Posts tagged Privacy
How Facebook Graph Search Affects User Privacy by @DavidWallace
May 12th
As Facebook Graph Search is being rolled out to it user base, it’s important to be aware of the “searchable” content you post. Public information is sure to show up in search queries and may create problems if you are posting content on Facebook that you don’t necessarily want the world to see. In this [...]
Author information
The post How Facebook Graph Search Affects User Privacy by @DavidWallace appeared first on Search Engine Journal.
View full post on Search Engine Journal
How Facebook Graph Search Affects User Privacy
May 10th
As Facebook Graph Search is being rolled out to it user base, it’s important to be aware of the “searchable” content you post. Public information is sure to show up in search queries and may create problems if you are posting content on Facebook that you don’t necessarily want the world to see. In this [...]
Author information
The post How Facebook Graph Search Affects User Privacy appeared first on Search Engine Journal.
View full post on Search Engine Journal
Twitter Lawyer Tapped As First White House Chief Privacy Officer
May 7th
The White House tapped Twitter legal director Nicole Wong as its first chief privacy officer, CNET reported. Wong, a Silicon Valley legal veteran, had only been at Twitter about six months; she was previously at Google for eight years.
It’s not entirely clear what the White House chief privacy officer will do. Cabinet-level CPOs are generally tasked with ensuring that their departments follow federal rules for the handling of personal information (see, for instance, these authority and responsibilities of the Homeland Security CPO). It’s fairly likely that the White House CPO would do likewise for the Obama administration, and might also serve as a presidential advisor on privacy-related federal regulations and legislation.
At Google, Wong managed a team of lawyers that reviewed products before launch and combed over everything from removal requests to copyright issues, earning her the nickname “The Decider.” Her appointment is striking because, as CNET’s Declan McCullagh put it, Wong is “a Silicon Valley lawyer who has been immersed in technology issues” and not a member of the Washington establishment.
View full post on ReadWrite
Google, Twitter, LinkedIn Earn Top Ratings on Data Privacy
May 4th
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s annual Who Has Your Back? report lauds a number of major companies for their efforts to help preserve user privacy and report to the public the extent of their cooperation with government groups.
View full post on Search Engine Watch – Latest
Apple's Privacy Record Sucks. Here's Why You Should Care
May 2nd
The next time you’re thinking about buying a new smartphone, there’s one more spec you might want to consider. If the FBI or the IRS wants to read your texts, will Apple hand them over? Would it require the feds to get a warrant first? And would it even bother to let you know that federal agents made the request in the first place?
If you’re looking at a shiny new iPhone, the answers are not comforting.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s latest digital privacy report, Who’s Got Your Back?, awards Apple its secondthe Electronic Frontier Foundation gives Apple a paltry one out of six stars. While Apple got credit for supporting efforts to defend users by modernizing electronic privacy laws, its apparent willingness to hand over your personal information to the government without a warrant and its failure to tell its users how it handles such requests put it in the dock.
Worse Than Comcast: Apple’s Privacy Black Box
Apple came off much, much worse than most of its peers — here defined as major non-ISP mobile-computing players. Apple fared worse than Amazon (two stars), Facebook (three), Microsoft (four) and Google (five). Even Comcast, the cable conglomerate consumers love to hate, scored one star higher than Apple.
The EFF chides Apple for not publishing a transparency report as companies like Google and Twitter do. Without that, users have no idea what kinds of information the government asks for, because Apple won’t tell them, nor does it let them know what its guidelines are for dealing with law enforcement data requests.
(See also: EFF: Twitter Scores, Verizon Fails At Protecting User Privacy)
Apple certainly wasn’t the worst-ranked company overall. The major telcos and ISPs almost always get raked over coals on privacy. In this report, Verizon got no stars, while AT&T racked up a grand total of one. MySpace also got no stars and Yahoo only got one. Amazon’s showing is also pretty disappointing, especially considering its vast storehouse of consumer-purchase data and its rumored plans to enter the smartphone market.
