Group items tagged

Are you an advertiser looking to target mothers online with children under 12 who are concerned about obesity to promote a healthy snack food? Or people that don't support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but support offshore drilling generally? If so, Resonate Networks -- a new ad network geared to nonprofit, political and corporate advertisers -- promises to serve up just the right audience based on highly targeted, if anonymous, profile data focused on political views and attitudes. "It's really drilling down to people's beliefs and where they stand on issues," said Bryan Gernert, CEO of Alexandria, Va.-based Resonate, a non-partisan company launched by former Republican and Democratic political strategists including Harold Ickes, Bill Clinton's former deputy chief of staff and one of Resonate's investors. Unlike traditional ad networks that target advertising based on a site content or audience demographics, Resonate combines survey information, online and offline databases and proprietary algorithms to match Web users' political leanings and levels of activism with sites they tend to visit most often. "You can identify Web sites that have a preponderance of people who support certain issues," that go beyond obvious issue-oriented or political sites, said Gernert. He added that Resonate is already working with 500 of about 2,500 sites that correlate strongly with particular issues or audiences with high levels of engagement or influence.

A 10-month cyberespionage investigation has found that 1,295 computers in 103 countries and belonging to international institutions have been spied on, with some circumstantial evidence suggesting China may be to blame. The 53-page report, released on Sunday, provides some of the most compelling evidence and detail of the efforts of politically-motivated hackers while raising questions about their ties with government-sanctioned cyberspying operations. It describes a network which researchers have called GhostNet, which primarily uses a malicious software program called gh0st RAT (Remote Access Tool) to steal sensitive documents, control Web cams and completely control infected computers. "GhostNet represents a network of compromised computers resident in high-value political, economic and media locations spread across numerous countries worldwide," said the report, written by analysts with the Information Warfare Monitor, a research project of the SecDev Group, a think tank, and the Munk Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto. "At the time of writing, these organizations are almost certainly oblivious to the compromised situation in which they find themselves." The analysts did say, however, they have no confirmation if the information obtained has ended up being valuable to the hackers or whether it has been commercially sold or passed on as intelligence. Although evidence shows that servers in China were collecting some of the sensitive data, the analysts were cautious about linking the spying to the Chinese government. Rather, China has a fifth of the world's Internet users, which may include hackers that have goals aligning with official Chinese political positions.

"By now, California is well-acquainted with Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner and Carly Fiorina - Silicon Valley's big-name candidates this election season. But a pair of relatively unknown tech alums, sitting lower on the ballot, are even more an indication of the political maturation of the valley, a place that has traditionally favored pushing policy from the sidelines instead of crafting and enforcing it in Sacramento."

Geek politicians who want to do for CA what they did for the tech industry. Government 2.0 or crash, reboot, crash...

Overview Privacy is a fundamental human right. It underpins human dignity and other values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights of the modern age.[1] Privacy is recognized around the world in diverse regions and cultures. It is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in many other international and regional human rights treaties. Nearly every country in the world includes a right of privacy in its constitution. At a minimum, these provisions include rights of inviolability of the home and secrecy of communications. Most recently written constitutions include specific rights to access and control one's personal information. In many of the countries where privacy is not explicitly recognized in the constitution, the courts have found that right in other provisions. In many countries, international agreements that recognize privacy rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted into law. Defining Privacy Of all the human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define.[2] Definitions of privacy vary widely according to context and environment. In many countries, the concept has been fused with data protection, which interprets privacy in terms of management of personal information. Outside this rather strict context, privacy protection is frequently seen as a way of drawing the line at how far society can intrude into a person's affairs.[3] The lack of a single definition should not imply that the issue lacks importance. As one writer observed, "in one sense, all human rights are aspects of the right to privacy."[4]

Following complaints from Republicans, the White House has shut down a two-week-old e-mail tip line launched to take reports from citizens of "disinformation about health insurance reform." "An ironic development is that the launch of an online program meant to provide facts about health insurance reform has itself become the target of fear-mongering and online rumors that are the tactics of choice for the defenders of the status quo," wrote White House new media director Macon Phillips in announcing the change. "The White House takes online privacy very seriously," he added. The e-mail tip line, flag@whitehouse.gov, was launched Aug. 4 as part of the White House's Health Insurance Reform Reality Check effort, a campaign-style rapid-response effort reminiscent of the war room Obama for America launched in the summer of 2008 to fight online rumors about the then-senator's patriotism and religion. But coming from the head of state, rather than a political candidate, the new effort quickly sparked concern among Republicans about the propriety of government collecting information on private citizens' political speech.

