Group items tagged

Social networking sites are often used by government ministers as an example of the profound way attitudes to privacy have changed. They argue that the young generation invade their own privacy to a far greater extent than the government ever would. The implication is that the older people who object to government intrusion are living in the past. The response to this is that people who use social networking sites voluntarily reveal things about themselves and have a degree of control of over how long information and photographs stay in the public domain, while the government collects and stores information without permission and allows the subject no access to the data held. There is no obvious comparison between the two activities. But this doesn't let the social networking sites off the hook. Most internet companies claim a kind of morality free status when it comes to such issues as privacy and copyright, and Web 2.0 sites are no different. A study published this week by Cambridge PhD students shows that nearly half of all social networking sites retain copies of photographs after being "deleted" by users. The study examined 16 popular websites that host user-uploaded photos, including social networking sites, blogging sites and dedicated-photo-sharing sites. Seven of the 16 sites surveyed were still maintaining copies of users' photos after they had been deleted by the user. The researchers - Jonathan Anderson, Andrew Lewis, Joseph Bonneau and lecturer Frank Stajano - found that by keeping a note of the URL where the photo is actually stored in a content delivery network, it was possible for them to access the photo even after it had been deleted.

More consumers are growing comfortable with online behavioral targeting, perhaps as a result of an increase in familiarity, but the majority remain uneasy with the practice. That's according to a new study conducted by TNS on behalf of the privacy group Truste. For the study, consumers were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: "I am comfortable with advertisers using my browsing history to serve me relevant ads, as long as that information cannot be tied to my name or any other personal information." Twenty-eight percent of respondents agreed, up from 24% who agreed when the same study was conducted last year. At the same time, 51% said they disagreed that they were comfortable with anonymous behavioral targeting. While that figure represents a slim majority, it's down from last year, when 57% of respondents said they disagreed. At the same time, more respondents than in the past now say they delete cookies. Almost half--48% of survey respondents--said they erase cookies at least weekly, up from 42% last year. It's not clear how much overlap there is between the respondents that regularly delete cookies and those who say they're uncomfortable with behavioral targeting. Colin O'Malley, vice president of strategic business at Truste, attributed the increase in the proportion of consumers who said they were comfortable with behavioral targeting to increased publicity over the issue. He said the recent attention to the issue in the mainstream media has helped to increase transparency. He added that the increased cookie erasures showed that consumers want to be able to manage their experience. "Cookie deletion is just one more indication that consumers are seeking tools to increase their level of control," he said.

Facebook's developer platform has been used for a zillion marketing campaigns so far, but this one is actually dead-on hilarious. Fast-food chain Burger King has created "Whopper Sacrifice," a Facebook app that will give you a coupon for a free hamburger if you delete 10 people from your friends list. Burger King has put out some interesting campaigns as of late ("Whopper Virgin," "Subservient Chicken"), but this one piques our interest because of how gleefully it pokes fun at our social-networking obsessions. "Now is the time to put your fair-weather Web friendships to the test," the Whopper Sacrifice site explains. "Install Whopper Sacrifice on your Facebook profile, and we'll reward you with a free flame-broiled Whopper when you sacrifice ten of your friends. The funniest part: The "sacrifices" show up in your activity feed. So it'll say, for example, "Caroline sacrificed Josh Lowensohn for a free Whopper." Unfortunately, you can't delete your whole friends list and eat free (however unhealthily) for a week. The promotion is limited to one coupon per Facebook account. My Facebook friends had better appreciate the fact that I made a New Year's resolution to cut out red meat. Hint, hint.

Guess what? That unlocked rant you put on your MySpace profile is open to the public and can be seen by anyone with a computer. Imagine that! Cynthia Moreno learned this the hard way. A judge ruled earlier this month that it was not an invasion of her privacy when a local newspaper published a rant pulled from her MySpace blog. After a visit to her hometown of Coalinga, Calif., college student Moreno penned a 700-word blog entry titled "An Ode to Coalinga" that opened with "the older I get, the more I realize how much I despise Coalinga." Moreno subsequently deleted the blog entry, but Roger Campbell, principal of Coalinga High School, discovered it before the deletion and handed it over to his friend Pamela Pond, editor of the Coalinga Record newspaper. Pond then published the rant in its entirety as a letter to the editor, printing Cynthia's full name. The Moreno family was met with death threats and shots were fired outside their home. Cynthia's father David was forced to close his 20-year-old family business, and the family moved to another town. The family sued the newspaper and the Coalinga-Huron Unified School District for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. The case against the newspaper was dismissed on free speech grounds, but the case against Campbell and the school district was allowed to proceed. Campbell did not violate Moreno's rights when he handed over her rant to Pond because Moreno's blog entry was published on the Internet and available for anyone to see, according to the Superior Court of Fresno County.

