Oh Sh*t – Google Chrome Doesn’t Really do THAT?!
Your passwords and indiscretions for world+wife to see.
OK - I admit it's a problem that's also inherent in Firefox, but Google’s new browser, supposedly built from the ground up, should really NOT do this. It's absolutely effing bonkers!
What am I on about? Google Chrome allowing users to view ALL their saved passwords for different websites, without any credentials. Not stars nor asterisks – the whole blooming thing in plain ascii, letters, number and pet names alike!
If you are viewing this in Chrome, click on the little options wrench on the top right, then select Options, and click on the Minor Tweaks tab.
Here you will see a button called "Show all passwords" - which does exactly that. I repeat – it shows ALL your passwords to anyone who uses your PC.
Your husband's secret site communications, your daughter's online diary, your co-worker's MySpace account - all there – all just a few clicks away. And if you happen on an Internet cafe using Chrome - you may well find Mr Ignorant’s most secret passwords for his email account: the same ones he uses for his bank and eBay accounts and for buying books on Amazon, and the rest of the poor unfortunate’s life (now over).
Oh - and for those who missed the obvious: if it's stored in a way that's visible to your naked eye, it's only a matter of time before some exploit/trojan/bad-thang will access it too. Passwords should not be visible. End of.
Call me melodramatic - but that's plain stupid!
Footnote: Firefox users - for info on how to protect your passwords click here.
Killer Death Rays Present Pacemaker Risk! (Or Not?)
I just found this piece of scaremongering prudent advice in the safety instruction manual of my new Toshiba laptop:
Turn Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Wireless WAN Functionalities off for Cardiac Pacemakers Turn Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Wireless WAN Functionalities off when near a person who may have a cardiac pacemaker implant or other medical electric device. Radio waves may affect pacemaker or medical device operation, possibly resulting in serious injury. Follow the instruction of your medical device when using any Wi-Fi or Bluetooth or Wireless WAN Functionality.
With almost every laptop, phone and cafe now omitting these death rays, according to Toshiba the world has become a risky place for pacemaker carriers. In fact, what with Starbucks rolling out Wi-Fi to all its branches, and my mobile's ability to trace Bluetooth devices just about anywhere, it is surprising we don't see the invisible rays striking on every high-street. Either that, or pacemaker users are shunning coffee shops, inhabitable areas, the City of London and the entire rim of the US West Coast, more or less.
But hang on. They're not. So what's the truth here?
The University of Oklahoma researched wireless phones and says: "There is nothing in the comprehensive test data to suggest that a pacemaker wearer is at risk from bystanders using wireless phones. Research confirms that most pacemakers are immune to interference, so elimination of interactions is technically and economically feasible today. Improved pacemaker immunity will benefit pacemaker patients." (source)
Pacemaker makers manufacturers clearly have to include all the usual disclaimers in their manuals, so they aren't necessarily your best source of answers.
And the British Heart Foundation says here:
Mobile phones - Mobile phones can affect some pacemakers if they are held close to the chest. It is therefore best not to carry a mobile phone in a breast pocket. Providing you hold your mobile phone on the opposite side to the pacemaker, at a distance of 15 to 20 centimetres (about 6 to 8 inches), it is unlikely to affect you. The same guidelines apply to portable phones used in the home. If in doubt, ask at your local pacemaker clinic.
MP3 players and palm/pocket PCs - Personal electronic equipment such as iPods and other brands of disk-based or solid state MP3 players and palm/pocket PCs can be used with negligible risk, providing they are not placed directly over the pacemaker. Keeping at least 15 centimetres (6 inches) between the device and your pacemaker avoids the effects of interference.
Wireless LANs used for PC connection -These should not cause interference with pacemakers, but as a precaution it is advisable to keep at least 15 to 20 centimetres (about 6 to 8 inches) between the LAN and your pacemaker.
Interestingly, Indian scientists are actually working on networking pacemakers into Bluetooth mobiles for the devices to be able to alert the hospital automatically if the patient is experiencing cardiac difficulty - so clearly the ominous rays are not all evil.
Then again, if you do want something to panic yourself about (not really, just a little), then the Chicago Tribune suggests you be concerned that your pacemaker may be hacked.
