Posts with tag "privacy"

Concise and perfectly stated

Yes! A good friend of mine who I have known for many years just posted what I consider to be one of the best explanations of what we expect privacy to be in this new day of social networks and government agencies poking their noses where they don’t belong.

Papa’s post is a short one so I am leeching it in full but emphasizing the parts I find most important in bold.

Our sense of privacy is predicated on the perception of our right to choose. Our right to be an individual when making our choices.

Our expectation of privacy is the assumption that we get to choose what we divulge about ourselves and what we choose not to divulge.

Our privacy is not about what someone else dictates as private but what we choose to keep private or conversely what we choose to make ‘public’.

In order to implement a system that honors an individual’s expectation of privacy it must

  • Affirm that all participant information be kept private until the participant specifies that a given unit of information can be made public.
  • Or, clearly state that by associating with a system the participant is choosing to make all activity associated information public.
  • Clearly state and guarantee that all meta-information is and will be kept anonymous.

Hey, like this post? Why not share it with a buddy?

The Scoble Hype is nothing compared to what Sears is doing

Sears - our newest spy agency So now that we are getting over Robert being suspended from Facebook, Robert being re-instated at Facebook and getting sick of reading about it I sit back and wonder what all the fuss is about.

Really … especially in light of of some serious allegations being leveled against Sears and their My SHC Community on Sears.com. While we in the tech blogosphere get all up in arms over someone admittedly breaking Facebook’s TOS we have a brick and mortar company colluding with Comscore to install that company’s tracking software without your knowledge when you join the community.

According to Techdirt this software will then begin to track all your activities online and send it back to Sears and Comscore as well:

After that, all of your online activities — including to “secure” sites like banking sites — is sent directly to Comscore, despite Sears’ website insisting that none of the data you share will go to anyone but Sears. As for the “community,” it doesn’t seem like there is one. The security researcher who signed up for the community says that once the software is installed, there’s no obvious indicator that it’s installed or running — and he received no “communications” from the so-called community whatsoever. Basically, it sounds like it’s just a trick to get you to install this tracking software while hoping you’ll forget about it

In addition to this as reported by Brian Krebs of the Washington Post blog Security Fix it appears that your shopping habit on the Sears site end up being publicly searchable:

Sears is having a bit of a rough day with the privacy community. The company got off to a rocky start with revelations that many customers who gave Sears their personal details after shopping at the company’s Web site also were giving away their online Web browsing habits to marketers, thanks to snooping software silently installed (and ill-documented) by a Sears marketing partner.

Now, it appears the company’s Web site may also be making those shopping habits publicly searchable, at least as they relate to products purchased in Sears stores and/or via its Web site.

As bad as this is; and it is the worst example of corporate malfeasance in safeguarding our data or respecting our privacy, it amazes me that we are so easily sidetracked by something as stupid and mundane as the Scoble-Facebook nonsense. All these Web 2.0 proponents carrying on about transparency and suggesting that Scoble is the new hero of the open data movement because he stole data from Facebook.

But other than sites like Techdirt; who have followed this from the beginning, or security related sites like Bruce Schneier’s blog this whole story has been a dull thud in the tech blogosphere and that is appalling. Hell even Valleywag took time out from rumor mongering to write about the matter. I guess though for people who think it is okay for Robert to steal what is now someone else’s data they must also think that what Sears and Comscore is doing is okay as well.

Hell even Sony got more of a smack down over their rootkit DRM of CDs that what is happening to Sears or Comscore. Maybe because Sears isn’t a music or movie producer it doesn’t count or maybe because it’s regular folk that are getting screwed with that it doesn’t raise an eyebrow in the tech blogosphere.

Either way the fact that a phoney ass uproar over Facebook defending its TOS rates more attention than what Sears and Comscore is doing is just sad.


Hey, like this post? Why not share it with a buddy?