"I heard a rumor that I hope isn't true. Specifically, I heard that opting out of behavioral profiling may not stop advertising companies from tracking you as you travel across the Web. Rather, according to the rumor, in many cases you merely opt out of seeing the tailored ads your web history might otherwise trigger. The ability to opt out of behavioral profiling essentially underpins the argument for self-regulation by the industry. The idea is that (1) people like tailored ads and (2) those that worry about the practice, for instance, from a privacy perspective, can opt out of it. Setting aside the apparent frailty of cookie-based opt out (when you delete your cookies, you delete your opt out as well) and the availability of other means to track users (like flash cookies), this seems pretty straightforward and convincing. But what does "opting out" mean, exactly? A close look at the Network Advertising Initiative website, which offers an opt out tool on behalf of most major online advertisers, turns up no guarantee that opting out will stop a company from logging where a user has traveled."

The FBI has used a secret form of spyware in a series of investigations designed to nab extortionists, database-deleting hackers, child molesters, and hitmen, according to documents obtained by CNET News. One suspect used Microsoft's Hotmail to send bomb and anthrax threats to an undercover government investigator; another demanded a payment of $10,000 a month to stop cutting cables; a third was an alleged European hitman who was soliciting for business from a Hushmail.com account. CNET News obtained the documents -- totaling hundreds of pages, although nearly all of them were heavily redacted -- this week through a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI. The FBI spyware, called CIPAV, came to light in July 2007 through court documents that showed how the bureau used it to nab a teenager who was e-mailing bomb threats to a high school near Olympia, Wash. (CIPAV stands for Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier.) A June 2007 memo says that the FBI's Deployment Operations Personnel were instructed to "deploy a CIPAV to geophysically locate the subject issuing bomb threats to the Timberline High School, Lacy, Washington. The CIPAV will be deployed via a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address posted to the subject's private chat room on MySpace.com."

The country's largest office products store sold a returned computer hard-drive on clearance containing hundreds of personal files on it - a move privacy experts say violates key provisions of a privacy law requiring businesses to safeguard personal information of customers. The transaction occurred recently at a Staples Business Depot store in Ottawa, one of about 300 across the country. When the purchaser booted up the Maxtor mini, he found hundreds of files on the external hard drive. The files, totalling about 400, belonged to Jill Vickers, a retired political science professor from Carleton University. They included some research papers already in the public domain, but some were sensitive documents. "It is especially of concern to me as the files contain some 20 years of reference and assessment letters which are confidential documents," said Vickers, who recently purchased a new computer system for her home that initially included the Maxtor backup drive. When her son, who was tasked with transferring her files to the drive, noticed the daily automatic backup function was not functioning properly, he returned it to Staples. He thought he had deleted the files. "Even though it's not in my possession, it's my data. They should wipe it clean," Vickers said of Staples. Canwest News Service last week provided Staples with the model and serial number of equipment, as well as the receipt for the clearance purchase. A company spokeswoman said it required more time to gather the facts to comment on the specific incident. "We will continue to look into this," said Alessandra Saccal. In a statement, she reiterated, "privacy of any kind is of great concern to us, that is why we have procedures in place to clear any items with memory before being resold."

"Computer scientists have recently undermined our faith in the privacy-protecting power of anonymization, the name for techniques that protect the privacy of individuals in large databases by deleting information like names and social security numbers. These scientists have demonstrated that they can often "reidentify" or "deanonymize" individuals hidden in anonymized data with astonishing ease. By understanding this research, we realize we have made a mistake, labored beneath a fundamental misunderstanding, which has assured us much less privacy than we have assumed. This mistake pervades nearly every information privacy law, regulation, and debate, yet regulators and legal scholars have paid it scant attention. We must respond to the surprising failure of anonymization, and this Article provides the tools to do so."