But Apple dominates mobile computing in a way few other companies do. And as the proprietor of a mobile operating system that runs on more than half a billion devices, Apple has its hands on a lot of data. Its approach to privacy matters to an awful lot of people — and its lousy performance is a big deal considering how deeply its devices are embedded into our lives.
That integration is only getting deeper as Apple prototypes wearable devices and dreams up more screens to dominate.
Not Just A Computer Company Anymore
It’s not all together shocking that Apple has some catching up to do in the privacy realm. Until recently, it didn’t deal with all that much information about its customers. For most of its history, the company was called Apple Computer, because that’s what it sold: computers.
In the early days, the only way for the government to snoop through your MacIntosh was to get a warrant to search your apartment. Today’s Apple’s computers are smaller, constantly connected to the Internet and, increasingly reliant on iCloud to sync and share data across devices.
Whereas Google has been handling (and profiting from) user data since day one, Apple is only just getting started. If you use iCloud, its servers house your calendars, email, photos, notes and any other data you choose to feed it. If you’re using iOS 5 or higher, you’re also entrusting Apple with whatever percentage of your personal text messages go through its iMessage protocol.
To its credit, Apple built iMessage using end-to-end encryption that makes its harder for others to snoop on the contents of messages. Of course, if the FBI — or the local cops — really want to know what you’re iMessaging back and forth, they can go directly to Apple, with or without a warrant.
Of course, if the texts in question aren’t iMessages, the authorities could just do what they’ve always done: Ask the mobile data provider to see them. Such requests have seen a dramatic uptick in recent years, and the major ISPs don’t approach them with the same level of transparency that a company like Twitter or Sonic.net would.
Why Consumers Should Care
Apple has never been lauded for having a forward-thinking and open approach to user privacy issues. That hasn’t stopped millions of people from trying to predict the company’s next gadget and then eagerly standing in line to purchase it.
Part of that may have to do with awareness. Digital privacy reports excite a certain breed of data nerd (OK, guilty as charged), but they don’t approach the media attention lavished on Apple product announcements. Nor is the EFF’s chart plastered all over billboards, bus stops and television sets.
Even for those of you who already knew that Apple doesn’t treat your privacy with kid gloves, the risk of the government peeking into law-abiding texts and calendars is too remote to worry about. To some, this is just a side effect of the hyper-connected, digitally-immersed society we’re becoming. Even if they don’t particularly like it, it’s just not their battle to fight.
Trouble is, that sort of complacency puts no pressure on Apple to get more proactive about keeping your digital life safe from prying eyes.
If you fall in this category, you might still luck out, of course. Even if there’s some major privacy gaffe down the line, it might not affect you. And if you’re fortunate, IRS agents aren’t currently reading your Apple email or iMessages, looking for possible evidence of tax evasion.
But given Apple’s current practices in this regard, if they are, you’d never know. Maybe ignorance really is bliss.
View full post on ReadWrite
EFF: Twitter Scores, Verizon Fails At Protecting User Privacy
May 2nd
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted its annual report on which Internet vendors do the most to help protect their users’s private information. And this year’s two best protectors by the EFF’s definition? Twitter and Internet Service Provider Sonic.net.
Each of these two vendors scored well within the EFF’s six criteria used to judge online services in the organization’s Who Has Your Back? 2013 report posted today.
For the EFF, the most privacy-oriented companies should comply with these policies:
- Requiring a Warrant for Content
- Telling Users About Government Data Requests
- Publishing Transparency Reports
- Publishing Law Enforcement Guidelines
- Fighting for Users’ Privacy in Court
- Fighting for Users’ Privacy in Congress
Each rated company gets a star when it does well with one of these criteria. Twitter and Sonic.net nailed it with six stars. LinkedIn, Dropbox and storage service SpiderOak received five stars, having each missed the fighting for users’ privacy in court category.
The worst performers in the EFF’s round-up of privacy advocacy? Social media platform MySpace and cellular carrier Verizon, which were awarded no stars at all. Apple, AT&T and Yahoo, only received one start apiece, with the latter getting the award for pushing back in the courts and the other two companies achieving the fighting for users’ privacy in Congress star.
