Offshore Outsourcing & Scammer

If the class action lawsuit by 25,000 Facebook users, who are represented by Max Schrems, approved in Vienna in court? That has been the question on Thursday at the beginning of the trial.

On Thursday, the largest European Data Protection class action was heard on Regional Court for Civil Matters in Vienna in Hall 8. 25,000 Facebook users support the lawsuit, including 3700 Austrians.

At the start of the trial, it was mainly about the competence of the action in Vienna. Facebook denied that the Regional Court in Vienna has the right site to sue the US company. "Facebook has the opinion that they are nowhere actionable. Not in Eire, not in Vienna" explained the lawyer of Max Schrems in his plea that was directed especially to the many media representatives present in the room.

The hype was extreme. Many international journalists were represented. Schrems said: "The media coverage is bizarre. But if less through my activism, but rather caused by the defendant."

Not a "US-style class action"

The Viennese law firm acting for Facebook, called the class action as a "pseudo-class action". "The civil procedure law has no US-style class action, the applicant can go to California, where such methods are permitted." Said the Facebook lawyer Nicholas Pitkowitz in the courtroom from.

"Facebook does not want to be sued. Users do not need to travel to a country where they are not native. The idea of European legislation provides that every consumer can make at his residence claim the right to sue" replied the lawyer from Schrems, Wolfram Proksch.

Reproach: Schrems wants to earn money

The attorneys at Facebook imputed Max Schrems, who represents the Class Members that he is by himself not a consumer. "There is no privacy forum where Schrems is not at the podium," the argument. Reproach: he would make money.

This denies the attorney of Schrems in front of the court. Schrems is living from rental income and a minor job in a company. As evidence he presented the bank statements, as well as the Facebook profile entries that Schrems is making as a consumer. Schrems was still regularly active on Facebook.

Schrems even add at the hearing that he usually do not earn money by privacy panels. "I do not need much in life" said the doctoral student who continues his law degree at the University of Vienna. The question of whether he had ever been thinking to ask for a trade license was laughing denied by Schrems .

Privacy activists

Discussed got also that Schrems is called a "Privacy activists". His answer: "It is politically important to me, to do something for the privacy."

The 500 euros, which will be sought in the context of class action, should also be paid to other consumers. It is therefore not a "debt collection agency," as it Facebook has also accused in the process. The lawyers of Facebook also stiffen on quotes from media reports, on which they intend to nail Schrems.

"Student group"

In front of the court Schrems cleaned up with the myth of the “Vienese student group”. There had been about five friends who have also made a request for information to Facebook. A student group, had never existed. The association "europe-vs-facebook.org" exists. The attorneys at Facebook Schrems also tried to bring him out of concept with leading questions about his "employees".

But according to the lawyers of Facebook is it not possible to assign the rights of consumers to another consumer. The lawyer of Schrems brought the following example: "Just imagine that you have a friend in an EU country and get him a gift from Amazon. However, the product is insufficient. In this case the consumer can also cede claims."

No evidence of capacity

The attorneys at Facebook argued, however, also before the court so that Schrems did not adduce any evidence that proves the "capacity" of the Class represented by him. As these users have agreed to the terms and conditions, they were very well competent.

This Facebook subordinate to its users again "mass insanity" as Schrems already said his opinion on the written statement from Facebook. "For Facebook are their users only a data resource" can get read on Twitter.

Schrems stated at the hearing that he has requested passport or identity cards from all 25,000 class members, which have given a declaration of assignment, to verify the authenticity of their accounts. "These data are on an offline laptop with special hardened Linux operating system," Schrems said. The assignments have been cross-checked.

Also theme has been that Schrems had already introduced during 2011 complaints to the Irish data protection authority and therefore from the perspective of Facebook  Schrems cannot sue in Austria. The attorneys at Facebook saw this as a problem. Schrems claimed to have withdrawn 22 of the 23 complaints already in July 2014.

The survey by the lawyers of Facebook was like an interrogation. Schrems was practically forced to disclose private details of his "friendships". Schrems said, after the hearing: "They have dug every crumb, there is." The lawyers of Facebook already informed before trial to not answer and questions after the first day of the trial.