Assumption of privacy through anonymization of data is called into question by deanonymization techniques. The work is not new but its implications have gone under-realized. In a country struggling to understand how to even define privacy, will anyone listen?

"Web users are not yet deleting Flash cookies as often as they shed more traditional cookies, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to use Flash technology to track consumers online. That's according to a new report commissioned by media audit company BPA Worldwide. The report, authored by analytics expert Eric Peterson, warns that the use of Flash cookies, also called "local shared objects," to override consumers' choices could invite new privacy laws. "With the attention given to consumer privacy on the Internet at both individual and governmental levels, we believe that companies making inappropriate or irresponsible use of the Flash technology are very likely asking for trouble, (and potentially putting the rest of the online industry at risk of additional government regulation)," writes Peterson, CEO and principal consultant at Web Analytics Demystified. "

Flash cookies may draw additional legislation for the online advertising industry.

A number of software errors are present in the Global Election Management System (GEMS) voting system (version 1.18.19), put out by the company Premier Election Solutions, Inc. A Deck Zero error led to 179 tallied ballots inadvertently being deleted from initial results in the November 4, 2008 election in California - which was subsequently corrected, according to California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen. As a result, the state may withdraw approval for the use of this system.

Following on the heels of Facebook's decision to rescind a highly controversial move to store all content posted on the social network, new data has emerged to support consumers' increasing alarm over online privacy. The vast majority--80.1%--of Web surfers are indeed concerned about the privacy of their personal information such as age, gender, income and Web-surfing habits, according to a survey of some 4,000 Web users administered and analyzed by Burst Media. More worrisome, perhaps, is the finding that privacy concerns are prevalent among all age segments, including younger demographics that are coming of age online. Still, privacy concerns do appear to increase with age, from 67.3% among respondents ages 18-24 to 85.7% of respondents 55 years and older. "Online privacy is a prevailing concern for web surfers," said Chuck Moran, vice president of marketing for Burst Media. The survey was administered by Burst with the purpose of better understanding how privacy is impacting Web users' experiences online, as well as its impact on advertisers. "Advertisers must take concrete actions to mitigate consumers' privacy concerns and at the same time continue to deliver their message as effectively as possible," Moran added. "In addition, and as recently seen in the news flare up regarding Facebook's privacy controversy, publishers need to be completely transparent about their privacy policies." Facebook recently changed its terms of use agreement, which gave the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company the ability to store user-posted photos and other content, even after it was deleted by users themselves. Earlier this week, however, the company reverted to a previous version of its legal user guidelines after thousands of members protested that Facebook was claiming ownership over the content. In addition, the Burst survey found that most Web users believe Web sites are tracking their behavior online. Three out of five--62.5%--respondents indicated it is likely that a W

Times are tough, and we all continue to hear about the heightened risk of the insider threat. Granted, unauthorized insider access to data has always been a concern. But the concern is increased now because of the tremendous changes that we are seeing in the economy. The term "disgruntled employee" now has a whole new meaning because there are more and more folks concerned about 'What if my job disappears? What kind of information can I keep? What kind of information can I have access to?' As one who's dealt with the insider threat, I have some questions of my own: What do you really mean by an insider? In our borderless world, the terms "insider" and "outsider" overlap. "Insiders" are not just employees and staff, but also service providers, business partners, consultants, contractors -- any number of parties who may work for companies we deal with. What do we really mean by an authorized versus an unauthorized insider? If you take a look at the Societe Generale situation, allegedly a fraud was committed by an authorized user with privileges he was not supposed to have. How? Well, the horribly overused cliché is that if you work with a company long enough, eventually you will have access to everything, and no one will know it. Bottom line: As people change jobs within a company, we are not good at updating their roles and responsibilities. If you look at all the efforts that have been spent on identity and access management products, the biggest challenge is trying to understand: What are the roles and responsibilities you are trying to apply to people? How do you develop these roles and responsibilities and how do group them? How do you really deal with people who have to change roles and responsibilities? How do you add and delete roles and responsibilities as people change jobs?

