Google chief warns of Internet imperiling privacy

Very interesting.

"But Mr Schmidt is completely right on how much information we are giving away online. Right now there are millions of young kids and teenagers who, when they apply for jobs in 10 years' time, will find that there is so much embarrassing stuff about them online that they cannot take down."

Those who wish to delete what they have put up online, meanwhile, may find it next to impossible to entirely erase their cyber past.

"What many people do not realise is that as soon as you put something up online you lose possession and control of that information immediately," said Rik Fergusson, a cyber security expert at Trend Micro. "Anyone can download, store and distribute that information, it's out of your hands."

Ms Snyder, a trainee teacher, had passed all her exams and completed her training. Her academic record was unblemished. That is, until her final summer, when her teachers – out of the blue – deemed that the behaviour she had displayed in her personal life was unbecoming of a teacher.

Her crime? She had uploaded an image of herself, wearing a pirate costume and drinking from a plastic cup on to a social networking site with the caption: "drunken pirate."

Ms Snyder never got the certificate she needed to teach and an attempt to sue the university for it was unsuccessful.

Read More......

Your cell phone photos may be stalking you

Kind of creepy.

When Adam Savage, host of the popular science program “MythBusters,” posted a picture on Twitter of his automobile parked in front of his house, he let his fans know much more than that he drove a Toyota Land Cruiser.

Instructions on how to disable the geotagging feature of an Android phone.
Embedded in the image was a geotag, a bit of data providing the longitude and latitude of where the photo was taken. Hence, he revealed exactly where he lived. And since the accompanying text was “Now it’s off to work,” potential thieves knew he would not be at home.

Security experts and privacy advocates have recently begun warning about the potential dangers of geotags, which are embedded in photos and videos taken with GPS-equipped smartphones and digital cameras. Because the location data is not visible to the casual viewer, the concern is that many people may not realize it is there; and they could be compromising their privacy, if not their safety, when they post geotagged media online.

Read More......

TSA is saving some of those body image scan pics they said they wouldn't save

But don't worry, they're only saving the 35,000 pictures that supposedly don't show anything - they won't save the really scary photos, like the one above (they say) - but why are they saving any of them at all, when they said they wouldn't? And why did it take a Freedom of Information Act request to find out that they were breaking their own promise, if they're not up to anything nefarious?

(Here's Chris' earlier post on why body scanners don't even work anyway.) Read More......

Do you believe young people don't care about privacy?

It's an interesting debate down in Australia. With so much personal data willingly published online, it doesn't sound like a stretch to make the claim that younger people have less of an interest in personal privacy. A younger (~30 years old) colleague posts almost everything online about his life including his specific location via Google. Maybe it's the older generation who worry too much about it? What's your take?

YOUNG people do not care about their privacy and there is little reason to protect it, according to the former Victorian police commissioner Christine Nixon.

They use Twitter and Facebook, she said. They appear on Big Brother. There has been a generational shift.

''Young people don't seem to be bothered,'' she said at last night's IQ2 debate, organised by the St James Ethics Centre and sponsored by the Herald. ''These arguments about protecting people's privacy: in many cases people don't care about their privacy being protected.''

Read More......

Does Australia want to link Internet browsing history to passports?

Creepy, if true though ZDNet is not a fly-by-night source. The Rudd government is getting into some very disturbing territory. It's even more extreme than the EU monitoring.

Last week we were duly shocked by the discovery that the government is looking into a proposal to make ISPs retain a log of every website you ever visit. Now it’s coming out that they may want ISPs to link that information to other personal data like your passport number.

Ben Grubb over at ZDNet broke the original story, and yesterday followed it up with a deeper insight into the proposed scheme. While the government is denying it would capture individual browsing histories, unnamed sources from ISPs are saying that the original data set sent to ISPs from the government said that they’d require allied personal information, including passport numbers.

Read More......

3 states make it illegal to film a cop (lest you catch him breaking the rules/law)

That's outrageous:

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

I remember hearing of an attempt to do this in Europe - I want to say France - a few years back. Does anyone remember the details? Read More......

Google debating releasing facial recognition technology

Take a photo of a stranger, upload it to Google, and find out everything about the person. That's what we're talking about. It's incredibly cool, and incredibly creepy. But even if Google holds off, others are already working on the same thing. The only thing that could truly stop such technology from going public would be national laws against privacy, like they have in Europe - and like we do NOT have in the United States. Read More......

Tens of thousands of people to be sued for illegally downloading 'Hurt Locker' movie

They're talking 50,000 people. Via Boing Boing:

After filing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs must subpoena ISP records in an effort to match IP addresses with illicit behavior on BitTorrent. According to lawyers at Dunlap's firm, 75 percent of ISPs have cooperated fully. Those that have resisted are mostly doing so, they say, because of the amount of work involved in handing over thousands of names. But the clock may be ticking. For example, in the lawsuit over "Far Cry," Comcast has until next Wednesday to file motions to quash subpoenas. (Here's the stipulation by the parties.) By the end of next week, thousands of Comcast subscribers could be turned over.

