Youtube Video flagged as inappropriate

Last week one of my most popular videos detailing how I hacked Unifi accounts was ‘flagged’ as inappropriate in YouTube–apparently it was in violation of their community guidelines.

As such my video was made unavailable and essentially deleted from Youtube.

I was upset.

The email I received from YouTube, gave no indication as to what I did wrong, and even though it states that someone have viewed my video, the language used suggest this was just an automated message sent to my inbox. Nowhere does it suggest an actual human viewed my video and made a judgement, and even worse no justification was given for the removal of the video other than it was ‘flagged’.

Regarding your account: Keith Rozario

The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled:

Everyone hates spam. Misleading descriptions, tags, titles or thumbnails designed to increase views are not allowed. It’s also not okay to post large amounts of untargeted, unwanted or repetitive content, including comments and private messages.

Your account has received one Community Guidelines warning strike, which will expire in six months. Additional violations may result in the temporary disabling of your ability to post content to YouTube and/or the permanent termination of your account.

For more information on YouTube‘s Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center.

Please note that deleting this video will not resolve the strike on your account. For more information about how to appeal a strike, please visit thispage in the help center.

Sincerely, 

The YouTube Team

Continue reading

3 Ways to watch Netflix from Malaysia

Netflix is awesome. I watch it everyday, and while the selection is dated–it’s still pretty good.

If you needed proof for just how good it is–32% of all internet traffic in the US, belongs to Netflix. There’s two problems though. First, it isn’t free, and cost about Rm30 month. Not really and issue since Rm30 on Netflix gets you a lot more content than the RM100+ you spend on Astro.

The second problem is that it’s not available in Malaysia. So even if you were willing to pay the cash, you couldn’t get Netflix streamed to your home–until now that is. So here’s 3 ways to stream Netflix, BBC iPlayer and even DramaFever (for the k-drama fans out there) to your home in Malaysia. Continue reading

Seatbelts and Anti-Virus software increase your risk

There’s evidence to suggest that mandating seat-belts actually increases the accident rate in a country. The hypothesis is that drivers are  likely to take more risk in cars with visible security features like seat-belts than in cars without these safety features. Ironically feeling safe–is the most dangerous thing drivers are at risk from.

In addition because car drivers felt safe, and took more risk–cyclist and pedestrians were the worst to suffer. Somehow increasing the safety of one group of road users, reduced the safety of another. The results aren’t conclusive but I believe it, and there’s other fields of study that support this hypothesis as well.

Consider this study, that asked people to install malware on their PC–by offering them financial incentives that were as low as 1 cent! Of course it’s depressing that people were willing to install unknown applications on their machines just because someone offered them a pityful amount of money–but there was another surprising element that the study uncovered:

Surprisingly, we noticed a significant positive trend between malware infections and security software usage ( = 0:066, p < 0:039). That is, participants with security software were more likely to also have malware infections (17.6% of 766), whereas those without security software were less likely to have malware infections (11.6% of 199). While counterintuitive, this may indicate that users tend to exhibit risky behavior when they have security software installed, because they blindly trust the software to fully protect them

So it seems that seat-belts and Anti-Virus software that both operate in the foreground and provide visual confirmation that they’re protecting you–actually increase risky behavior among some of their users. The added protection that seat-belts and anti-virus software provide, gave their users a heightened sense of security–which is justifiable. However, users than took that sense of security and used it to engage in more risky behavior, which not only reduced the effect of the protection, but in some cases negated it entirely.

I’ll say it again. Feeling safe is ironically, isn’t safe.

Powerline adapter for better networking at home

AV500 Gigabit Powerline Adapter TL PA511A popular question I get, is how to boost a WiFi signal. Folks struggle to get good WiFi connections on the 2nd (or 3rd) floors of their homes because the routers they have don’t pump enough  ‘juice’ to go around. This is particularly true for those that work from home, having poor WiFi while trying to have a teleconference– just sucks. While other applications like YouTube and Facebook could use buffering or caching, a real-time conversation with someone over skype relies on good connectivity all the way from one party to the other, and it doesn’t matter if you have Unifi 20Mbps, if your WiFi is laggy.

I thought I could fix this by buying a more powerful router–but that didn’t work. The signal strength increased, but the quality was still below par.

The best solution is to skip WiFi  and get a Powerline Adapter instead. A powerline adapter uses your home electricity wiring to transmit the data, and because it uses wires, it’ll beat any wireless connection you have. The adapters fit nicely into your 3-Pin wall sockets, and all you need is Ethernet cables to plug into them to hook up your laptop or PC to your router located somewhere else in your home.

The premise is quite interesting and the results are even better.

Continue reading

Malaysia boleh: 3 countries, 3 card-skimmers, all Malaysian

On April 28th, 4 men were caught for installing card-skimming devices on ATM cash machines in Bangkok Thailand. They were all Malaysian.

On the 14th of May, 6 men were caught for installing similar devices in ATM machines in Jakarta Indonesia. They were all Malaysian.

On the 8th of June, 2 men were convicted in Singapore for installing card-skimming devices on ATMs in Singapore. They were both Malaysian. I wrote about this more than 2 years ago, when some DBS customers noticed withdrawals from their accounts occurring in Malaysia.

Why are Malaysians getting involved in these syndicated crimes? Are they a front, or are they the the fall-guys, or are they the brains of the operations?