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has responded to the privacy concerns raised in this post by Consumerist. The post pointed out that a change Facebook made to its terms of service left the impression that the social network could keep and use copies of user content (e.g. photos, notes, and personal information) in perpetuity even if users removed the information and closed their accounts. "One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever," Zuckerberg wrote. But, oddly, he did not answer that question. Instead he opted for a rather roundabout explanation: if you send a friend a message via Facebook's e-mail system, Facebook must create mutliple copies of that message -- one for your "sent" message box and one for your friend's inbox. That way, if you leave Facebook, the copy your friend has would not be deleted. Fair enough. The implication is that, by extension, Facebook also keeps copies of all your other information, too. But the e-mail example has a major hole in it. Copying content makes sense for e-mails, where the medium itself depends on messages being copied. The thing is, Facebook users generally do not 'send' other types of content to one another, including photographs. Rather, they post them on their own profiles for others to stop by and see. There's no obvious reason that Facebook would need to perpetually store multiple copies of photographs -- because, as far as the user is concerned, they appear only in one place. Plus, Zuckerberg seems to underestimate his users' understanding of e-mail. My guess is most Facebook users don't think that if they close an e-mail account that all the e-mails they've ever sent will disappear. Frankly, it's not e-mails that are at issue here; it's this other, more personal category of content -- the stuff that people post within their own digital walls. Zuckerberg goes on to write that despite the presence of "overly formal and protective" language that Facebo

Three out of four Americans believe that individuals are responsible for protecting their own privacy online. That's the bottom line of a new survey conducted by TRUSTe, a company that certifies the compliance of websites with privacy standards and statements. Nonetheless, The New York Times reports that the Federal Trade Commission is trying to put more responsibility on website operators: Last month, the F.T.C. revised its suggestions for behavioral advertising rules for the industry, proposing, among other measures, that sites disclose when they are participating in behavioral advertising and obtain consumers' permission to do so. One F.T.C. commissioner, Jon Leibowitz, warned that if the industry did not respond, intervention would be next. "Put simply, this could be the last clear chance to show that self-regulation can -- and will -- effectively protect consumers' privacy," [FTC commissioner Jon] Leibowitz said, or else "it will certainly invite legislation by Congress and a more regulatory approach by our commission." Behavioral advertising, which records individual users' Web usage by inserting cookies into their browsers and keeping a log of where they go and what they do, is the most high-profile privacy issue today. Google-owned DoubleClick is tracks Web users across many sites, combining them into one profile at DoubleClick's end to be used for ad targeting. Some survey respondents use cookie-deleting browsers and anonymizing software to thwart tracking systems. Privacy advocates, TRUSTe, and the FTC all strongly encourage companies to post meticulous privacy statements for online visitors, and to follow them to the letter. Still, only 15 percent of TRUSTe's survey respondents said they actually read privacy statements.

Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) admitted in a state hearing Tuesday that the audit logs produced by its tabulation software miss significant events, including the act of someone deleting votes on election day. The company acknowledged that the problem exists with every version of its tabulation software. The revelation confirmed that a problem uncovered by Threat Level in January, and reiterated in a report released two weeks ago by the California secretary of state's office, has widespread implications for election jurisdictions around the country that use any version of the company's Global Election Management System (GEMS) software to tabulate votes. "Today's hearing confirmed one of my worst fears," said Kim Alexander, founder and president of the non-profit California Voter Foundation. "The audit logs have been the top selling point for vendors hawking paperless voting systems. They and the jurisdictions that have used paperless voting machines have repeatedly pointed to the audit logs as the primary security mechanism and 'fail-safe' for any glitch that might occur on machines. To discover that the fail-safe itself is unreliable eliminates one of the key selling points for electronic voting security."

Privacy rights are accepted and, generally, honored in Europe. The wealth - literally and figuratively - of personal information made available through the internet staggers the imagination. Staggering, too, is the prospect of privacy rights being trampled. EC Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva has a bone to pick with internet snooping. And she's launching an investigation into deep data mining. In an official statement (to be released March 31) she will outline concerns of vague and misleading 'term of use' for access to Web sites that can breach EC privacy rules. Commissioner Kuneva was born and raised in Bulgaria during a time when snooping on people was common, legal and nasty. The European Parliament (EuroParl) voted (March 27) overwhelmingly for recommendations in a report linking data surveillance, advertising and cybercrime. The report recommends safeguards for the privacy rights of internet users. The EuroParl called for "making use of existing national, regional, and international law." The MEPs raised the "imbalance of negotiating power between (internet) users and institutions." Internet users, said the MEPs, have the right to "permanently delete" personal details. Facebook's recent change in 'terms of use' allowing it to retain personal information brought a firestorm of criticism and the social networking portal backtracked. And the EC was watching. "It wasn't regulators who spotted the proposed change of terms at Facebook, it was one of the 175 million users," said Commissioner Kuneva's spokesperson Helen Kearns. Collecting and analyzing profile data is big business. It is "the new petroleum of the Internet world," said Ms Kearns, quoted in PC World (March 30). "If you are happy trading your data that's fine, but you should at least know how valuable it is." As Google and Microsoft have learned European Commission rules, unlike American rules, tend to set a low bar for compliance. The former pr

OPT-OUT becomes untenable when users have to visit 40 - 50 or more sites to do it.