Facebook has been in the news a lot lately, and that's not good news for Chris Kelly, who is the chief privacy officer for Facebook, and - as we've reported - is quietly exploring a possible run for the Democratic nomination for state attorney general. Kelly was at the center of a firestorm this week regarding changes in Palo Alto-based Facebook's terms of service, which critics argued gave the social-networking site control over members' uploaded material, including photos, seemingly forever. On Wednesday, Kelly told CNN that the company will listen to complaints. The company's official blog now outlines how it has pulled back but Facebook has faced other problems that could hamper Kelly's efforts to run for a California political post. Last year, as Cnet reported, the firm reached an agreement with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo after an investigation of complaints that Facebook hadn't addressed consumers' complaints of "harassment and inappropriate conduct" regarding underage members. Facebook officials have said they are cooperating with law enforcement to protect their users from predators. But with the Democratic AG race already looking crowded - with San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo in the mix, among others - Democratic consultants are watching with great interest. Poke this, friends: Could this be the juicy stuff of television ads in a Democratic law-and-order race in California?

Oh, the double-edged sword of Twitter. It's not nice when it makes PR people and reporters look like asses, as Jennifer Leggio will post tomorrow. But it's a whole new can o' beans when it affects political power. And yup, Twitter did in fact (or not - see below) alter the balance of power in Virginia (the state capital of which is Richmond, Va., for what it's worth) this week, as Talking Points Memo blogs: Yesterday the Virginia GOP came very close to taking control of the state Senate, nearly luring a Democratic Senator to switch parties and put them at a 20-20 tie, which would have been broken by the Republican Lt. Governor. Then Jeff Frederick, a state legislator and the party chairman, ruined it all by Twittering this: Big news coming out of Senate: Apparently one dem is either switching or leaving the dem caucus. Negotiations for power sharing underway. The Dems then read the message, quickly mobilized to talk the renegade out of it, and stopped the GOP coup before it could happen. Here's Frederick's exciting presence on Twitter, featuring such nail-biting updates as: * Had great meeting; dinner @ Bookbinders; now at Lucky Strike/Cap Results party. Tired * Meeting w/ Senator about a bill he wants me to support. And then this intriguing post: Meeting w/ HseMajLdr abt my senate post earlier.He gave me info, which came f/ a Senator who said it was public. That will be a fun meeting. At any rate Frederick pointed to a blog post from conservative Roanoke County, which says the whole Twitter story is b.s., that the Dems already knew about the rogue House member before Frederick ever Tweeted. Even so, the strange power of Twitter is now well-established.

"The attempted attack on a Detroit-bound flight last week, along with the events preceding and following it, has provided a snapshot of the ongoing struggle to balance civil liberties and national security. President Obama on Tuesday admitted a "systemic failure" on multiple levels in the run-up to the attempted bombing. Suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was in a terror database of more than a half-million people but was not on a "no-fly" list. The administration has initiated a review of airport security and the watch-list system in the wake of the failed plot. But so far, analysts say what happened is emblematic of the struggle between privacy and security interests. "It's just (an) inability to understand the right way to strike the balance that's at fault," said constitutional attorney David Rivkin. Airlines don't have access to the government's comprehensive terrorist database. They screen travelers based on the smaller, "no-fly" list."

Perhaps this is more a question of trust (not privacy) versus security. Do we really trust our government and its agents to handle private information securely?

