Mediaboss Marketing

Updated: Tuesday, July 4, 2017, 13:07 [IST]

New York, July 4: A US judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing the social networking giant Facebook of improperly tracking users' browsing history even after they log out of their accounts.

The lawsuit argued that the tracking violated federal and state laws on privacy and wiretapping by storing digital cookies on users' internet browsers that tracked their visits to non-Facebook websites that featured the company's "like" buttons, USA Today reported on Monday.

US court quashes lawsuit accusing Facebook of violation of privacy and wiretapping

Simply clicking on the Facebook "like" button on a different website that the user visits allows people to share the content to the social networking site without having to copy and paste the link on the site.

The lawsuit charged that this breaches Facebook's promise that logging out would delete the cookies.

Seeking class-action status on behalf of other Facebook users, the now five and half year-old lawsuit characterized the tracking as "the single most pervasive and grave threat to data privacy today".

However, US District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, ruled that plaintiffs in the lawsuit "have not established that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy" or suffered any realistic economic harm or loss.

While pointing out that plaintiffs could have taken several steps to keep their browsing histories private if that is what they wanted, Davila also ruled that Facebook had not "intercepted" the electronic communications in potential violations of wiretap laws.

In response, Facebook was pleased with the court's ruling.

IANS

See the rest here:
US court dismisses lawsuit against social networking giant Facebook - Oneindia

EzPaycheck 2017 payroll software has released the an update for after fact payroll processing. Download and test drive 2017 version at no risk or obligation at http://www.halfpricesoft.com/index.asp.

Austin, TX (PRWEB) July 04, 2017

Halfpricesoft.com has updated ezPaycheck2017 payroll software for customers switching to the product, mid year. After fact payroll that has been processed by accountants who record information done by their clients, payroll processed by an outside source, or paychecks processed using another software is now easily handled by ezPaycheck.

"Businesses who start using ezPaycheck 2017 payroll software can add after fact payroll easily," said Dr. Ge, the founder of halfpricesoft.com.

The new edition can also support multiple accounts and up to 500 employees with no extra charge. Business owners can relax in knowing that the software will enable them to process paychecks easily when they hire more employees or grow their businesses in a different state.

Small businesses and nonprofits will appreciate the unique features in the latest release of ezPaycheck payroll software:

Customers seeking a way to simplify payroll processing with more accuracy can go online to http://www.halfpricesoft.com/index.asp and download the payroll software. The download includes the full version of the paycheck software along with a sample database. The sample database allows new customers to try all of ezPaycheck's exciting features, including the intuitive graphical interface, without wasting time entering data.

Halfpricesoft.com invites new customers to start the no obligation 30-day test drive today at: http://www.halfpricesoft.com/index.asp.

About Halfpricesoft.com Founded in 2003, Halfpricesoft.com has established itself as a leader in meeting and exceeding the software requirements of small businesses around the world. Offering payroll software, employee attendance tracking software, check writing/printing software, W2 software, 1099 software and ezACH deposit software. It continues to grow in the philosophy that small business owners deserve affordable, user friendly, and totally risk-free software.

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/Payroll-Software/Paycheck-Software/prweb14460457.htm

Link:
The Newest Version Of 2017 EzPaycheck Payroll Software Easily Processes After Fact Payroll - Benzinga

We look at the best antivirus apps available right now: what is the best security app for mobile? Read on to find out.

By Christopher Minasians | 03 Jul 2017

Like Windows before it, the 'open' and widely popular Android system from Google has a weak security system that makes it prone to infection from dangerous malware (more than it affects iOS users). We reveal the best antivirus apps for both Android and iOS.

If you're looking for antivirus for your PC, visit best antivirus 2017.

The idea of installing security software on a smartphone might seem like overkill, but there are plenty of good reasons to consider doing so.

Anyone fraudsters included can submit apps to the Google Play Store without pre-approval, and apps can also be downloaded and installed from a wide range of other sources.

That means Android users face a greater element of risk than those with iPhones or Windows Phone handsets, who can only install apps that have been properly pre-vetted for safety.

Nevertheless, every user is at potential risk from malware and physing emails and ads - so no matter the platform you're on, it's good to have a mobile antivirus program installed.

The more open nature of the Android operating system makes it more susceptible to the kind of malware that we've grown accustomed to dealing with on Windows PCs. Although the scale of the Android malware problem isn't yet as bad as it is on Windows PCs, it remains a threat all the same.

The security software test lab Av-Test, has millions of different pieces of Android malware in itsdatabase malware that is typically used to steal your valuable personal data from your phone without your knowledge.

Anti-theft

Yet, even if you're careful about what apps you install or which websites you visit, there are other strong motives for installing a security suite. Such security apps routinely include anti-theft features, for example.

Contrary to the name, they won't prevent theft but they may allow you to lock or wipe the data from your stolen handset. Some even include features that allow you to take photos or audio recordings of the thieves.

If you've merely left the phone lying in a bar or restaurant, the anti-theft features can be used to locate your handset, and display a message on the lost phone's screen, providing instructions on how to contact you, in order to return the handset.

Call blocking

Another useful feature commonly found in security suites is call blocking. If your mobile is constantly plagued by nuisance calls or spam texts, you might be able to block the callers so that they don't interrupt your day. But this won't work when you're being plagued by pre-recorded calls hawking PPI refunds and the like, when the caller number is Unknown or Withheld.

Some apps include schedulers in their call-blocking facilities, so you can divert all calls from the office to voicemail at evenings and weekends, for example.

App managers

Some suites also include app managers that allow you to password protect access to the web browser invaluable for parents who routinely hand their phone over to children to play games and worry that they might stumble into something they shouldn't, or run up horrendous bills by purchasing apps.

Backup facilities

Less useful are the backup facilities found in many of these suites. Some merely back up contacts, which certainappsalready support the feature when you sign in with your Google or Apple account, while others only offer a tiny amount of space to store your photos and files.

Price: 9.99

Available with a 14 day free trial, BitDefender Mobile Security scored a full 100 percent in both real-time malware and discovery of malware on Android platforms during AV-Tests May 2017 test.

It has anti-theft features, works with wearable devices, gives you web security alongside a privacy advisor and most importantly has a very effective malware scanner.

However, you won't be able to block calls, backup data or have any parental controls.

BitDefender is our pick of the best Windows antivirus and best Mac antivirus.

Price: Free trial from the Play Store

The app has a grace period of ten days, where you will be able to trial the full functionalities before purchasing it.

AhnLab V3 is well received and offers anti-malware, call blocking, privacy features (such as a history cleaner for your browser), a speed booster (to increase the responsiveness of your phone), a way of hiding photos from your gallery and offers anti-theft features.

In Av-Test's benchmarks, the app scores a solid 100 percent score 99.8 in 'detection of the latest Android malware in real-time' and 'detection of the latest Android malware discovered in the last 4 weeks'.

AhnLab V3 has a small footprint on your device, while providing the necessary security.

However, it doesn't feature a backup of personal data, parental controls nor a message filter for spam messages.

Price: Free version available

Third in our overall antivirus charts is Kaspersky, which offers great mobile antivirus too. It scored just below 100 percent in AV-Test, at 99.8%.

It offers a huge range of features in addition to the antivirus itself, including has find my phone, anti-theft, anti-phishing, call blocker and a web filter too.

A free version is available with limited features, and the premium version is 9.99 for the whole package.

Price: 24.99

The app comes with a free 30 day trial period. After the trial has expired you will still be protected, but won't benefit from its premium features.

The app scores a full 100 percent in both real-time malware and discovery in its Av-Test benchmarks.

It features a call blocker, safe browsing and a means of backing up personal data. However, it doesn't have parental controls or a message filter.

Price: Free version available

Another Android antivirus that very nearly scored top marks in AV-Test's benchmarks is McAfee, which doesn't quite have as big a range of features as Kaspersky, but does offer solid antivirus and anti-theft protection.

There's also a battery optimiser built in to help you boost the performance of your phone, and there's support for Android Wear.

There are also privacy settings that can be tailored on an app-by-app basis.

Read the original post:
Best Android antivirus 2017 - Tech Advisor (registration)

In 2000, California banned the sale of firearm magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Residents who already possessed such magazines were grandfathered in. Or at least that was the promise.

Recently, Californians approved Proposition 63, which would have required all grandfathered owners to surrender those magazines by July 1, 2017, or face up to a year in prison. Civil-rights groups challenged the confiscation in federal courts. With less than a day to spare, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California blocked the measure from going into effect. In his thoughtful opinion, he meticulously deconstructs every strawman erected by gun-control advocates, who can show no evidence that limiting magazine sizes will improve public safety. No doubt this decision will be appealed, but the higher courts should take note: Judge Benitez provided a clinic on how to scrutinize laws that restrict Second Amendments rights.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right is not limited to guns; it extends also to the ammunition and magazines that make the gun operable. Californias law directly infringes on that right, by prohibiting law-abiding firearm owners from using their magazine of choice for self-defense. Following Heller, lower courts have held that the government can ban certain types of arms only if it demonstrates that doing so will reasonably protect public safety. Unfortunately, in the past, most judges simply rubber-stamp whatever evidence the state provides to justify gun-control measures, whether or not it fits with public safety.

Not Judge Benitez. He refused to defer to the attorney generals incomplete studies from unreliable sources about a homogenousmass of horrible crimes in jurisdictions near and far for which large capacity magazines were not the cause. With the precision of a scalpel, the court systemically sliced apart the governments unpersuasive efforts to justify the ban. For example, the attorney general had relied on a survey of shootings published by Mother Jones, a progressive magazine. Judge Benitez dismissed the publication, which has rarely been mentioned by any court as reliable evidence. Moreover, he added, it is fair to say that the magazine survey lacks some of the earmarks of a scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.

What about the governments citation of a survey issued by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns? Judge Benitez noted that this group, founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, is apparently not a pro-gun rights organization. That is an understatement. More significantly, the court concluded, the survey of 92 mass shootings 82 of which were outside California does not demonstrate that the ban on possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds would reasonably help the state to achieve its public-safety goals. Of the ten shootings in California, eight were not known to involve high-capacity magazines, and two involved magazines that were probably illegal. For example, the Santa Monica shooter used high-capacity magazines that were likely shipped from outside California. Criminalizing possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds, the court reasoned, likely would not have provided additional protection from gun violence for citizens or police officers or prevented the crime. More important, even though millions of high-capacity magazine are owned nationwide, the mayors survey could identify only six mass-shooting incidents between 2009 and 2013 that employed them.

The governments expert witnesses fared no better. The court dismissed their evidence as little more than anecdotal accounts, collected by biased entities, on which educated surmises and tautological observations are framed. One professor said the ban on high-capacity magazines seems prudent, based only on what Judge Benitez labelled a complete absence of reliable studies done on formal data sets. Another professor justified the ban on large magazines by citing the need to force mass shooters to pause and reload ammunition. That argument, supported by zero data, is belied by common experience. The court noted that during mass shootings in Alexandria, Va., and Fort Hood, Texas, mass shooters were able to reload several times without difficulty; they were stopped only when confronted by another shooter. In any event, why stop at ten rounds? For example, New York sought to limit magazine sizes to seven rounds, because the average defensive gun use involves on average two rounds. Judge Benitez asked, somewhat rhetorically, why not then limit magazines to three rounds?

In other contexts, courts are perfectly comfortable second-guessing the governments need to promote public safety even concerning the rights of aliens outside the United States and in delicate matters of foreign affairs. For example, in recent litigation over the travel ban, federal courts have dismissed the executive branchs goal of protecting national security as a fraud. But with the Second Amendment, courts have regrettably treated the right to keep and bear arms as a second-class right and consistently accepted the governments interests as articles of blind faith.