Schrems was compared to the numerous journalists less taciturn: "I see my chances are good, otherwise I would not do the work myself." He likes to change anything in general and to enforcing all our fundamental rights.  “Will be our data in the future secure? That is the reason for the trial. Not to responsibilities", he referred to the fact that it did not go in the negotiation of content to privacy. "This is the strategy of Facebook, not to talk about data protection." The allegations of Facebook that he wanted to make money have been "totally baseless". "I deserve therefore not one cent."

The Regional Court of Vienna has given both sides three weeks to translate further documents. A decision on the admissibility of the action in Vienna will be given written after six weeks. This decision is likely to be opposed by other instances. Schrems even expects a "long process". "It takes just a long breath."

The misbehavior of the employees is coming very expensive for AT&T. The group has failed to prevent that data could get stolen in their call centers.  They got prosecuted now with a thick fine of the US supervision.

The US mobile giant AT&T has to pay millions, because employees have stolen data in the call centers in Mexico, Colombia and the Philippines from nearly 280,000 customers. AT&T had accepted a comparison of over 25 million dollars.

Employees had unauthorized access to customer accounts and provided data - have passed on to third parties – even sometimes sensitive information like social security information. The FCC assumed that the information was then used, inter alia, to unlock stolen smart phones.

"Today's actions show that supervisory exercises its full authority against companies that fail to protect the personal information of its customers," said FCC chief Tom Wheeler. The Authority had started their investigation in May 2014..

Triggers were three AT&T employees in Mexico, which should have sold during 168 days data from more than 68,000 customer accounts starting at November 2013. In the course of the investigation came out that a further 40 employees were involved in this illegal practice and additional more than 211,000 customer accounts were affected.

Source: http://www.fcc.gov/document/att-pay-25m-settle-investigation-three-data-breaches-0

Not one company will call, email, or pop up on a web page saying you are infected with a virus

If software detects a virus or a malware or a virus then it will remove the suspicious files or put them in quarantine and block the access to it. That is the way virus and maleware scanners are working. There is no need to call someone and pay some extra money.

If you are buying such calls, then you are supporting the malware programmers with your payment. You are in this case the accomplice of the fraudster. As computer fraud is a crime, you’ll get prosecuted and can end up in jail.

Don’t forget that VoIP calls can get the same way traced like the money flow. Even if you are booking a “high risk payment gateway” you’ll get prosecuted, because before someone will go into jail instead of you he will tell to whom he has forwarded the money and give all his documentation to the investigating officers.

THERE IS NO WAY TO HIDE YOURSELF IN FRONT OF THE LAW!!!

For you are only this “Tech support calls” secure, where you get paid from your client and not where you get paid directly from the caller!!!

Why did we still do not have easy-to-use end-to-end encryption? The standard answer is far too complicated! But this is nonsense; Apple shows how to make it simple.

The technical challenges for true end-to-end encryption are solved for many years. In principle, one could make the simple. With it would be sure not just anybody can easily read along our private and business communications.

Nevertheless, emails, chats and phone calls are still almost always in plain text. They are secured for transport (SSL / TLS), but at least, the service provider can read everything and often does. This course also various other interested parties that attach to help him, the contents of confidential messages.

At this point I always hear, end-to-end encryption is still far too complicated. Alone to generate key, not to mention the checking and signing - end users don’t like do that. In fact, I'll never get anyone to use PGP. Nevertheless, the argument is simply wrong.

Because there is already end-to-end encryption, which is so simple that they use many millions of users and do not even know this: Apple's iMessage encrypts any message with a key that is only known by the recipient. Not Apple, not the network operator and not the NSA. And the highlight: Thanks to Apple's iMessage is a sophisticated design that not a bit more complicated than traditional SMS. Each iPhone owners use it easily and has not to worry about the encryption. The encryption is just there.

