With content and advertising overlapping in the digital world, the ASCI is taking steps to guide social media influencers to be more responsible. The guidelines will help consumers identify promotional content and also guide digital influencers. #ASCI #Advertising #DigitalMarketing #CompuBrain #Business #Technology #Innovations

With content and advertising overlapping in the digital world, the ASCI is taking steps to guide social media influencers to be more responsible. The guidelines will help consumers identify promotional content and also guide digital influencers. #ASCI #Advertising #DigitalMarketing #CompuBrain #Business #Technology #Innovations

With content and advertising overlapping in the digital world, the ASCI is taking steps to guide social media influencers to be more responsible. The guidelines will help consumers identify promotional content and also guide digital influencers. #ASCI #Advertising #DigitalMarketing #CompuBrain #Business #Technology #Innovations

Read More

:: Facebook challenge: Cashing in on mobile devices :: Lots of people love their cellphones. Facebook, so far, is not a big fan. Amid the jaw-dropping financial figures the company revealed last week when it filed for a public offering was an interesting admission. Although more than half of its 845 million members log into Facebook on a mobile device, the company has not yet found a way to make real money from that use. "We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven," the company said in its review of the risks it faces. In a world that is rapidly moving toward an era of mobile computing, this is a troubling issue for Silicon Valley's brightest star - particularly since much of Facebook's growth right now is in countries like Chile, Turkey, Venezuela and Brazil, where people largely have access to the Internet using cellphones. Facebook is not the only company struggling to translate the success of its website to mobile devices, where screen space is at a premium and people have little patience for clutter or slow loading times. It is a problem that plagues companies as diverse as news publishers and the streaming radio service Pandora, and it is likely to loom larger. There were more global shipments of smartphones than of personal computers in 2011, according to a recent report from Canalys, a research firm. But the issue seems particularly urgent in the case of Facebook, which is wildly popular among its users and is seen as a company of the future, a hybrid of social hub and information conduit, platform and publisher. In other words, if Facebook cannot figure it out, who can? Facebook brings in most of its revenue by selling space on its website to advertisers who want to reach its users. Overall spending on mobile advertising in the United States is expected to reach $2.6 billion this year, up 80 percent from $1.45 billion in 2011, according to research by eMarketer. But that will still be just a sliver of what is likely to be a $39.5 billion online advertising market. Google, a Facebook competitor on the Web, was the biggest player in the mobile ad market last year with about $750 million in revenue, and Apple came in second with more than $90 million, eMarketer says. "It's still immature when compared to online, print and TV advertising," said Noah Elkin, an analyst with eMarketer. "But it's growing at a faster pace, even though its revenues are still dwarfed by the other formats." If Facebook were to bring Zynga's games to its iPhone and iPad apps, for example, it would have to share that revenue with Apple, which requires app makers to hand over 30 percent of their proceeds. Google puts no such restrictions on apps for devices running its Android software, but given the increasing rivalry between Facebook and Google in social networking, Facebook is not in full control of its destiny there either. Source - Gesia

:: Facebook challenge: Cashing in on mobile devices :: Lots of people love their cellphones. Facebook, so far, is not a big fan. Amid the jaw-dropping financial figures the company revealed last week when it filed for a public offering was an interesting admission. Although more than half of its 845 million members log into Facebook on a mobile device, the company has not yet found a way to make real money from that use. "We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven," the company said in its review of the risks it faces. In a world that is rapidly moving toward an era of mobile computing, this is a troubling issue for Silicon Valley's brightest star - particularly since much of Facebook's growth right now is in countries like Chile, Turkey, Venezuela and Brazil, where people largely have access to the Internet using cellphones. Facebook is not the only company struggling to translate the success of its website to mobile devices, where screen space is at a premium and people have little patience for clutter or slow loading times. It is a problem that plagues companies as diverse as news publishers and the streaming radio service Pandora, and it is likely to loom larger. There were more global shipments of smartphones than of personal computers in 2011, according to a recent report from Canalys, a research firm. But the issue seems particularly urgent in the case of Facebook, which is wildly popular among its users and is seen as a company of the future, a hybrid of social hub and information conduit, platform and publisher. In other words, if Facebook cannot figure it out, who can? Facebook brings in most of its revenue by selling space on its website to advertisers who want to reach its users. Overall spending on mobile advertising in the United States is expected to reach $2.6 billion this year, up 80 percent from $1.45 billion in 2011, according to research by eMarketer. But that will still be just a sliver of what is likely to be a $39.5 billion online advertising market. Google, a Facebook competitor on the Web, was the biggest player in the mobile ad market last year with about $750 million in revenue, and Apple came in second with more than $90 million, eMarketer says. "It's still immature when compared to online, print and TV advertising," said Noah Elkin, an analyst with eMarketer. "But it's growing at a faster pace, even though its revenues are still dwarfed by the other formats." If Facebook were to bring Zynga's games to its iPhone and iPad apps, for example, it would have to share that revenue with Apple, which requires app makers to hand over 30 percent of their proceeds. Google puts no such restrictions on apps for devices running its Android software, but given the increasing rivalry between Facebook and Google in social networking, Facebook is not in full control of its destiny there either. Source - Gesia