Overall, the EFF thinks that things are getting better among these vendors that deal with so much user data.
“We’re happy to report that several of the companies included in last year’s report have significantly improved their practices and policies concerning government access to user data,” the organization reported, “Comcast, Google, SpiderOak, and Twitter earned two new stars this year while Microsoft earned three new stars. Foursquare went from zero stars in 2012 to four in 2013.”
The report might seem a bit disjointed in its approach, lumping a lot of companies in together with the only common thread being the handling of user data. Users’ expectations on a social network like Facebook is much different than privacy concerns on Verizon or Amazon.
But this is a report about government overreach, not expectations of privacy. The government may be able to see your data on your Facebook page, but to use it in a trial or investigation, they should still use a warrant, the EFF is arguing. Users may be surprised to see so many large data handlers that don’t even have that basic requirement.
Things are getting better, but there is still a long way to go.
View full post on ReadWrite
Siri's Supposed Privacy Glitch: It's A Feature, Not A Bug
Apr 24th
Every time you ask Siri a question, the data remains on Apple’s servers for two years, Apple told Wired earlier this week. It’s a revelation that raises concerns about privacy, which isn’t exactly Apple’s strong suit to begin with. But is this really something to flip out about? Nope.
For six months, Siri’s servers retain a record of the things you ask it and associates that data with you, the user. For the remaining 18 months, it’s anonymized. That way, Apple can use the data to improve its service over time without knowing that it was in fact you that asked what the rash in your nether regions is all about.
(See also: Siri Jokes Aside, Voice Control Will Make Computing Better)
The ACLU rightly faults Apple for not making its Siri data retention policies clearer or easier to find. The worry here is that the often private information we utter to Siri could wind up in the hands of marketers, the authorities or lawyers in civil suits.
These are valid concerns, and Apple should clarify whether — or how — this information is used for marketing purposes, for example. But in the process of reining in Cupertino, we should be careful not to handicap the evolution of such a promising technology.
Artificial Intelligence Needs Data To Learn
Here’s the thing: Siri is artificial intelligence. Like the human mind it attempts to emulate, AI improves as it learns. To teach machines, we need to feed them data. Every time we ask Siri where the nearest Italian restaurant or strip club is, we’re also teaching her, not just about our own tastes and curiosities, but about human language, sentiment and intent.
Some of those lessons she can apply to us individually. Much of it, crucially, is used to improve the service for everybody. Without this progress, Siri will never lose the “beta” label for which it is so easy to ridicule.
For most of its lifespan on Apple’s servers, this data is anonymous. That means there’s no way to tie your filthy inquiries back to you, should anybody ever inquire. You could, of course, argue that Apple should keep the data anonymous from the moment it’s created, as Google proclaims it does with Voice Search. It might not be a fair comparison (given how much Google learns about us via other channels), but perhaps Apple should take a cue from Google and keep this data anonymous from the outset.
But if temporarily tying my questions to my voice helps Siri fine-tune my experience using the service, I’m fine with that. That’s the bottom line here: Apple should hang onto data like this only as long as technically necessary. If it stops being useful to the product’s evolution, the data should disappear.
For The Privacy Concious, Alternatives Abound
I’d be more concerned about what Siri does with my queries if the access it offered to information was unique. You don’t have to use Siri. It’s just a more convenient tool to use in some contexts. For truly private inquiries, people can (and likely do) continue to use traditional methods like a Chrome incognito tab or any other browser in private mode.
Now, if Apple wants us to turn to Siri more often, it’s going to have to add better privacy controls. Much like Web browsers and Google Web History offer us toggles to keep certain (or all) activity private, the voice-controlled personal assistants of the the future will need to do the same. If they don’t, people will continue to use alternative, more privacy-friendly tools, whether Web browsers or competing voice assistants.