Quick Thoughts for 12.30.07

The digg effeect in action It’s been an interesting evening watching the visitor stats go crazy after having one of my post get on digg.com. This has taken my visitor numbers into a stratosphere they have never been before. At last check the post was at over 15,000 views and having been dugg over 1,100 times.

So to all those diggers dropping by thanks for all the votes and take a few minutes to look around and see if there are other posts that catch your interest.

An Inalienable Right to Privacy :: Coding Horror – in this day of social network popularity and our personal information being scattered all over the place Jeff Atwood has an interesting post on the phenomenon.

Become a Knowledge Management Ninja with Google Reader :: Steve Rubel – I may not use Google Reader like Steve but I am definitely going to see if I can transfer some of his ideas to what I do use.

Lies my wireless provider told me. :: Larry Borsato – telecom are well known for spread FUD like manure on a farmer’s fields but in this post on the Canadian Wireless auction coming up Larry tears down some of those truths [via Rob Hyndman]


Hey, like this post? Why not share it with a buddy?

Advertising’s newest snake in the grass

Facebook .. just another snake in the grass With what first started out as one of those momentous events in the world of advertising – or at least that is what Zuckerman wanted us to all believe, Beacon was let loose to a world beyond the walled garden of Facebook. The so-called brilliant idea being that any purchases of goods you made outside of Facebook and involved Beacon partners would suddenly find itself as part of you in-Facebook news feed. So besides the fact that all your purchases were now a part of the Facebook demographics, so were your actions outside of the Facebook wall.

As Beacon first hit there was no options available for the user to opt-in or to opt-out of this tracking system or to not have your purchases show up on your news feed within Facebook. In other words you actions in what should have been a private matter between you and the company you were buying from were suddenly being plastered on a giant billboard for everyone to read.

In the furor that has surrounded this use of Beacon the term of what opt-in means is beginning to sound suspiciously like the famous Clinton argument of “.. it depends of what your definition of is – is…”. Where on one hand we have Zuckerman’s suggestion that the moment you sign up for Facebook you have opted in to the Beacon service and that you have to effectively indicate in some way or another that you don’t want you purchase details broadcasted for everyone to see.

However the whole discussion over opt-in or opt-out may be entirely moot given some recent information that has come to light via a post on webomatica by Jason

What the article implies is that if you land on an affiliate site after logging into Facebook, and you previously used the “remember me” option on Facebook – you’ll receive a new Facebook cookie from the affiliate site. You should be prompted to “opt out” on the new site, but even if you do – the data is sent regardless.

So regardless of whether Facebook says it is or it isn’t collecting user data on a continuous basis even if they have opted out the fact is that at some point everything you do both inside the Facebook walled garden and now outside of it is being collected. It would seem that the only thing that selecting to opt-in does is make public the data Facebook is already collecting. As Tony Hung at Deep Jive Interests accurately phrases it:

Above and beyond the fact that opting out of “publishing the information to newsfeed” gives the impression that Facebook won’t actually be storing the information of the transaction (not just literally preventing the information being published), or even beyond the technical issue of it being sent to Facebook when you’re not even logged in, its the issue of behavioural profiling on a scale that would make Orson Wells have a heart attack. And yes, I’m quite aware he’s dead.

Whether or not the current crop of advertisers that have signed on to the Beacon system of consumer profiling continue to do so publicly once the furor dies down remains to be seen; but you can be damn sure that somewhere along the way that data will still make it’s way to anyone willing to pay the price for all that data rich information.

The one other aspect of all this white noise that is surrounding Beacon is the fact of what happens when some-one other than advertisers want a piece of the pie. After all it is nothing now for police agencies to subpoena Google and the such for any information related to a specific IP and get it. With Facebook though we have a name attached to all that information and do you really think that Facebook has a single constitutional leg to stand on when they get the police knocking on their door. Your information – all of it – would be willingly handed over and you have no recourse because the moment you click on the Submit button any expectation of privacy is gone.