:: Facebook challenge: Cashing in on mobile devices :: Lots of people love their cellphones. Facebook, so far, is not a big fan. Amid the jaw-dropping financial figures the company revealed last week when it filed for a public offering was an interesting admission. Although more than half of its 845 million members log into Facebook on a mobile device, the company has not yet found a way to make real money from that use. "We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven," the company said in its review of the risks it faces. In a world that is rapidly moving toward an era of mobile computing, this is a troubling issue for Silicon Valley's brightest star - particularly since much of Facebook's growth right now is in countries like Chile, Turkey, Venezuela and Brazil, where people largely have access to the Internet using cellphones. Facebook is not the only company struggling to translate the success of its website to mobile devices, where screen space is at a premium and people have little patience for clutter or slow loading times. It is a problem that plagues companies as diverse as news publishers and the streaming radio service Pandora, and it is likely to loom larger. There were more global shipments of smartphones than of personal computers in 2011, according to a recent report from Canalys, a research firm. But the issue seems particularly urgent in the case of Facebook, which is wildly popular among its users and is seen as a company of the future, a hybrid of social hub and information conduit, platform and publisher. In other words, if Facebook cannot figure it out, who can? Facebook brings in most of its revenue by selling space on its website to advertisers who want to reach its users. Overall spending on mobile advertising in the United States is expected to reach $2.6 billion this year, up 80 percent from $1.45 billion in 2011, according to research by eMarketer. But that will still be just a sliver of what is likely to be a $39.5 billion online advertising market. Google, a Facebook competitor on the Web, was the biggest player in the mobile ad market last year with about $750 million in revenue, and Apple came in second with more than $90 million, eMarketer says. "It's still immature when compared to online, print and TV advertising," said Noah Elkin, an analyst with eMarketer. "But it's growing at a faster pace, even though its revenues are still dwarfed by the other formats." If Facebook were to bring Zynga's games to its iPhone and iPad apps, for example, it would have to share that revenue with Apple, which requires app makers to hand over 30 percent of their proceeds. Google puts no such restrictions on apps for devices running its Android software, but given the increasing rivalry between Facebook and Google in social networking, Facebook is not in full control of its destiny there either. Source - Gesia