Apple has a responsibility to be transparent about this type of thing. And it really ought to scrap this data as soon as it’s not technically beneficial to keep it. But insofar as it fuels the core functionality of an evolving technology, if Siri needs to remember my questions for awhile, go for it, Siri. Just give me a heads up.
View full post on ReadWrite
Microsoft Ad Says IE Is Privacy Leader: What's The Real Story?
Apr 23rd
On Monday, Microsoft premiered a television ad that portrays its Internet Explorer as the defender of user privacy among modern browsers.
The ad highlights IE’s use of Do Not Track and its Tracking Protection Lists as effective tools in preserving online privacy, implying that Google’s Chrome, Mozilla’s Firefox, Apple’s Safari and Opera fail to keep up with Microsoft’s principled stand on privacy.
Six months ago, Microsoft might have had a point. Now, however, many privacy advocates say that IE is the browser now falling behind in the privacy wars – because it doesn’t block third-party tracking cookies by default.
(Many websites store a small snippet of code called a cookie on your hard drive when you visit the site. Typically, these cookies contain login information or other preferences. Since many websites serve up content or ads from third-parties, those third-party sources may also place tracking cookies in your browser – even though you never visited their site.)
Microsoft does allow users to manually exclude third-party cookies, as does Chrome. But Safari and soon Firefox will do this by default, stealing the wind from Microsoft’s sails.
And given Microsoft’s history in terms of privacy and competition, it’s easy to see the new ad – and Microsoft’s whole privacy strategy – as a cynical ploy to acquire new IE users while denigrating its competitors. Even if that’s true, privacy advocates said, Microsoft is at least doing something to address privacy issues.
IE Trumpets Do Not Track, Tracking Protection
As a piece of advertising, Microsoft’s spot does a fine job highlighting what users don’t mind sharing, and what users would rather keep private. Microsoft focuses on two features in the 30-second ad: Do Not Track, which is turned on by default; and its Tracking Protection Lists. “Your privacy is our priority,” is the tag line.
Do Not Track (DNT) merely asks a site not to track the user visiting it. At this point, Do Not Track is completely voluntary, and privacy advocates note that the vast majority of online advertising agencies decline to honor it. Microsoft’s implementation of Do Not Track is little more than a symbolic gesture unless and until the online ad agencies agree to play ball.
“Microsoft’s DNT setting is fine, although it will likely be ignored until the W3C finishes the DNT standard, if ever,” said David Jacobs, the Consumer Protection Counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), in an email.
Consumer watchdogs can still rattle their sabers, as Federal Trade Commission chairwoman Edith Ramirez did last week (PDF) in a speech to the American Advertising Federation. Ramirez warned that now was the time for industry stakeholders to nail down a Do Not Track agreement once and for all:
One can forgive stakeholders for thinking that it will always be so – for believing that ‘not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash’ the shine off this cyber-economy. But an online advertising system that breeds consumer discomfort is not a foundation for sustained growth. More likely, it is an invitation to Congress and other policymakers in the U.S. and abroad to intervene with legislation or regulation and for technical measures by browsers or others to limit tracking.
Tracking Protection lists are far more effective – they prevent websites from capturing information that the user doesn’t wish to be shared. Right now, they’re probably the most effective weapon that Microsoft has in protecting user privacy – but they rarely get used, according to Dan Auerbauch, a staff technologist with Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
Which Browser Leads In Privacy Protection?
“Firefox and Safari I would say are in first place right now in terms of protecting user privacy,” because of third-party cookie blocking by default, Auerbach said.
Safari blocks third-party cookies by default; Mozilla has begun blocking third-party cookies by default in its alpha or Aurora build, with the expectation that the standard build will block them by summer. Chrome users must turn on the feature themselves by following a few simple instructions. Microsoft IE users can do this as well – but again, not by default.
“I would hope that Microsoft would follow soon, and I think that they’re well-positioned to be the leader [in privacy],” Auerbach added. “We’re encouraged by this campaign from Microsoft, and we think that they have the ability to do really good things here.”
What’s Microsoft Really Up To Here?
