Security software developer Symantec is stating that 13 apps by three developers could be spreading malicious code – Android.Counterclank — among as many as 5 million phones, stealing information from users. But, another security software developer — Lookout Mobile Security — believes it is just “aggressive” advertising. The Guardian has more : The dispute [between the two security firms] indicates the conflict about the difference between malware and “adware” – where software on the user’s computer generates intrusive advertising – has shifted from the desktop, where the line has been blurred over the years, to the mobile platform, and particularly to Android, the mobile operating system which increasingly dominates world sales of smartphones. At the same time, it reinforces concerns that Android has become the target for malware writers who find its open market system, as well as the multiple unofficial Android app markets, an effective way to spread malicious software. Kevin Haley with S ymantec spoke to ComputerWorld stating that the developers involved – iApps7, Ogre Games and redmicapps — don’t seem real. He also describes this as the largest malware attack on Android phones yet that runs unwanted advertisements: Although the infected apps request an uncommonly large number of privileges — something that the user must approve — Haley argued that few people bother reading them before giving their okay. “If you were the suspicious type, you might wonder why they’re asking for permission to modify the browser or transmit GPS coordinates,” said Haley. “But most people don’t bother.” Gizmodo has the full list of apps that could be malicious: Counter Elite Force Counter Strike Ground Force CounterStrike Hit Enemy Heart Live Wallpaper Hit Counter Terrorist Stripper Touch girl Balloon Game Deal & Be Millionaire Wild Man Pretty women lingerie puzzle Sexy Girls Photo Game Sexy Girls Puzzle Sexy Women Puzzle Still, the Guardian reports Lookout Mobile as saying ”we see no evidence of outright malicious behaviour” and that the apps’ actions are “attributable to a class of more aggressive ad networks.”
Excerpt from:
Is There a Massive Malware Attack Targeting 5 Million Android Users?
At Los Angeles Times , ” Gingrich’s record belies his conservative image “: For months, many Republicans have cast about for an alternative to Mitt Romney, decrying him as insufficiently conservative. Now they appear to have settled on a new front-runner — Newt Gingrich — who is no more conservative than Romney. Both men have parted company with the party’s most active voters on many of the same issues. Both backed requiring individuals to purchase healthcare insurance. Both supported the Wall Street bailout known as TARP and government subsidies for ethanol production. Both agreed that human activity is contributing to climate change (though each has backtracked in recent months). In the past, both supported trading systems designed to cap carbon emissions. Gingrich has favored research using stem cells from fertility clinics, putting him to the left of Romney on that issue. This year, Gingrich undercut his own candidacy by criticizing a House GOP plan to restructure Medicare as “right-wing social engineering” — though he pushed for a similar plan when he was House speaker in the mid-1990s. But unlike Romney, who supports moving to Medicare vouchers, Gingrich now favors letting seniors remain in the current system, a stance that puts him more in line with Democrats. For some GOP voters it may come down to image: Gingrich, who boasts that he is more conservative than Romney, forged his by leading a partisan revolt in 1994 that brought Republicans to power in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. And some Republicans have chosen to forgive his ideological straying because they appreciate his lacerating tone, far more brittle than Romney’s. Like other longtime politicians, Gingrich, 68, has evolved considerably over the years, shifting rightward with his party. He started out as a liberal Republican, working for Nelson Rockefeller’s 1968 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon (there were few Republicans of any stripe in the South at the time, and Gingrich, who had recently moved to Louisiana, filled a void in the Rockefeller campaign there). His shift has caused some awkwardness: Just this week, Gingrich said in a CNN interview that he regretted his 1979 vote to create the federal Department of Education, a target for elimination by many conservatives…. His rivals for the GOP nomination argue that Gingrich’s record doesn’t match his conservative image. Rep. Ron Paul, after cataloging what he deemed to be repeated betrayals by Gingrich and Romney, said that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two men. Rep. Michele Bachmann calls them “the great pretenders.” The trailing candidates are likely to amplify their critiques in a televised debate Saturday night, when Gingrich will for the first time defend his position as the clear GOP front-runner.