Read More

:: All that happened on Internet Blackout Day :: January 18 - Internet Blackout Day - is a date that will live in ignorance, as the world's largest encyclopaedia Wikipedia started a 24-hour blackout of the English version of the website. Wikipedia joined other big and small websites in a protest against pending US legislation aimed at shutting down sites that share pirated movies and other content. Wikipedia and other proponents of a free Internet believe that if Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) are passed it "will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States." It is the first time the English site has been blacked out. Wikipedia's Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government. The bill did not advance. The decision was reached after polling the community of contributors, but dissenters say political advocacy undermines the site's mission as a neutral source. However, it's not complete: the block could be bypassed by changing browser settings to disable JavaScript, or by using the version of the site designed for cellphone screens. Unlike Wikipedia, Google didn't black out its entire website but only its logo, reminiscent of the doodles that the search engine giant puts up to commemorate special occasions. Google also directed users to a page titled "End Piracy, Not Liberty" that put together information on why SOPA and the PIPA are wrong and users could also add their names to a petition against the bills. "Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," said a Google spokeswoman. The legislation being debated in the US Congress target foreign websites that violate copyrights online by banning US companies from providing them with advertising, payment or other Internet services. The Internet companies are concerned that the legislation, if passed, could be used to target legitimate sites where users share content. US payment processors and advertisers would have to end service to foreign websites that copyright holders say are infringing their rights, or be liable to be sued. Search engines and Internet companies would be banned from providing links to infringing sites. Critics of the proposed legislation argue that the proposals would stifle Internet innovation and online freedom, a key driver of US and global economic growth. The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signalled it might use its veto power, if necessary. With public sentiment on the bill shifting in recent weeks and an implicit veto threat now emerging from the White House, Congressional staffers are resigning themselves to writing replacement language or possibly entirely new bills. Three key section of the existing legislation seem likely to remain. They comprise provisions aimed at getting search engines to disable links to foreign infringing sites; provisions that cut off advertising services to those sites; and provisions that cut off payment processing. But critical provisions that would require Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications and Comcast Corp. to cut off infringing sites through a technology known as DNS blocking are now likely to be eliminated. Critics have said that such measures would only encourage people to navigate the web in riskier ways, with modified browsers or other tweaks that could lead to their Internet sessions getting hijacked by scammers. Lawmakers had already been coming around to the realisation they would have to hold back on the DNS-blocking provisions. Supporters of the bills include movie and music companies such as Walt Disney, content providers such as the National Football League and News Corp., pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly, and the US Chamber of Commerce. They argue the bills' sweeping provisions are necessary to shutter the burgeoning numbers of foreign-based cybercrime sites that sell counterfeit goods, pirated software or fake pharmaceuticals, or stream copyrighted content like music and movies. Reddit.com shut down its social news service for 12 hours. Other sites made their views clear without cutting off surfers. Wordpress, one of the world's most popular blogging platforms, also put its weight behind the protests by blacking out the homepage of Wordpress.org. Thousands of Wordpress-powered blogs also joined in using one of the many SOPA Blackout plugins made available by developers. Local listings site Craiglist took a middle route, changing its local home pages to a black screen directing users to an anti-legislation page. After 10 seconds, a link to the main site appears on the home page, but some surfers missed that and were fooled into thinking the whole site was blacked out. Topics related to the Internet Blackout Day dominated the top Twitter trends on Wednesday, but the protest did not get Twitter itself getting involved in a direct role. "Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish," Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted, but he followed up with a Tweet stating the company will continue to take an active role in opposing the bills. That position of criticising the bills, but sitting out the blackout is echoed by many big tech companies, including several who wrote to Congress in November to complain about the legislation, such as AOL Inc, eBay Inc, Mozilla and Zynga Inc. "We are not adjusting the consumer experience on our properties tomorrow, but we will be helping to drive awareness of key issues around these bills to our users," said Tekedra Mawakana, senior vice president for public policy at AOL. In November, a number of technology companies wrote to key lawmakers expressing opposition to the bill, including eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Mozilla. Supporters of the bill were quick to attack the protests. "This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts," said Lamar Smith, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of SOPA. "Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy." Former US senator Chris Dodd, who now chairs the Motion Picture Association of America, labelled the blackout a "gimmick" and called for its supporters to "stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy." Internet Blackout Day got thousands of websites to participate and generated public discussion and succeeded in attracting the attention of lawmakers and industry leaders backing the bills. Source:- ibnlive.com

