Running Naked through the Internet category archive
Thom speaks on several off-beat topics, then discusses how your smartphone spies on you. The relevant portion starts at the five-minute mark.
El Reg reports that Disney is being sued:
According to the suit, the Disney apps for both iOS and Android do not ask for parental permission before they use software development kits that assign unique identifiers to users and then use those identifiers to track the location of the users, as well as activities in-game and across multiple devices. The data is then fed to advertisers to serve up targeted ads.
“In other words, the ability to serve behavioral advertisements to a specific user no longer turns upon obtaining the kinds of data with which most consumers are familiar (email addresses, etc), but instead on the surreptitious collection of persistent identifiers, which are used in conjunction with other data points to build robust online profiles,” the suit claims.
I wonder whether their defense will be, “All the other kids are doing it.”
. . . if your data is in the hands of the Republican National Committee and its symps, dupes, and fellow travelers.
The Republican Party strips your browsing habits nekkid. El Reg comments on the recent bill to allow your ISP to sell you to the highest bidder (emphasis added):
This approval means that whoever you pay to provide you with internet access – Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, etc – will be able to sell everything they know about your use of the internet to third parties without requiring your approval and without even informing you.
Your ISP already knows quite a lot about you: your name and address, quite possibly your age, and a host of other personally identifiable information such as your social security number. That’s on the customer information side. On the service side, they know which websites you visit, when, and how often.
That information can be used to build a very detailed picture of who you are: what your political and sexual leanings are; whether you have kids; when you are at home; whether you have any medical conditions; and so on – a thousand different data points that, if they have sufficient value to companies willing to pay for them, will soon be traded without your knowledge.
There may be a bright side. Perhaps someone will leak Congresscritters’ browsing histories.
Phishers have been snaring the sharing:
The malicious apps, which pose as tools for either managing or boosting Instagram follower numbers, are actually designed to phish for Instagram credentials. The stolen credentials allow hackers to abuse compromised accounts in order to distribute spam and ads, enriching crooks in the process.
Altogether the malicious apps have been installed by up to 1.5 million users, software security firm ESET reports.
The applications have been removed from the Play Store.
Details at the link.
We invite these gadgets into our homes without a thought to the implications.
Here’s another lawyer’s opinion (more at the link):
I struggle to see how the Echo evidence is not discoverable. If they have a warrant, they can toss your house. The Echo is part of the house. It’s a thing where information is stored. “Alexa, turn on the hot tub so I can drown this motherf**ker” seems like something that should be used as evidence against you.
You know what the Echo is not? Your wife. I don’t care how sexy the Echo voice is, you have no marital privilege with it. Your expectation of privacy when telling Echo to unlock the murder room should be no more than your expectation of privacy when writing down “I’ma kill that fool” in your diary.
I am cautious about who wants to collect all my data on the inner webs, but I realize I must deal with them in today’s world. The alternative is to cut your shoes off, learn to play the flute, and live in a tree.
Google is more trustworthy than many of its counterparts. One indication of this is that their TOS are in (at least relatively) plain language and short enough to display on one webpage.
(Open tag fixed.)
In the snares of the snaring economy:
In a declaration in support of his suit, Ward Spangenberg, 45, states he reported to Uber higher-ups that the company’s “lack of security regarding its customer data was resulting in Uber employees being able to track high profile politicians, celebrities, and even personal acquaintances of Uber employees, including ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, and ex-spouses.”
Spangenberg, who was hired by Uber in March 2015 as a forensic investigator, goes on to say, “Uber collected data regarding every ride a user requested, their username, the location the ride was requested from, the amount they paid, the device used to request the ride, the name and email of the customer, and a myriad of other data that the user may or may not know they were even providing Uber by requesting a ride.”
And that’s just for starts.
Uber, natch, is shocked! just shocked! that anyone would think there is gambling in their establishment . . . .
Writing at The Observer, Evgeny Morozov explores self-serving double standards of tech titans who would have you run naked through the internet while, secluded behind high walls with turrets and towers, they watch you cavort.
Here’s just a couple of examples; follow the link for much, much more.
Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google’s parent company Alphabet, tells us that if we have something to hide, maybe we shouldn’t be doing it in the first place; he himself prefers to live in a luxury building without a doorman – so that no one can see him come and go. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants us to practise openness and radical transparency; he himself purchases neighbouring houses to get as much privacy as possible.
They are digital carrion crows; under cover of providing a “service,” they pluck the bodies of their users and sell them for profit.*
In their world, openness is for others, a commodity to mined and traded.
*As the regards the “services” they provide, I would argue that Google’s search is far more valuable and useful to those who use it–it is an actual “service”–than, say, Facebook’s or Instagram’s nattering nurseries of narcissism.
Froma Harrop, reacting to the recent right-wing charges that Facebook is somehow jiggering its news feeds to favor liberal points of view,* finds a larger issue (emphasis added):
On the subject of political speech, let’s address reports that Facebook employees have been jiggering the site’s trending news to favor liberal political views. The claims are hard to assess in that the former Facebook news curators making them have gone nameless.
Whether the charges are true or not, Facebook is a private company entitled to dish out the news as it chooses. What disturbs me more is that a not-very-skeptical public is more and more willing to submit to a single source for news.
Her comments about Facebook as a “single source of news” apply doubly to Fox News as a single source of news. If it is true that Facebook from time to time has tilted the news–and I have no basis for even guessing, as I avoid Facebook whenever possible and wouldn’t consider it a source of news in any event–Fox routinely upends the news.
Follow the link for more.
*The true problem facing the right is that, if coverage is unbiased, the facts lean left.
At the Boston Review, Neil M. Richards has a long and reasonably even-handed look at the legal struggle between the FBI and Apple over cracking the San Bernadino shooters’ iPhone.
It defies excerpt or summary. If you want a clear and level-headed look, free of polemic, at this issue, give it a read.
Yes, there is such a thing, and it doesn’t have to be–er–improper photographs.
Mark Leigh, 54, of Failsworth, said his two bicycles – worth £500 ($750) and £1,000 ($1,500) – were nicked shortly after he made his address and details of his bikes public on the popular biking app Strava, the Manchester Evening News reports.
The app includes an optional privacy setting that conceals the exact location of your home, but Leigh was not aware of this switch when he shared details of his bike rides via the software.
There’s a reason I keep the GPS in my cell phone turned off. Putting aside outlying possibilities such as the above, it’s nobody’s business which grocery stores I use.