A thoughtful look a the philosophical differences between the two populist movements that were created in response to America’s struggling economy: The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street h/t Ben Shapiro at Encounter Books
Here is the original post:
Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street
TEHRAN, Iran (The Blaze/AP) — Iranians traveling to Israel could go to prison for up to five years instead of only three months, after Iran’s parliament revised an existing ban for such trips. The measure reflects Tehran’s security concerns over archenemy Israel. Iran claims to have dismantled several purported Israeli spy rings in recent years and arrested Iranians with alleged links to Mossad. Fears over Iran’s purported search for a nuclear weapon, among other relational issues, have led to an uncomfortable relationship between the two nations. Today, Digital Journal reports that Israel may not alert the United States prior to an attack on Iran — an action that could be taken to prevent the development of Iranian nuclear weapon. DJ has more : Israel has repeatedly attacked any state with nuclear facilities in its region, and done so successfully. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it wouldn’t attack Iranian facilities. Nuclear weapons would give Iran a major card to play which may also be a trigger for Western action if it was believed that Iran were providing these weapons to terrorists like Al Qaeda or had intentions to do so. On Saturday, there was a massive blast at an Iranian missile base. Considering the frustration between the two nations, some are speculating that Israel was behind the explosion. TIME has more about the blast as well as a recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Last week’s report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had experimented with removing the conventional warhead on the Shahab-3 and replacing it with one that would hold a nuclear device. Coming the weekend after the release of the unusually critical IAEA report, which laid out page upon page of evidence that Iran is moving toward a nuclear weapon, the blast naturally sharpened concern over Israel’s threat to launch airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Half the stories on the Tehran Times website on Sunday referenced the possibility of a military strike, most warning of dire repercussions. Iranian state TV on Monday reported that parliament passed the new travel amendment, expanding the current prison term for voyaging to Israel to between two and five years. Under a 1972 ban imposed by U.S.-backed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, offenders faced possible imprisonment of up to three months. At the time, the law was designed to mostly avert travel to communist countries.
Read more from the original source:
5 Years: Iran Increases Prison Sentence For Traveling to Israel
Manny Pacquiao, right, of the Philippines, hits Mexico's Juan Manuel Marquez during a WBO welterweight title fight Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)
AP
Go here to see the original:
Manny Pacquiao Escapes With a Decision
I can understand that both movements are disillusioned with the government, but how can you compare the two? One wants to “fundamentally transform” this country while the other just wants to restore its promise. The title on Christie’s YouTube video reads: “I understand why they are frustrated.” What do you think? Is this a fair comparison? UPDATE: Philip Klein writes that Christie has it all wrong , arguing that the two movements offer vastly different solutions because come from different — nearly opposite — philosophical perspectives: There might be superficial overlap between the two groups. For instance, you may find signs at either rally opposing the Wall Street bailout. But the Wall Street protesters who oppose the bailout do so because they think the government should have bailed out other Americans, such as homeowners, instead. Tea Partiers are opposed to the whole idea of using taxpayer money to reward people for their reckless behavior, regardless of their wealth. To suggest that the two groups have the same perspectives is to say that conservatives and libertarians who supported market-based health care and liberals who advocated a fully socialized health care system came from the “same perspective” when they both opposed Obamacare.
Continue reading here:
Video: Chris Christie compares OWS to tea party
AP – President Barack Obama has shored up support from mid-level donors in some of the most economically distraught areas of the country, even as his Republican challengers have made jobs a central issue heading into next year’s election.
Reuters – With support from the South Korean president, President Barack Obama sought on Friday to reassure U.S. auto workers that a new trade pact between the two countries would not cost Americans jobs.
See the article here:
In Michigan, Obama defends auto bailout and touts trade
(Reuters)
The Daily Show Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes , Political Humor & Satire Blog , The Daily Show on Facebook On Wednesday’s episode of “The Daily Show, Jon Stewart decided to counter conservative attacks that have been waged against the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Using a number of soundbites, the comedian attempted to make conservatives look like hypocrites. In forming his argument, Stewart claimed that the current conservative rhetoric being uttered against the leftist protesters is similar to the past slams liberals made against the Tea Party. Thus, he uses prominent conservatives’ praise for the Tea Party protests against them. The Atlantic’s Erik Hayden writes : The takeaway line…was Stewart just leveling: “Look, if this thing devolves into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s going to be down with that … but these protesters, how are they not like the Tea Party?” Of course, one could argue that both sides — the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street — are similar in that they have taken to the streets and held rallies to support the ideals they hold dear. But outside of that, many would argue that there are sincere differences between the two. The Tea Party was an organic movement. The same can’t necessarily be said about Occupy Wall Street now that labor unions — which have tens of thousands of supporters and members — have joined in on the “festivities.” The Tea Party didn’t have this luxury when planning its many gatherings and protests. (H/T: The Atlantic Wire )
See the article here:
Jon Stewart on Occupy Wall Street Protesters: ‘How Are They Not Like the Tea Party?’