The online advertising industry and U.S. policy makers need to give online users more control over the collection of personal data and surfing habits beyond the traditional opt-out approach, some privacy advocates said Wednesday. Dozens of online ad networks allow users to opt out of being tracked as a way to deliver behavioral advertising, and in most cases, the opt-out is stored in a cookie that goes away every time the users clear their browser cookies, privacy advocates said during a discussion of online advertising at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference in Washington, D.C. Some advertisers require that people opt out of targeted advertising every month, and some advertisers make the opt-out link difficult to find, said Christopher Soghoian, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Some opt-out mechanisms aren't even functional, he said. Soghoian, while creating a single opt-out mechanism for the Firefox browser, found more than 40 advertising networks, he said. "How can we expect consumers to visit 40 or 50 different online advertisers, opt out, then revisit these sites every six months or every year, and then, when they delete their cookies, go back again?" he asked.

Concerned that Google knows too much about you? The company provides many ways to protect your privacy online -- you just need to find them. Here are six good ones. 1. Know your privacy rights: Use the Google Privacy Center. This site includes all of Google's privacy policies, as well as privacy best practices for each of its products and services. Although the "legalese" of privacy policies can be difficult to understand, Google's Privacy Channel offers a library of short YouTube videos with practical tips on protecting your data when using Google products and services. Try the "Google Search Privacy" and "Google Privacy Tips" series. 2. Protect your content on the services you use. Some content that Google stores for you, such as photos uploaded in Picasa Web Albums, are public by default. You can protect your privacy when you upload photos by choosing the appropriate checkbox. Choices include "unlisted" (accessible only if you have the Web link, and not indexed by Web search engines) or private (viewable only by named users who must sign in). Another example: You can take a Google Chat "off the record" if you don't want the instant messaging transcript stored. In contrast, Google Latitude, which tracks your whereabouts by way of GPS-enabled cell phones, does not share your location data by default. You must authorize others to see it. Latitude stores your last known location, but not your history. 3. Turn off the suggestion feature in the Chrome browser. By default, Chrome retains a history of Web sites you've visited -- and the full text of those pages -- so it can try to guess which Web address you want as you type in the "Omnibox." You can turn the feature off by going to "Under the Hood" under Options and unchecking the "Use a suggestion service" box. You can also select other privacy options, including surfing in Chrome's "incognito" mode. 4. Turn off Web History. You may have turned on the Web History option, also called Personalized Search, when yo

In order to comply with Canadian privacy law, Facebook must take greater responsibility for the personal information in its care, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada said today in announcing the results of an investigation into the popular social networking site's privacy policies and practices. "It's clear that privacy issues are top of mind for Facebook, and yet we found serious privacy gaps in the way the site operates," says Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart. The investigation, prompted by a complaint from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, identified several areas where Facebook needs to better address privacy issues and bring its practices in line with Canadian privacy law. An overarching concern was that, although Facebook provides information about its privacy practices, it is often confusing or incomplete. For example, the "account settings" page describes how to deactivate accounts, but not how to delete them, which actually removes personal data from Facebook's servers. The Privacy Commissioner's report recommends more transparency, to ensure that the social networking site's nearly 12 million Canadian users have the information they need to make meaningful decisions about how widely they share personal information.

"The Network Advertising Initiative will unveil a new tool on Thursday that allows people who want to avoid behavioral targeting to permanently preserve their opt-out cookies. Currently, Web users who don't want to receive targeted ads can opt out via cookies. But those cookies have notoriously short lives -- often because users who want to avoid tracking frequently delete all of their cookies, including the opt-out cookies. Once the opt-out cookies disappear, behavioral targeting companies revert to tracking users and serving them targeted ads. "