There was no way I was ever going to convince my parents that Jimi Hendrix's music was good. More than anything, the youth culture was defined by its music. The chasm it created was called "the generation gap" a metaphor for the ideological differences that separated us. There is a new generation gap. It's not defined through music or politics or fashion, those ideas are shared much more among the generations than before. This time it's about privacy. My generation came of age thinking about "1984", the looming threat of "Big Brother" watching over all of us all of the time. It was the government or some group which would monitor all of our actions, know all our habits: who we associate with, what we watch, what buy. 1984 came and went. Nothing like "Big Brother" happened unless you count Apple computer's historic "Big Brother" commercial which ends with the slogan: "On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984". They were right - 2009 is. Personal details used to be considered private. We were careful about who knew what about us and certainly didn't post pictures of our friends, families and fantasies for all to see. Privacy does not seem to be valued anymore. Giving up one's privacy has become a rite of passage. It's what you leave at the portal when you sign up for any of the social networking sites on the internet. The sites are free - as long as you don't calculate the value of your identity, demographics, viewing and buying habits to advertisers. This isn't new, the Nielsen Ratings service has been assembling viewer information since the 1950s for television advertisers, but its methods were primitive in comparison to the two way constant information gathering that's done on the internet. In March 2009, Google initiated the use of "behavioral targeting", which uses information collected on someone's web-browsing behavior, such as the pages they have visited or the searches they have made, to selec

A national security panic spread through the Internet yesterday after a report by The Wall Street Journal suggested "terabytes" of classified data on the F-35 Lightning II had been stolen by hackers. Today the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin responded to the allegations saying they are untrue, and I believe them. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "I'm not aware of any specific concerns." That's a key phrase. Lockheed Martin--the F-35 superjet's primary contractor--also commented "We actually believe The Wall Street Journal was incorrect in its representation of successful cyber attacks on the F-35 program." And the company's CFO Bruce Tanner added "I've not heard of that, and to our knowledge there's never been any classified information breach." While it's easy to argue that these responses are merely a smokescreen to save political face, the language is much more direct than a plain old "no comment." Typically, companies protect themselves in this sort of situation by denying the existing or potential hackers any public information on the success or failure of hack attempts, obscuring the level of secrecy of any stolen data. In the F-35 case it looks like the denials are much firmer, and that suggests the developers of the JSF are confident in their security systems. It's an echo of alleged data leaks via F-35 contractor BAE Systems last year, that were later withdrawn due to lack of evidence that leaks had occurred. Government and defense contractor computer networks face a pretty continuous rate of hack attempts. As a result such companies have even more stringent data security protocols in place than normal organizations. They're still not absolutely impervious to hacking, of course, as no such system ever is. So that's why the most highly classified data--critical to the super-secret offensive and defensive capabilities of hardware like the F-35--is typically stored on computers that have an extremely low-tech "air gap firewall". They're not co

In the paradises of broadband - Japan, South Korea and Sweden - nearly everyone can surf far faster and far cheaper than anyone in the United States. What is their secret sauce and how can we get some? The short answer is that broadband deployment in those countries was spurred by a combination of heavy government involvement, subsidies and lower corporate profits that may be tough for the economic and political system in the United States to accept. Those countries have also tried to encourage demand for broadband by paying schools, hospitals and other institutions to use high-speed Internet services. Sweden has built one of the fastest and most widely deployed broadband networks in Europe because its government granted tax breaks for infrastructure investments, directly subsidized rural deployment, and, perhaps most significantly, required state-owned municipal utilities to create local backbone networks, reducing the cost for the local telephone company to provide service. Japan let telecommunications companies write down about one-third of their investment in broadband the first year, rather than the usual policy, which requires them to spread the deductions over 22 years. The Japanese government also subsidized low-cost loans for broadband construction and paid for part of the wiring of rural areas.

There are three reasons for breach notification laws. One, it's common politeness that when you lose something of someone else's, you tell him. The prevailing corporate attitude before the law - "They won't notice, and if they do notice they won't know it's us, so we are better off keeping quiet about the whole thing" - is just wrong. Two, it provides statistics to security researchers as to how pervasive the problem really is. And three, it forces companies to improve their security. That last point needs a bit of explanation. The problem with companies protecting your data is that it isn't in their financial best interest to do so. That is, the companies are responsible for protecting your data, but bear none of the costs if your data is compromised. You suffer the harm, but you have no control - or even knowledge - of the company's security practices. The idea behind such laws, and how they were sold to legislators, is that they would increase the cost - both in bad publicity and the actual notification - of security breaches, motivating companies to spend more to prevent them. In economic terms, the law reduces the externalities and forces companies to deal with the true costs of these data breaches.