Is Aspartame safe? An unbiased review of Aspartame Information
Is Aspartame safe for you? Can Aspartame cause cancer? Or brain damage? Can Aspartame cause blindness? Is it poisonous? Or are all the above nonsense and Aspartame is actually very safe?
Which research should I believe?
These sort of questions are asked by consumers of the NutraSweet product every day. I am a great fan of Diet Coke, which is sweetened by Aspartame, and I often wonder: is it bad for me? Am I foolish to drink it? Or should I ignore the scaremongering. After all we consume so many different chemicals and ‘E numbers’. Perhaps Aspartame is just another one of those (E951, to be precise).
So I turned to the web in search of answers, and what I found was quite disturbing.
Put broadly, most of the information you find about Aspartame online is clearly propaganda, both for and against it. In fact, the battle of words, research papers, credit-and-discredit is so prevalent, the only clear conclusion is that you cannot draw a clear conclusion.
The Pro Aspartame camp - what is worrying about the "pro-Aspartame camp" is that it is clearly waging an organised, well funded, propaganda war, where nothing is sacred. There are several prominent websites that appear to be un-affiliated to anyone, until you dig deeper and discover that under the non-partisan exterior is a site funded by the Aspartame and sweetener industry. For example the Aspartame Information Centre says on its site that it is published by The Calorie Control Council, which " seeks to provide an objective channel of scientific-based communications about low-calorie foods and beverages, to assure that scientific and consumer research and information is made available to all interested parties." If you follow the trail long enough, you realise that The Calorie Control Council actually "represents 60 manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, low-fat and light foods and beverages, including the manufacturers and suppliers of more than a dozen different dietary sweeteners, fat replacers and other low-calorie ingredients."
This is plain deception and makes you wonder why, if the industry believed it has nothing to hide, it is using these devious marketing tactics.
You could of course argue, and indeed you would if you were an Aspartame manufacturer, that the marketing campaigns of the anti-Aspartame camp are not playing by any rules either, and sweetener manufacturers need to protect their business. If it was found in 30 year's time that Aspartame was indeed safe all along, then they would be vindicated for protecting their business against what they consider a vicious campaign. But bear with me...
The Anti Aspartame Camp - There are many sites that promote research to back the risks of Aspartame, for example the Aspartame Toxicity Info Center. There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, about the health risks of Aspartame. The problem with the story of the woman who went blind when she drank Aspartame-sweetened cocoa was that the cause of her symptoms could have been any of a number of other reasons, and the same applies when it comes to other anecdotes: they are simply not science, not even in great numbers. Then there is research that did find that Aspartame is risky, and judging by the material on the Net, there's plenty of it.
The anti-Aspartame campaign and the public it vows to represent are still reeling from the (now admitted) deception around the safety of Tobacco. A good example is the oft quoted Tobacco Institute memorandum from Fred Panzer (VP) to TI President Horace R. Kornegay in 1972. Panzer describes the industry's strategy for defending itself in litigation, politics, and public opinion as "brilliantly conceived and executed over the years" in order to "cast doubt about the health charge" by using "variations on the theme that, `the case is not proved.'" The public certainly had cause for suspicion back then, that big business was muscling in on decision makers, politicians and government agencies. If you view the sweeteners industry in that light, it doesn't help its case that a significant number of research papers on the safety of Aspartame is funded by the industry.
So you see my problem? Between the Aspartame industry’s claims and the many anti-Aspartame claims, I can't really judge what is true and what isn't.
In fact, my issue with both camps is that I simply don't know if the line I am fed is true. They are both campaigning, and although my gut instinct tells me not to trust big corporations, my media experience teaches me that conspiracy theories are the lifeblood of ideological campaigns. I simply don't know who to trust. Supposed unaffiliated experts appear left-right and centre, and you never know if you should believe that they are non-partisan.
So where does this leave us? squarely with the FDA in the US, The FSA in the UK, the European Food Safety Authority and similar agencies worldwide. They are here to protect us against harmful foods - and, at the moment, public opinion does not trust them when it comes to Aspartame.
It seems plain to me that these agencies need to gain our trust on this one, and appear whiter than white, and completely trustworthy. Judging by the war waged on the Net they are not even close. If Aspartame is dangerous, than it needs to come off the shelves, and fast. If it is safe, then we need to know that this is the case, and we need to be convinced of it. Completely. In the age of information, you cannot patronise the people. You have to win their trust.
Until then the jury's out.