Is Microsoft genuinely interested in user privacy, or is it simply raising the specter of intrusive advertising to win new converts to IE? If Microsoft hadn’t run its Scroogled campaign, which has highlighted all the ways that Google allegedly misuses user data to its own commercial ends, the answer might be yes. As it is, it’s difficult to see Microsoft’s efforts as truly altruistic, given its past history.
“Ultimately, I’m not sure how successful the campaign will be, but I think it’s generally good when companies compete on privacy,” said EPIC’s Jacobs. “I don’t know what Microsoft’s underlying motivation is, but regardless of whether it’s altruistic concern for user privacy or self-interested profit maximization, consumers can still benefit.”
Unfortunately, Microsoft hasn’t said when or whether it will block third-party cookies by default, and company representatives weren’t able to comment. Microsoft does seem to be making strides in protecting user privacy, but its competitors are poised to pass it by, if they haven’t already.
Image: Flickr/Scubadive67
View full post on ReadWrite
Anonymous Calls For A CISPA Blackout To Protest The Bill's Privacy Threat… But Nobody Listens
Apr 22nd
Anonymous has called for an Internet blackout to protest CISPA, the much maligned cybersecurity bill that threatens your privacy more than it protects it. But without the support of Reddit, which co-sponsored last year’s SOPA blackout, the Web isn’t listening.
About 200 hundred sites have joined the #CISPABlackout today in protest of CISPA, which last week passed the House of Representatives. That may sound like a big number, but the list mostly consists of small sites within the hacker community. That’s a big contrast to the last year’s SOPA protests, which drew support from huge organizations like Google and Wikipedia.
Blackout your website: (requires some basic HTML/CSS knowledge): bit.ly/11dtXv6#CISPABlackout
— Anonymous (@YourAnonNews) April 22, 2013
Exceptions include the nonprofit Fight for the Future, which has tweeted solidarity but has not blacked out its site. Another is Stan Lee’s Comikaze, the comic book convention backed by the former Marvel Comics head honcho, which has blacked out its site.
A Reddit Divided
Reddit itself appears conflicted over the CISPA blackout. Some Reddit sections, aka subreddits, have switched their background color to black and added a CISPA protest banner and link, but have stopped short of a full blackout that would inconvenience users by obscuring links. As of about 11am PT, subreddits including “pics,” “politics,” “funny,” “askreddit” and “technology”) have black backgrounds, although their listed links remain visible in the foreground. Reddit’s front page and subreddits such as “news” and “worldnews” remain un-blackened.
It’s a clear case of the hacker collective overestimating its influence, as my ReadWrite colleague Dan Rowinski suggested to me in chat earlier today. “Without Reddit, it is just Anonymous proclaiming something into its own echo chamber,” he wrote.
It also doesn’t help that Internet firms themselves are divided on CISPA. Microsoft and Facebook may have recently walked back their support for the bill — which, by the way, faces a veto threat from President Obama — but Google hasn’t taken a position. And a rogue’s gallery of telcos, ISPs and other tech firms support CISPA.
CISPA threatens our privacy by essentially giving the government a blank check to monitor all of our online communication, without a warrant. So a sign of solidarity blacking out the Web would be a good thing. But it seems the collective isn’t as influential in garnering support as it is when its making cyberattacks. Which is too bad, because this mission would actually be a good thing.
Below is a video from Anonymous explaining more about the blackout:
If you want to contact your local senator or congressperson, check out this list of contact information from Anonymous. Here’s some background on Anonymous’ plans and how you can further support the blackout.
Lead image via Imgur, although it’s circulating across the Internet and its provenance is unknown
View full post on ReadWrite
German Privacy Regulator Fines Google Over Street View Data Collection, Calls For Tougher Financial Penalties
Apr 22nd
A fine of 145,000 EUR (roughly $189,000) is trivial for Google. But that’s close to the maximum fine allowed by German law ($150,000 EUR). The fine is being imposed on Google for violations of German privacy and data protection laws stemming from the so-called “WiSpy” episode in…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