During the past decade, rapid developments in information and communications technology have transformed key social, commercial, and political realities. Within that same time period, working at something less than Internet speed, much of the academic and policy debate arising from these new and emerging technologies has been fragmented. There have been few examples of interdisciplinary dialogue about the importance and impact of anonymity and privacy in a networked society. Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society fills that gap, and examines key questions about anonymity, privacy, and identity in an environment that increasingly automates the collection of personal information and relies upon surveillance to promote private and public sector goals. This book has been informed by the results of a multi-million dollar research project that has brought together a distinguished array of philosophers, ethicists, feminists, cognitive scientists, lawyers, cryptographers, engineers, policy analysts, government policy makers, and privacy experts. Working collaboratively over a four-year period and participating in an iterative process designed to maximize the potential for interdisciplinary discussion and feedback through a series of workshops and peer review, the authors have integrated crucial public policy themes with the most recent research outcomes. The book is available for download under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Canada License by chapter below. Hard copies are available for purchase at Amazon & at Oxford University Press.

1:53:26 - Jun 29, 2007 Recorded at the 8th www.ToorCon.org Information Security Conference, Sept 30th and Aug 1st, 2006 in San Diego, California. Content produced by www.MediaArchives.com --- PRIVACY IS DEAD - GET OVER IT, with Steven Rambam. This talk will include numerous examples of actual data and investigative online resources and databases, and will include an in-depth demonstration of an actual online investigation done on a volunteer subject. (The subject is Rick Dakan, a noted author, who will be present.) (From CNN: "...Rambam was scheduled to discuss how he dug up -- in just over four hours of searching private and public databases -- more than 500 pages worth of data on Rick Dakan, who was attending the conference and had agreed to participate in the project. "All I had given him was my e-mail and name," Dakan said. "He knew everywhere I'd lived, every car I had driven, and even someone else in Alabama who was using my Social Security number since 1983.Emphasis will be placed on discussing the "digital footprints" that we all leave in our daily lives, and how it is now possible for an investigator (or government Agent) to determine a person's likes and dislikes, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, habits, hobbies, friends, family, finances, health and even the person's actual physical whereabouts at any given moment, solely by the use of online data and related activity

Profile Optimization True Story: I'm at a party a few months ago - not the usual raucous affair that us search and social media types get into but a full on wine and cheese extravaganza. The kind of shindig Republicans go to and then accuse Democrats of loving when they get up in front of a "Joe the Plumber" type crowd. But I digress… After far too much wine the discussion turned to crazy work environments and I naturally brought up the Fortress of Googletude and it's predilection for hallway scooter parking and riding. A fellow party-go-er who I'll call "Natasha" to protect her identity, nodded and said, 'Yes it's true, I've been there too!" This led to a long, room-clearing talk about search and social media, the kind of talk that true geeks engage in while their spouses go off to chat about politics and religion. Somewhere between bottles Natasha said to me "Have you seen Google People Search?" "Google what now?" I replied. She went on to describe an internally searchable database that the Google folks showed her of people sorted by interests and web habits, ready to be rolled out to advertisers at some point in the future. Thank goodness for the red wine clause in their NDA. Well the future arrived today, at least partially, with Google's announcement that behavioral targeting is being rolled out to the AdWords content network. As the Googlelords put it: "With interest-based advertising, you will be able to reach users based on your past interactions with them, such as their visits to your website. We'll also provide interest categories, such as "sports enthusiasts," so you can reach the audience of your choice. Whether your goal is to drive brand awareness or increase responses to your ads, these capabilities can help expand the success of your campaigns." This is a most effective riposte to the OPA's announcement of new, ludicrous banner ad standards - why futz around with annoying crap no-one will clic

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."

