar testing, when there’s user-rights at risk? That’s a question the FTC commissioners still to approve the $22.5m penalty will have to decide, lest they set a precedent that undervalues individual privacy.

The Price of Privacy is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Google is likely to pay $22.5m to settle its privacy argument with the FTC, the largest such fine ever imposed, but a drop in the ocean for the search giant. The penalty – which amounts to $16,000 per violation per day – is over Google’s decision to ignore Safari browser users’ privacy settings around cookies, and will be officially announced soon according to the WSJ‘s sources; however, it also highlights the comparative limitations of such fines, with Google on average making $22.5m in the space of five hours last year.

That disparity between what the US Federal Trade Commission can levy and what might represent a legitimate threat to Google’s bank balance has prompted frustration from privacy activists. With the $22.5m figure such a small portion of the company’s yearly profit, it is hoped that it will instead serve to highlight the flippant attitude Google took to users’ privacy preferences.

At fault was how Google circumnavigated Safari preferences to block tracking, taking advantage of a loophole in the system that allowed the company to track users between sites. Subsequent investigation discovered Internet Explorer users were also being affected.

Back in March, Google admitted it had done wrong, but argued that it had not intended to track web users in that way. “We used known Safari functionality to provide features that signed-in Google users had enabled. We created a temporary communication link between Safari browsers and Google’s servers, so that we could ascertain whether Safari users were also signed into Google, and had opted for personalized ads and other content” the company said in a statement.

“However, the Safari browser contained functionality that then enabled other Google advertising cookies to be set on the browser” Google continued. “We will of course cooperate with any officials who have questions. But it’s important to remember that we didn’t anticipate this would happen, and we have been removing these advertising cookies from Safari browsers.”

According to the sources, the proposed settlement was thrashed out over the past few weeks, though it still awaits approval by FTC commissioners. That could see it modified before being publicly revealed.

Google faces measly $22.5m fine in Safari privacy gaffe is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.