This one who wants to read along these messages has to attack this encryption. This also applies to Apple or someone standing there with a National Security Letter at the door. In practice this means: It is not enough that Apple or engage NSAs to the appropriate server to write there the plaintext with, as would be the case with Google, Skype and almost all other services. Instead, Apple would have to actively engage in communication and distribute counterfeit keys.

Of course, experts will argue that Apple does not satisfy the pure doctrine and the user himself has no control over his keys. Specifically, the system is not hedged against the fact that Apple itself eventually distributed as "Man in the Middle" wrong keys. But these are details that go past the actual heart of the matter. It can get improved without much effort. (The ignorance and arrogance of Apple is typical and with that the refuse demands for such extensions and perhaps the other side of the coin is that Apple like no other company can create easy-to-use products). Is crucial, however, Apple is the only major manufacturer and service provider offering such end-to-end encryption at all.

The real question is: Why does Google's Android has no a similar function and nourishes us with Hangouts without proper encryption? I seriously doubt that Google no one has come up with this idea or that technological pioneer in so many areas that could not be implemented just as elegant as Apple; Moxie Marlinspike shows with TextSecure how this might look like. There is only one plausible explanation for why Google has nothing to offer in this respect:

Easy to use end-to-end encryption is undesirable.

There is strong political interest to be able to read the communication of all Internet users at any time without much effort. We can only speculate as large as the pressure is exerted by politicians and authorities on the Group. But much harder probably weighs Google own economic interest: With functioning end-to-end encryption, Google would torpedo his own business model. This is in fact based on that the Group can read and analyze our data - and then to present, inter alia for suitable advertising. This of course applies equally to Facebook; so you can write off any hopes about WhatsApp.

Apple, however, earns his money is still with the sale of equipment and Commissions from business apps and content. And they deserve it obviously so good that they - unlike Google and Facebook - have the luxury to leave us our privacy.

What does that mean for us now? Not that we should buy now Apple products. There are too many things that you can refuse to Apple for good reason. But we must not be fobbed off with cloudy promise to respect our privacy and the protection of our business communications to us. Correct and above all simple end-to-end encryption for all could be done - we must demand only finite.

In February the operator of the website ugotposted.com was found guilty. Now the sentence is clear: He has to be for 18 years in prison for 31 counts of identity theft, extortion, and conspiracy.

In its judgment, the Court in San Diego, California, remained just below the possible maximum sentence of 20 years. According to the indictment, the 28-year-old Kevin Bollaert earned with his "business model" 30 000 US dollars: he published on ugotposted.com intimate images of women and men given to him by the ex-partners at the end of the relationship for having revenge. He invited others posting the pictures including name, age, residence and a link to their Facebook profile. However, authorities say he ran afoul of state laws against identity theft, which prevent even simple personal information like names and addresses from being used "for any unlawful purpose, including with the intent to annoy or harass."  At changemyreputation.com he offered to delete these pictures from the other website for a payment of $ 350.

Even before the verdict, which ran on identity theft and extortion, Kevin B. was sentenced to pay a fine in the amount of 385 000 US dollars for child pornography. The attorney of one victim announced in his blog post that the victim should have been a minor at the time of the shoot. Accordingly, the Court classified the images in two cases as child pornography, which contributed significantly to the amount of damages. It is also prohibited the defendants ever to publish pictures of the applicant again.

Evidence of the harassing effect was published in the state's complaint against Bollaert. One woman e-mailed Bollaert saying she started getting "nonstop harassing messages" after her photos went up on ugotposted. Another told him she was "scared for my life," continuing: "People are calling my work place and they obtained the information from this site! I did not give permission for anyone to put up those pictures or my personal information. I have contacted the police but these pictures need to come down! Please!"

One Jane Doe victim reported receiving dozens of Facebook and Instagram friend requests after she was featured on the site, as well as text messages with lewd photos and several phone calls, which made her "worried for her safety." Another woman had "over a hundred different sources" try to contact her after her information went up on ugotposted, and she ultimately changed her phone number.

This case shows that nobody can hide himself in the anonymity of the Internet. As soon as a case from a public prosecutor is opened the anonymity gets dropped and the fraudster ends up in the prison!!!