New Jersey lawmakers are considering new legislation that would require Facebook, MySpace and others to police social networking sites for offensive posts or else face potential consumer fraud lawsuits. But some lawyers say that even if the measure is enacted, it's not likely to have much impact on social networking sites because the federal Communications Decency Act immunizes such sites from lawsuits based on material posted by users. The bill is part of state Attorney General Anne Milgram's Internet safety initiative. "The social networking site safety act is intended to deter cyber-bullying and the misuse of social networking Web sites," the Office of Attorney General said in a statement about the measure. "The bill empowers users of social networking sites to take steps to stop harassment or exploitation." Last year, Milgram garnered headlines by launching a fraud investigation of gossip site JuicyCampus.com -- where users frequently posted insults about college students -- but no legal action resulted. (That site folded last month for financial reasons.) Attempts to rein in cyberbullying might be politically popular, but this type of state effort to regulate global Web sites is also likely to prove useless, say cyber lawyers. "We need to recognize that legislating on the Internet can't be done on a state-by-state basis," said Parry Aftab, an expert on Web safety and cyber-abuse. "We can't have a different law in each state."

Hunch.com helps users search for answers -- but first, it performs a detailed search on the users themselves. Launching today after a year in development, Hunch aims to supply users with computer-generated advice on thousands of lifestyle and consumer questions: What kind of dog should I buy? What should I get dad for Father's Day? Which book by George Orwell would I like? Most important, though, Hunch is not a search engine. Rather than scouring the open Web for information, as Google, Microsoft's new Bing and scores of others do, or collating written opinions, as Amazon.com does, Hunch computes answers by comparing what it knows about you to what it knows about people like you. "Ultimately, what we're doing is providing a kind of shortcut through human expert systems," said Hunch founder Caterina Fake, who also started Flickr.com, the popular photo-sharing site that was acquired by Yahoo in 2005. By first inviting users to answer as many as 1,500 questions about themselves -- an addictive kind of personality test that involves such diverse questions as political orientation, relationship status and whether you believe in UFOs and keep your closet organized -- Hunch looks to assemble a demographic profile whose depth could rival anything in the commercial universe. The New York company also believes that users stand to benefit from this kind of large-scale data farming -- not just from getting better answers, but also from discovering the many microdemographics to which they belong. Hunch also says it will not sell user data to marketers. But this promise, written into the site's privacy policy, is not precisely a legal contract, said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a new-media scholar at the University of Virginia, and the difference leaves the data it collects in a fuzzy domain.

Point by Marcus Ranum THERE'S AN OLD SAYING, "Sometimes things have to get a lot worse before they can get better." If that's true, then breach notification laws offer the chance of eventual improvements in security, years hence. For now? They're a huge distraction that has more to do with butt-covering and paperwork than improving systems security. Somehow, the security world has managed to ignore the effect voluntary (?) notification and notification laws have had in other fields-namely, none.We regularly get bank disclosure statements, stock plan announcements, HIPAA disclosures, etc.-and they all go immediately in the wastebasket, unread.When I got my personal information breach notification from the Department of Veterans Affairs, it went in the trash too. Counterpoint by Bruce Schneier THERE ARE THREE REASONS for breach notification laws. One, it's common politeness that when you lose something of someone else's, you tell him. The prevailing corporate attitude before the law-"They won't notice, and if they do notice they won't know it's us, so we are better off keeping quiet about the whole thing"-is just wrong. Two, it provides statistics to security researchers as to how pervasive the problem really is. And three, it forces companies to improve their security. That last point needs a bit of explanation. The problem with companies protecting your data is that it isn't in their financial best interest to do so. That is, the companies are responsible for protecting your data, but bear none of the costs if your data is compromised. You suffer the harm, but you have no control-or even knowledge- of the company's security practices. The idea behind such laws, and how they were sold to legislators, is that they would increase the cost-both in bad publicity and the actual notification-of security breaches, motivating companies to spend more to prevent them. In economic terms, the law reduces the externalities and forces companies to deal with the true costs of

Americans are about to re-learn that bank deposit insurance isn't free, even as Washington is doing its best to delay the coming bailout. The banking system and the federal fisc would both be better off in the long run if the political class owned up to the reality. We're referring to the federal deposit insurance fund, which has been shrinking faster than reservoirs in the California drought. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. reported late last week that the fund that insures some $4.5 trillion in U.S. bank deposits fell to $10.4 billion at the end of June, as the list of failing banks continues to grow. The fund was $45.2 billion a year ago, when regulators told us all was well and there was no need to take precautions to shore up the fund.