While much attention is being centered around this whole shell game of the Beacon service there is a much larger picture to consider – your right to privacy and freedom from persecution which you just gave away to Facebook with a click of a button.


Hey, like this post? Why not share it with a buddy?

What happens if the Facebook Beacon goes out

Facebook and its monitizing nightmare At some point every so-called free web service has to find a way to monetize their works so those ever increasing costs can be covered and VC money begins to dry up as they look for their exit strategy with the piles of cash they figure is theirs. Facebook is no different except maybe that the financial windfall expectation are riding the tsunami of VC greed.

Much – if not the biggest percentage, of Facebook’s profitability is relying on their newly announced Beacon service which allows any purchases you make at Beacon supporting site to be displayed on your graffiti wall for everyone in the world to see.

Now I’m not going to get into how much I feel this is an incredible invasion of privacy which didn’t even exist when the vast majority of members signed of to Facebook. I am not interested in discussing how I feel that this implementation of Beacon being done after most people joined could in effect be the one thing that breaks any contracts you signed with Facebook when you clicked on that Submit button as part of the sign up process.

What I am here to talk about is something that Tony Hung mentioned in a post earlier this morning about the whole Beacon advertising platform on Facebook and how this ad program was a principal driving force behind its recent $15Billion dollar evaluation. As Tony said in the post:

This is good news for everyone, of course, except for Facebook, who has yet to really monetize itself in earnest, and more importantly was really betting the farm on this play. Rather, they were using the hype *from* Facebook Beacon and its social ads to pump up its theoretical evaluation to score a huge infusion of cash from Microsoft, and huge deals with Fortune 500 companies as well.

What will be interesting *now* of course, is if Facebook Beacon does crumble, how *will* it affect the deals it cut? Will any of them expect a (partial) refund? (perhaps a “restructuring” of their initial deal) And if it does affect the perception of this “advertising revolution”, will it in turn affect Facebook’s theoretical evaluation?

Aside from Tony’s main point about the real value of this billion dollar evaluation was a mention about Microsoft’s successful involvement of $240Million in order to gain a foothold within Facebook and it’s international display advertising reach. As Tony adds “…{regarding Microsoft’s purchase].. What is also kind of interesting, of course, is looking in retrospect how much of this new evaluation will $240M buy.”

To me this is the ultimately interesting question. After all Microsoft is no dummy when it comes to business and it probably has some of the most intelligent on their acquisition team as well as some of the best lawyers of the corporate work on their payroll. So I believe it would be a safe assumption that they walked into the negotiations that were going on with Facebook with eyes wide open and knowing exactly what the possible ramifications Beacon could bring about. After all this was the same company that had tried to bring a technology called Hailstorm to market.

To assume that Microsoft didn’t know about and talk about it in their backrooms shows little understanding of Microsoft as incredibly successful business. They had to know that the probability of what is happening would happen. So why go to the effort of the negotiations and paying out the $240M?

Well if the scenario where the backlash against Beacon is severe enough and has a dramatic downgrading of Facebook’s value one has to look at who is in there to potentially pick up the pieces of what is admittedly a popular social network for what could possibly be a fire sale price. In this case – an a totally hypothetical one – the $240M paid by Microsoft could turn out to be an incredibly well placed and lowball down payment on one of the hottest net properties that blew it discounted one thing – people just might actually value their privacy especially when it comes to how they spend their money.


Hey, like this post? Why not share it with a buddy?

Why are we giving ourselves away for free

Copyright this! I have often wondered why it is that we will so willingly give away our personal information for free to some fancy facade of an ad network called social networks when we wouldn’t dream of doing the same to our governments unless demanded by law.

Rick Mahn apparently also wonders the same thing in a post yesterday as he asks

Why can’t they license this data just like they license marketing research data? Why can’t they pay me royalties for my data?  Instead we all give them this valuable information.