Read More......

Even the public toilets in London have video cameras

Besides being like a police state, how do they even manage to monitor so many cameras? They've surely crossed the point of being able to properly monitor all of the cameras but that was no doubt long ago. Do they even care about public privacy at all? Click through to see the photos of the cameras. Creepy. (H/T to reader Bruce.)

You can imagine my surprise after I paid my 50pence to use the public bathroom, walked in and found myself staring at not just one but three ceiling mounted video surveillance cameras. I had to get real close to their enclosures to convince myself that I wasn't seeing things. Not only was it really there, but it was a Pan-Tilt-Zoom model with a microphone to top it off. Must get some great noises coming from there. It has also been reported that London officials are now installing cameras with speakers to allow them to talk as well as see and listen. Perhaps its just me, but I had absolutely no idea that this was legal anywhere, let alone in downtown London, UK. Sure I knew that London has more cameras per square mile than any other country on the planet, but in bathrooms?! How are they getting away with that one? It is appalling!

According to the London Assembly of Liberal Democrats, London has been outfitted with over 500,000 surveillance cameras. Other put the number much higher at 1.4million cameras but nobody is telling what the real number is. Another few 10,000 cameras have been installed in taxis and police cars as well.

Read More......

Airport worker warned after photographing body-scan

Only warned? Wasn't this not even supposed to be possible? Nice job protecting personal privacy and a simple warning is a joke.

The police have issued a warning for harassment against an airport worker after he allegedly took a photo of a female colleague as she went through a full-body scanner at Heathrow airport.

The incident, which occurred at terminal 5 on 10 March, is believed to be the first time an airport worker has been formally disciplined for misusing the scanners.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Police received an allegation regarding an incident that happened at Heathrow Terminal 5 on March 10. A first-instance harassment warning has been issued to a 25-year-old male."

The BAA employee took a photo of his co-worker, Jo Margetson, when she inadvertently went through a scanner.

"I can't bear to think about the body scanner thing," she told the Sun. "I'm totally traumatised. I've spoken to the police about it. I'm in too much of a state to go to work."

NOTE FROM JOHN: How much you want to bet he used his cell phone to snap the photo? I warned this would happen when all the govt officials warned that it would impossible to make a recording of the images. Uh, cell phones, people. Chris is right, the guy should be fired. Otherwise, they just sent the message that everyone is permitted to photograph one naked passenger with impunity. Read More......

Identity fraud increased last year

There are few easy answers but the numbers are heading in the wrong direction and that needs to change. CNBC:

Javelin's annual survey shows that the number of identity fraud victims rose 12 percent to 11.1 million adults last year, and the value of the fraud has increased by 12.5 percent to $54 billion. That's the highest level since the survey was started in 2003.

"This is not a crime of individuals or petty thieves," said Michael Stanfield, CEO of Intersections, one of the survey's sponsors.

According to Stanfield, there is a increase in the number of crime rings — many often working out of Eastern European countries — who are using very organized methods of stealing personal information and using it to conduct identity fraud.

Read More......

Heathrow staff printing out and sharing naked body image scans of airline passengers

Well that didn't take long. Chris mentioned this the other day, but I just saw another article on it, and it's really pretty horrifying. (And for background, I posted photos a while back of just what these body scans show. And Chris posted a video showing how ineffective these scanners really are.)

Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.

UK Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said last week that the images produced by the scanners were deleted “immediately” and airport staff carrying out the procedure are fully trained and supervised.

Lord Adonis?

“I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You’ve got to see them. It makes you embarrassed – if you’re not well endowed,” said Khan, referring to how the scans produce clear images of a person’s genitals.

“You walk into the machine and everything – the whole outline of your body – comes out,” he said.

“I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls – they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said ‘give them to me’ – and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them,” stated Khan.

The story was carried by Yahoo News under the headline “Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow”.
Khan’s reference to “girls” with printouts of his naked body scan can only refer to female airport security staff responsible for processing the images produced by the scanners, “professionals” who are supposed to instantly delete the images, according to Lord Adonis.

Are the staff who check the body image scanners permitted to have cell phones? Because if they do, they're still going to take pictures. Not to mention, I thought we were told that not only would these body image scanners not being able to retain a picture, but we were also told that the staff would be in a back room somewhere, totally oblivious to who the individual passengers really were. Then how did they know it was famous Bollywood guy? Read More......

So much for privacy and body scans

That didn't take long. Will everyone else be as amused?

Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan isn't intimidated by the full body-scan machines that have been recently installed at London's airports - in fact, he's been signing off printouts of his X-rays.

Khan, appearing on 'Friday Night With Jonathan Ross' - one of British television's most popular weekend shows - revealed he's been turning the controversial security machines into a public relations opportunity at London's Heathrow airport.

Read More......

Airline passengers in UK not allowed to refuse body scan

The bad guys must be thrilled with how much they've disrupted the western so-called democracies. It's bad enough that the body scanners may not even be effective, but to have no choice about accepting them is salt in the wound. What ever happened to respect for privacy in the West? Police state much?

Airline passengers will have no right to refuse to go through a full-body search scanner when the devices are introduced at Heathrow airport next week, ministers have confirmed.

The option of having a full-body pat-down search instead, offered to passengers at US airports, will not be available despite warnings from the government's Equality and Human Rights Commission that the scanners, which reveal naked bodies, breach privacy rules under the Human Rights Act.

The transport minister Paul Clark told MPs a random selection of passengers would go through the new scanners at UK airports. The machines' introduction would be followed later this year by extra "trace" scanners, which can detect liquid explosives. A draft code of practice covering privacy and health issues is being discussed in Whitehall.

Read More......

UK to promote CCTV in the sky

This is nuts and when they mention "protesters" you really have to wonder. In recent protests the British government has been known to go well overboard and there's nothing that suggests this will be different. They're obsessed with creating a police state and monitoring everything. Another victory for democracy, huh?

Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the ­"routine" monitoring of antisocial motorists, ­protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.

The arms manufacturer BAE Systems, which produces a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for war zones, is adapting the military-style planes for a consortium of government agencies led by Kent police.

Read More......

Banks now checking your Twitter and Facebook activity to see if you're worthy of getting a loan

Please write financially secure comments to this post:

Your social networking chit-chat could have an impact on your credit - specifically on whether banks think you are worthy of a loan.

Creditors are checking out what you post to your Facebook and Twitter accounts. They're checking out who your friends are and who the people are in your networks.

The presumption is that if your friends are responsible credit cardholders and pay their bills on time, you could be a good credit customer...

How long until health insurance companies do the same?

The banks claim they're just checking you out for "marketing" purposes, then they admit it's actually about whether to give you loans or credit:

Pretty much everything you and your network reveal may be compiled, including status updates, "tweets," joining online clubs, linking a Web site or posting a comment on a blog or news Web site....

Another reason credit issuers are looking to this data is to reduce lending risk. Social graphs allow credit issuers to know if you're connected to a community of great credit customers. Creditors can see if people in your network have accounts with them, and are free to look at how they are handling those accounts.

The presumption is that if those in your network are responsible cardholders, there is a better chance you will be, too. So, if a bank is on the fence about whether to extend you credit, you may become eligible if those in your network are good credit customers.

"Credit card companies have been stung very hard during this downturn, and they're going to work that much harder to avoid extending credit to people with a high level of predictable losses," says Ken Clark, author of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Boosting Your Financial IQ." "Social graphs can preemptively cut the amount of charge-offs by not giving high-risk people a card. It may translate into hundreds of millions of dollars industry wide."

Read More......

Is privacy no longer a social norm?

Sounds hard to believe but it also makes me wonder how much longer this phase will last. Is privacy really irrelevant now?

The rise of social networking online means that people no longer have an expectation of privacy, according to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Talking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco this weekend, the 25-year-old dotcom chief executive of the world's most popular social network said that privacy was no longer a "social norm".

"People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people," he said. "That social norm is just something that has evolved over time."

Read More......

Body scans violate UK child porn laws

In addition, they fear the sale of celebrity body scans. I'm still wondering whether the machines are helpful of a big waste of time. If they're not effective and would not have stopped the Christmas underwear bomber, why bother? The Guardian:

Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.

Read More......

Internet and phone companies aren't just spying on us, they're making money doing it

From WIRED:

He found that Cox Communications charges $2,500 to fulfill a pen register/trap-and-trace order for 60 days, and $2,000 for each additional 60-day-interval. It charges $3,500 for the first 30 days of a wiretap, and $2,500 for each additional 30 days. Thirty days worth of a customer’s call detail records costs $40.

Comcast’s pricing list, which was already leaked to the internet in 2007, indicated that it charges at least $1,000 for the first month of a wiretap, and $750 per month thereafter.

But Verizon and Yahoo took offense at the request.

Doesn't making a profit off of disclosing our private communications to the government put these companies in a conflict of interest, as it pertains to protecting our privacy? Read More......

T-Mobile customer data stolen and sold

Stealing millions of customer details is bad enough but it's interesting to see that other vendors purchased the stolen data. Somehow the buyers of that data are being given a free pass. The stolen data was sent over to telemarketers who have been hammering away at clients since they have the full details on when their old contract expired. What could possibly go wrong there?

Personal details of thousands of mobile phone customers have been stolen and sold to rival firms in the biggest data breach of its kind, the government's privacy watchdog said today.

An employee of phone operator T-Mobile sold the customer records, including details of when contracts expired. The millions of items of information were sold on for "substantial sums", the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said. Rival networks and mobile phone retailers then tried to lure away T-Mobile customers by "cold calling".

Read More......