:: All that happened on Internet Blackout Day :: January 18 - Internet Blackout Day - is a date that will live in ignorance, as the world's largest encyclopaedia Wikipedia started a 24-hour blackout of the English version of the website. Wikipedia joined other big and small websites in a protest against pending US legislation aimed at shutting down sites that share pirated movies and other content. Wikipedia and other proponents of a free Internet believe that if Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) are passed it "will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States." It is the first time the English site has been blacked out. Wikipedia's Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government. The bill did not advance. The decision was reached after polling the community of contributors, but dissenters say political advocacy undermines the site's mission as a neutral source. However, it's not complete: the block could be bypassed by changing browser settings to disable JavaScript, or by using the version of the site designed for cellphone screens. Unlike Wikipedia, Google didn't black out its entire website but only its logo, reminiscent of the doodles that the search engine giant puts up to commemorate special occasions. Google also directed users to a page titled "End Piracy, Not Liberty" that put together information on why SOPA and the PIPA are wrong and users could also add their names to a petition against the bills. "Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," said a Google spokeswoman. The legislation being debated in the US Congress target foreign websites that violate copyrights online by banning US companies from providing them with advertising, payment or other Internet services. The Internet companies are concerned that the legislation, if passed, could be used to target legitimate sites where users share content. US payment processors and advertisers would have to end service to foreign websites that copyright holders say are infringing their rights, or be liable to be sued. Search engines and Internet companies would be banned from providing links to infringing sites. Critics of the proposed legislation argue that the proposals would stifle Internet innovation and online freedom, a key driver of US and global economic growth. The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signalled it might use its veto power, if necessary. With public sentiment on the bill shifting in recent weeks and an implicit veto threat now emerging from the White House, Congressional staffers are resigning themselves to writing replacement language or possibly entirely new bills. Three key section of the existing legislation seem likely to remain. They comprise provisions aimed at getting search engines to disable links to foreign infringing sites; provisions that cut off advertising services to those sites; and provisions that cut off payment processing. But critical provisions that would require Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications and Comcast Corp. to cut off infringing sites through a technology known as DNS blocking are now likely to be eliminated. Critics have said that such measures would only encourage people to navigate the web in riskier ways, with modified browsers or other tweaks that could lead to their Internet sessions getting hijacked by scammers. Lawmakers had already been coming around to the realisation they would have to hold back on the DNS-blocking provisions. Supporters of the bills include movie and music companies such as Walt Disney, content providers such as the National Football League and News Corp., pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly, and the US Chamber of Commerce. They argue the bills' sweeping provisions are necessary to shutter the burgeoning numbers of foreign-based cybercrime sites that sell counterfeit goods, pirated software or fake pharmaceuticals, or stream copyrighted content like music and movies. Reddit.com shut down its social news service for 12 hours. Other sites made their views clear without cutting off surfers. Wordpress, one of the world's most popular blogging platforms, also put its weight behind the protests by blacking out the homepage of Wordpress.org. Thousands of Wordpress-powered blogs also joined in using one of the many SOPA Blackout plugins made available by developers. Local listings site Craiglist took a middle route, changing its local home pages to a black screen directing users to an anti-legislation page. After 10 seconds, a link to the main site appears on the home page, but some surfers missed that and were fooled into thinking the whole site was blacked out. Topics related to the Internet Blackout Day dominated the top Twitter trends on Wednesday, but the protest did not get Twitter itself getting involved in a direct role. "Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish," Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted, but he followed up with a Tweet stating the company will continue to take an active role in opposing the bills. That position of criticising the bills, but sitting out the blackout is echoed by many big tech companies, including several who wrote to Congress in November to complain about the legislation, such as AOL Inc, eBay Inc, Mozilla and Zynga Inc. "We are not adjusting the consumer experience on our properties tomorrow, but we will be helping to drive awareness of key issues around these bills to our users," said Tekedra Mawakana, senior vice president for public policy at AOL. In November, a number of technology companies wrote to key lawmakers expressing opposition to the bill, including eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Mozilla. Supporters of the bill were quick to attack the protests. "This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts," said Lamar Smith, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of SOPA. "Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy." Former US senator Chris Dodd, who now chairs the Motion Picture Association of America, labelled the blackout a "gimmick" and called for its supporters to "stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy." Internet Blackout Day got thousands of websites to participate and generated public discussion and succeeded in attracting the attention of lawmakers and industry leaders backing the bills. Source:- ibnlive.com