I had previously raised the same idea when I suggested that the day may come when we start seeing people trademarking or copyrighting themselves. After all why should Facebook be worth $15Billion off of free information – shouldn’t we be getting a cut of that instead of being guinea pigs for a Google AdSense killer.


Hey, like this post? Why not share it with a buddy?

An interesting addition to the blogosphere

Canada Technology I’m pretty sure that the new blog by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will have limited appeal on a global basis but as a Canadian I more than welcome it’s efforts to keep myself and fellow Canadians informed about privacy matters.

The blog admin’s make it quite clear in their welcoming post that the blog is not a substitute for folks wanting to file complaints; but rather as another communications tool to communicate about privacy issues:

While this blog has been created to help build links and stimulate discussion on privacy issues of interest to Canadians and other privacy stakeholders, it is not to be considered a source of authority on the interpretation of the Privacy Act or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Another nice thing to see is that the new blog also allows for comments on any of the posts and they have an RSS full text feed. [via Michael Geist]


Hey, like this post? Why not share it with a buddy?

How long before we’re “Scroogled”

Evil isn't by degrees I stopped subscribing to BoingBoing some time ago for a number of reasons but one cannot deny that Cory Doctorow’s fictional writing can make for excellent reading. His newest piece Scroogled published by RadarOnline.com is no different as it relates to what happens when the Google in possibly the not so distant future completes its slide to the basement of evil from its do no evil beginnings.

“Now you’re a person of interest, Greg. You’re Googlestalked. Now you live your life with someone constantly looking over your shoulder. You know the mission statement, right? ‘Organize the World’s Information.’ Everything. Give it five years, we’ll know how many turds were in the bowl before you flushed. Combine that with automated suspicion of anyone who matches a statistical picture of a bad guy and you’re—”

“Scroogled.”

“Totally.” She nodded

Some might want to deny that anything like what Cory writes in the story could ever happen. Other know all to well that even today we are walking the razor’s edge of reality to what is weaved in this supposed fiction story. The reality of the situation that it doesn’t take much to extrapolate things that are happening today to five or ten years down the road under the current political landscape in many countries that have been co-opted into the U.S. administration fight against terrorism.

From the story:

The interrogator in the secondary screening room was an older man, so skinny he looked like he’d been carved out of wood. His questions went a lot deeper than shrooms.

“Tell me about your hobbies. Are you into model rocketry?”

“What?”

“Model rocketry.”

“No,” Greg said, “No, I’m not.” He sensed where this was going.

The man made a note, did some clicking. “You see, I ask because I see a heavy spike in ads for rocketry supplies showing up alongside your search results and Google mail.”

Greg felt a spasm in his guts. “You’re looking at my searches and e-mail?” He hadn’t touched a keyboard in a month, but he knew what he put into that search bar was likely more revealing than what he told his shrink.

“Sir, calm down, please. No, I’m not looking at your searches,” the man said in a mocking whine. “That would be unconstitutional. We see only the ads that show up when you read your mail and do your searching. I have a brochure explaining it. I’ll give it to you when we’re through here.”

From reality as reported by the Montreal Mirror:

Andrew Feldmar, a B.C. psychotherapist, was prevented from crossing to the U.S. when a border guard Googled his name and hit upon an article he’d written that described an Aldous-Huxley-like experiment involving hallucinogens he took 40 years ago.

“It was humiliating,” says Feldmar, who has a clean criminal record. He says he has visited the U.S. hundreds of times, and two of his children live there. Last summer, he was stopped randomly at the border, and the madness began when an agent Googled his name. “He turned the monitor toward me and asked if I wrote that article,” he says. “I just wanted to get on my way, I told him I wrote it. He said I used an illegal substance and therefore I was an undesirable.” The guard took Feldmar’s fingerprints and sent him back from the border.

Just another case of life imitating art? .. Maybe – maybe – if it helps you sleep better at night. For those of us that don’t and who can see the trends as they converge the question remains – how long before we are all scroogled.


Hey, like this post? Why not share it with a buddy?