Not so in Judge Benitezs courtroom. He explained that the phrase gun violence may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. In any case, the measures in question would not deter crime. Criminals intent on violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons, Benitez observed. Or, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted last year in an opinion striking down Texass abortion laws, determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. (Of course, the right to keep and bear arms is framed in the Constitution; a right to privacy is not.) Criminals bent on breaking the law will break the law. Confiscation measures like Proposition 63 punish law-abiding citizens, limit their ability to defend themselves, and have at best a negligible impact on public safety.

On the same day that Judge Benitez issued his important decision, another federal judge in Sacramento reached the opposite result, allowing the confiscation measure to go into effect. The California attorney general will no doubt seek an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify Judge Benitezs decision. Second Amendment rights, alas, have not fared well in that court. Because of the urgency of this case, sooner or later an emergency petition may wind up on the desk of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who supervises appeals from California. Justice Kennedy joined the Heller decision in 2008 and two years later joined the follow-up case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. But since 2010, the Court has not heard arguments in any Second Amendment case.

Regrettably, last week the Supreme Court turned away another case from California that concerned the right to carry outside the home. Only Justice Clarence Thomas and his newest colleague, Justice Neil Gorsuch, disagreed: The Courts decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right, Thomas wrote. Over the last seven years, the justices have hesitated to expand gun rights beyond allowing law-abiding citizens to keep a firearm in the home. Proposition 63 is radically different from previous appeals: It attempts to take away what law-abiding citizens already have. Perhaps now that the fear of confiscation has come to fruition, five justices will intervene and ensure that Americans are not punished for exercising their constitutional rights.

READ MORE: Its Still a Mad, Mad California Californias Medicaid-Spending Crisis Californias Calexit Craziness

Josh Blackman is a constitutional-law professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the author of Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power.

Read more:
A Federal Judge Halts California's Confiscation of High-Capacity Magazines - National Review

GETTY

Thousands of lives have been lost but also thousands have been saved because they have been assisted to a safe landing.

The law requires the rescue of people in distress on the high seas and so does common humanity.

But with nearly 6,000 refugees arrive on its shores each day mostly from Africa Italy has had enough and is actively considering blocking the boats carrying migrants from landing.

The Italian ambassador to the EU, Maurizio Massari is seeking a mandate to raise the issue with the European commission with a view to changing EU asylum procedures.

The UN has called for a Europe-wide solution to this ongoing crisis and not before time.

If there are signs of some sort of concerted action then it is to be welcomed.

Getty Images

1 of 11

Refugees and migrants wait in a small rubber boat to be rescued off Lampedusa, Italy

But merely passing the problem around the various European states to alleviate the burden on Greece and Italy cannot be the answer.

What is essential is to make it far more difficult and far less profitable for people smugglers to operate in the first place.

International co-operation must stop the problem at its source and prevent yet more deaths by drowning in the coming months of summer.

------------------------------------------

GETTY

Downing Street has told business leaders in no uncertain terms that Britain will walk away from the Brexit talks if there is no satisfactory deal in the offing regarding the divorce settlement.

The going figure is now set at 87.7billion which is surely more than the most disgruntled exspouse is entitled to.

Theresa May is right to remind both business leaders and Brussels that the option of a walkout is still very much a possibility.

For otherwise the Eurocrats would sense that they can batter Britain into submission with their demands.

The setback for the Government following the General Election can be overstated.

The fact is that Britain is still in a position of strength in its negotiations with Brussels.

We have the power to walk from the table and Mrs May is not bluffing when she says she is willing to use that power.

------------------------------------------

Getty

1 of 39

Andy Murary's wife Kim in pictures

Anew baby on the way and another Wimbledon Championship to win.

So no pressure for Andy Murray as he walks out on court.

Best of luck Sir Andy and congratulations to Lady Murray.

Within a few years the family will be able to hold their owns doubles matches.

Originally posted here:
Call for a solution to the migrant crisis is overdue - EXPRESS COMMENT - Express.co.uk