:: All that happened on Internet Blackout Day :: January 18 - Internet Blackout Day - is a date that will live in ignorance, as the world's largest encyclopaedia Wikipedia started a 24-hour blackout of the English version of the website. Wikipedia joined other big and small websites in a protest against pending US legislation aimed at shutting down sites that share pirated movies and other content. Wikipedia and other proponents of a free Internet believe that if Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) are passed it "will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States." It is the first time the English site has been blacked out. Wikipedia's Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government. The bill did not advance. The decision was reached after polling the community of contributors, but dissenters say political advocacy undermines the site's mission as a neutral source. However, it's not complete: the block could be bypassed by changing browser settings to disable JavaScript, or by using the version of the site designed for cellphone screens. Unlike Wikipedia, Google didn't black out its entire website but only its logo, reminiscent of the doodles that the search engine giant puts up to commemorate special occasions. Google also directed users to a page titled "End Piracy, Not Liberty" that put together information on why SOPA and the PIPA are wrong and users could also add their names to a petition against the bills. "Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," said a Google spokeswoman. The legislation being debated in the US Congress target foreign websites that violate copyrights online by banning US companies from providing them with advertising, payment or other Internet services. The Internet companies are concerned that the legislation, if passed, could be used to target legitimate sites where users share content. US payment processors and advertisers would have to end service to foreign websites that copyright holders say are infringing their rights, or be liable to be sued. Search engines and Internet companies would be banned from providing links to infringing sites. Critics of the proposed legislation argue that the proposals would stifle Internet innovation and online freedom, a key driver of US and global economic growth. The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signalled it might use its veto power, if necessary. With public sentiment on the bill shifting in recent weeks and an implicit veto threat now emerging from the White House, Congressional staffers are resigning themselves to writing replacement language or possibly entirely new bills. Three key section of the existing legislation seem likely to remain. They comprise provisions aimed at getting search engines to disable links to foreign infringing sites; provisions that cut off advertising services to those sites; and provisions that cut off payment processing. But critical provisions that would require Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications and Comcast Corp. to cut off infringing sites through a technology known as DNS blocking are now likely to be eliminated. Critics have said that such measures would only encourage people to navigate the web in riskier ways, with modified browsers or other tweaks that could lead to their Internet sessions getting hijacked by scammers. Lawmakers had already been coming around to the realisation they would have to hold back on the DNS-blocking provisions. Supporters of the bills include movie and music companies such as Walt Disney, content providers such as the National Football League and News Corp., pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly, and the US Chamber of Commerce. They argue the bills' sweeping provisions are necessary to shutter the burgeoning numbers of foreign-based cybercrime sites that sell counterfeit goods, pirated software or fake pharmaceuticals, or stream copyrighted content like music and movies. Reddit.com shut down its social news service for 12 hours. Other sites made their views clear without cutting off surfers. Wordpress, one of the world's most popular blogging platforms, also put its weight behind the protests by blacking out the homepage of Wordpress.org. Thousands of Wordpress-powered blogs also joined in using one of the many SOPA Blackout plugins made available by developers. Local listings site Craiglist took a middle route, changing its local home pages to a black screen directing users to an anti-legislation page. After 10 seconds, a link to the main site appears on the home page, but some surfers missed that and were fooled into thinking the whole site was blacked out. Topics related to the Internet Blackout Day dominated the top Twitter trends on Wednesday, but the protest did not get Twitter itself getting involved in a direct role. "Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish," Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted, but he followed up with a Tweet stating the company will continue to take an active role in opposing the bills. That position of criticising the bills, but sitting out the blackout is echoed by many big tech companies, including several who wrote to Congress in November to complain about the legislation, such as AOL Inc, eBay Inc, Mozilla and Zynga Inc. "We are not adjusting the consumer experience on our properties tomorrow, but we will be helping to drive awareness of key issues around these bills to our users," said Tekedra Mawakana, senior vice president for public policy at AOL. In November, a number of technology companies wrote to key lawmakers expressing opposition to the bill, including eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Mozilla. Supporters of the bill were quick to attack the protests. "This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts," said Lamar Smith, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of SOPA. "Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy." Former US senator Chris Dodd, who now chairs the Motion Picture Association of America, labelled the blackout a "gimmick" and called for its supporters to "stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy." Internet Blackout Day got thousands of websites to participate and generated public discussion and succeeded in attracting the attention of lawmakers and industry leaders backing the bills. Source:- ibnlive.com

Read More

:: SECURITY OF QR CODES :: -In the series of info about the QR-code , this is the last part which says about it's security. Just like professional hackers hack softwares , QR-code is no exeception to it. One can distinguish two different threat models for manipulating QR Codes. First, an attacker may invert any module, changing it either from black to white or the other way round. Second, a more restricted attacker can only change white modules to black and not vice versa. -The easiest approach for attacking an existing QR Code is by generating a sticker containing a QR Code with the manipulated QR Code in the same style as the original QR Code and position it over the code. -Since QR Codes contain a lot of different information,including meta information on version, maskings and source encoding, several different regions exist that can be targeted either individually or in combination. Depending on the programs that process the encoded information, whether this would be in logistics, public transportation or in a fully automated assembly line, attacks on the reader software as well as the backend are theoretically possible. -Humans can not read the code without a reader software,the information stored within the code is completely obfuscated.But by reading the manipulated QR code, a vulnerability in the reader software or the browser might get triggered. -QR Codes are often used in advertisements to direct the target audience to special offers or additional information about specific products. If the QR Code can be manipulated to redirect the user to a cloned website, an adversary could sell the solicited product without ever ful lling the contract. The victim implicitly trusts the advertising company by following the link. Source - The internet.