I guess another way to ask the question is also–why aren’t they committing their crimes in Malaysia? Why go to Thailand to commit a crime when you can do it here–surely the banks must be doing something right with our security. But don’t let your guard down, here’s the most important thing you have to do when you withdraw money from an ATM:

Cover the PIN-PAD with your hand when you’re entering the PIN

Without the PIN, even if the criminals manage to clone your card–it’ll be difficult to do anything damaging. So remember guys, always cover your PIN. It’s unfortunate that Credit Cards in Malaysia are signature only–if they were Chip and Pin we’d be in a much more secure environment. However, a initiative to implement Chip and Pin in Malaysia has been delayed, so we’re unsure when Malaysians will get PIN enabled Credit Cards.

Here’s a video with more info:

*Now some may claim that in Malaysia we use EMV rather than the mag-stripe in the video and therefore we are more secure. Yes, we are more secure, but we’re not completely secure. EMV is a pretty old standard, and more and more exploits have been released for EMV. It’s only a matter of time, before someone discovers a full-blown vulnerability in the EMV standard that would render EMV cards clone-able (or much easier cloneable than they are today).

The Monty Hall Problem in Excel

Monty Hall Problem Excel

I remember this problem from watching an episode of numbers. You’re a contestant on a game show–and you’re given 3 doors to choose from.

Behind one door is a shiny new sports car–behind the other 2 are goats. Your goal is to get the sportscar, by choosing a door. But after you choose a door the host reveals one of doors with the goats. Leaving you with you just two doors, instead of your initial 3.

The choice is now yours again–do you switch doors or do you keep your initial choice–or do you think it doesn’t matter.

Think about it.

The answer is that’s is always better to switch, in fact your two times more likely to win the car if you switch than if you don’t. There’s  a quick video at the bottom of the post, outlining the problem, but here’s an excel spreadsheet simulation I coded with some macros to help you visualize the problem.

All you have to do is enter in how many games you want to play (the default is 1000), and what kind of switching you want:

  • YES – Switches the choice everytime
  • NO – keeps the initial choice door everytime
  • RANDOM – randomly selects a door from the remaining 2 doors

Then you can see how many games you would have lost or won based on your strategy, and it’s clear that switching is twice more successful than keeping. To download the spreadsheet click here.

One way to think of it, is that your initial choice has a 1/3 chance of winning the car. Meaning you had a 2/3 chance of losing. So your initial choice was most likely wrong, and switching after the a goat is revealed flips your chances of winning from 1/3 to 2/3.

The right to be forgotten

Right to be ForgottenThe truth is we all have something to hide–secrets we wished the world would never know. A political stance we once had, a video of ourselves after too many drinks, or even just a sentence we once uttered at a party somewhere. If you think you’ve got nothing to hide–you should think harder.

So, when European Court of Justice recently ruled that Google had to comply with certain request from individuals to remove links to websites with their personal information–privacy advocates were delighted that we now had the ‘right to be forgotten’. Mario Gonzalez had requested Google to remove a link to a digitized article in La Vanguardia newspaper about an auction for his foreclosed home. Google refused, Mario sued, and the links were removed–only they weren’t.

The article in La Vanguardia is still on their website, it’s just no longer showing up in the Google results. And contrary to popular belief, Google isn’t the internet.

In fact, here’s the link to the article that’s been removed from Google, which clearly shows one Mario Gonzalez having to auction a property for 2 Million pesetas. But if it links were removed from Google, how did I find it? Well I use what I’ve always used–Google.

Google only removed the links for searches from Europe, searches for everyone else remained as-is. So only Europeans can request “to be forgotten” and only Europeans would notice any difference–the rest of the world continues chugging on with good ol’ regular internet, while Europeans experience the new and improved ‘censored’ internet. Which brings the effectiveness of this whole thing into question.

What would have been more effective is to go after the content directly, rather than a search engine that merely links to it. It’s La Vanguardia we should summon,not Google. If your phone company wanted to terminate your number, it would disable your Sim card–not just remove your name from the phonebook. Everyone understands how silly that is, yet seem to happy about this ruling on Google, and the ineffectiveness of the ruling is just the first problem, what about other sites that link to the La Vanguardia article?

If I had a link to the article on my blog, would I be violating Mr. Gonzalez’s right to be forgotten? What about the sites that then link to my site, and so on–and would my blog still show up on Google searches in Europe? Which of course throws up an entire series of questions that could have been avoided had La Vanguardia been forced to remove the content instead.

So why wasn’t La Vanguardia summoned–well actually it was. Gonzalez initially attempted to have the article removed by complaining to Spain’s data protection agency—who rejected the claim on the grounds that it was lawful and accurate,  yet the agency still asked Google to remove the results. ?!?!

Hence we have a conundrum, where everyone accepts that the articles are lawful and accurate, and does not violate any law–yet Google has to remove the links to them for EVERYBODY searching the internet.

But where do we draw the line? Shouldn’t we at least grant our children the right to be forgotten, so that a mistake made by a 14-year old today won’t impact his job prospects 10 years later? And shouldn’t Mr. Gonzalez who has already settled the debt, be given a second chance, without a Google search messing up his credit score? Yes they should, but what ‘should’ have happened is for the content provider to remove the content from the internet rather than have a search engine to delete the link from its results.

To illustrate just how ineffective the law is though–the one and only thing I know about Mr. Gonzalez now, is the only thing he doesn’t want me to know.

Here’s a John Oliver Video explaining it with comedy: