Archive for the ‘Privacy’ Category

Inside Facebook

Sunday, December 4th, 2011

I just caught the last half of a documentary about Facebook, which was fairly decent despite being on the BBC. This link should show you when it’s repeated:

Mark Zuckerberg: Inside FacebookMark Zuckerberg: Inside Facebook TV Schedule

Decent in that I learned something about the various business models that I didn’t know. And the journalist talked about technical details of a subject I understand without being wrong, which is rare. And it wasn’t a hatchet job about the dangers and risks and general awfulness of Facebook and business in general.

In fact the criticism of Facebook was pretty weak. If I “like” a company on Facebook, it can pay to display adverts to my friends that say, “Rob Fisher likes [company]“. This could be construed as using me in an advert without my consent. Or maybe not. The documentary did not seem to have a strong opinion.

And there were academics interviewed who made arguments such as: by keeping in touch with more people, we are having fewer close friendships. Well, anyone can tell for themselves whether that is true, and whether it is a problem.

But the best bits were the bits explaining how Facebook makes money. This included a demonstration of the information available to someone creating an advert. The example was a product for brides, and showed how various filters could be applied (“female”, “engaged”, “interested in beauty”) to see how many people would see the advert. This looked powerful. But not as powerful as the use of Facebook to talk to customers. This segment concentrated on companies’ attempts to get people to leave comments on their pages so that the comments get shown to friends, thereby generating a kind of word-of-mouth advert.

It strikes me that the best way for a company to use Facebook is to let your employees have real conversations, like real people. The documentary didn’t really go there, unfortunately.

Nothing to Hide

Tuesday, December 6th, 2005

nothing to fear, eh?

DVLA and ID

Wednesday, November 30th, 2005

ThePresentOccupier sent me a link to a story in the Times about the DVLA’s respect for the data protection act.

The DVLA…

…has been forced to hand over its list of the 157 companies registered to buy personal information about drivers — the list includes bailiffs, debt collection agencies and financial services companies. DVLA bleats that it is obliged — under an undebated Statutory Instrument of 2002 — to sell the information to anyone with “reasonable cause”. Well, almost anyone can claim that a car might park in their space. Thus a credit company, which bombards us all with mailshots offering loans, is on the list because it’s got a company car park. Nor does DVLA check that it is not selling the list to people with criminal records: it deals with Aquarius Security — clampers whose management were found guilty of blackmail at Bristol Crown Court and given prison sentences. One of them was already on an ASBO after being accused of driving his truck into a 60-year-old man, breaking his knee. They clamped one young woman’s car in the middle of a three-point turn. But the DVLA saw nothing wrong in selling that company addresses for £2.50 each so that they could find other citizens to harass.

And here’s the nub:

But what is less amusing is that this piece of roughshod arrogance, done in the interests of tackling only the moderate nuisance of bad parking, throws a lurid light on what could happen to our privacy if we get ID cards to boost the “war on terror”.

As TPO pointed out, it’s not a matter of could, but will.

Speed Limiters

Monday, August 22nd, 2005

The Telegraph has an article headlined, “Speed of cars ‘will be limited by computer’.”

The Government is examining the results of research into “intelligent speed adaptation technology” carried out by the Institute for Transport Studies at Leeds University.

I think you can see where this is going. Between this, satellite road charging and retention of mobile phone geographical data, they’ll know where you are pretty much all the time. Currently, “there are no plans to make it compulsory.” At least until, say, a small child is killed by a speeding idiot and everyone decides that Something Must Be Done.

I can just imagine the effect this will have on people’s driving too. Merging could be extremely hazardous, not just because drivers won’t be able to control their speed properly but because the expectation of that lack of control will make them more hesitant. And my experiences of satellite navigation do not fill me with confidence that the system will work very well. What happens you find yourself doing 30MPH on the motorway because the system thinks you’re on an adjacent road?

The only good thing about this is that people might start barking up the right tree for once and demand that ridiculous speed limits are corrected or abolished entirely.

Data Retention

Monday, August 22nd, 2005

…Not a new medical condition, but another in a long line of invasive ideas cooked up by authoritarians. Suw Charman has an article describing it in depth:

The UK, France, Ireland and Sweden are trying to push a directive on data retention through into EU legislation which would force all member countries to compel all telecommunications and internet service providers to save information about the use of their services by us, the public (document 8958/2004). They say that this is for ‘the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences including terrorism’, but whilst it would have far-reaching consequences, the benefits appear to be non-existent.

The data they want to retain includes web sites visited, addressees of emails and the mast your mobile phone is talking to (meaning that your approximate location would be recorded as long as your phone is switched on).

If that doesn’t immediately send chills down your spine, then it should. In short, the government will be keeping track of all your conversations and communications, and the cost of that spying is going to show up on your phone bill. But worse will be the damage to your civil and human rights. The lack of any meaningful checks and balances in the system means that there’s a high risk of abuse not just from the government, but potentially from the private sector too. And the benefits from all this will be negligible at best, illusory at worst.

Suw goes on to explain who wants the data (everyone including the Postal Services Commission); what it will cost; how useful it will (or rather won’t) be for law enforcement; why the directive might be illegal; why you should care (item 6 is poignant); and what you can do about it.

It’s all too familiar — so many of the arguments for and against ID cards are the same — and I’m sure we can expect a lot more of this type of thing. Suw writes, “precedents will have been set and future amendments or new directives will only become more and more draconian”. We are already a long way down that road.

ID Cards Update

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003

The BBC have one of their Have Your Say items on the subject of ID cards. Many of the people in favour of ID cards seem to be idiots with no imagination. Darren, UK, and numerous others peddle the nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear argument. Natalie Solent has come up with a dozen reasons a law abiding person might have something to hide, and plenty to fear.

Chris Pope, England, is clearly not engaging his brain when he writes, “Anything that could possibly be used to reduce illegal immigration and that could help to cut crimes such as credit card fraud should be embraced whole heartedly.” The emphasis is mine. I don’t think it needs further explanation.

A couple of the comments more or less summarise my own views on ID cards. Paul, UK writes about the risks:

Just ask yourself this: do you trust the government? Local government? The possible next government, or the government after that? Do you trust the police? Do you believe that the government has YOUR best interests at heart all the time? Do you believe that the system will never ever make mistakes? Surely you should bear all this in mind when you demand ID cards, because people are not infallible – what if a mistake is made somewhere? Your ID card might accidentally get mixed up with that of a wanted criminal, or a terrorist. People who want ID cards are naive and dangerous and don’t believe in freedom.

Kevin Crocombe, UK, writes about the lack of benefits:

A card will clearly not deter criminals (why would it?) and most illegal immigrants work illegally without any paperwork, so it won’t deter them and it’s doubtful that an NHS hospital is not going to refuse treatment to someone in great pain regardless of what a piece of plastic says. So what have we got? Not a lot – another erosion of what few rights and freedoms that we “subjects” not “citizens” have.

Update: White Rose has a cautionary tale about the dangers of CCTV. A man is accused of vandalism because he appeared on a CCTV tape near a car that had been keyed.

Government Nosy Parkers

Monday, September 15th, 2003

White Rose is the civil liberties wing of Samizdata. It covers issues like ID cards, and can make for a somewhat depressing read.

In it, we learn:

Worst of all, it seems as if no matter how much people protest and complain to get legislation thrown out, the government never gives up. Will there eventually be nowhere to hide?

Correction: Blunkett does not want to read your emails (yet), he merely wants to retain “catalogues of Web sites visited, records of e-mail recipients, lists of telephone numbers dialled, and the geographical location of mobile phones at all times they were switched on”, according to The Register.

GSM Cracked

Monday, September 15th, 2003

This week’s New Scientist has a story about the discovery of a serious flaw in the encryption mechanism used by GSM phones. The gist is that the error correcting code allows for a known plaintext attack. There are two strengths of encryption used in GSM, depending on the signal quality. The low strength encryption can be broken just by analysing a recording of one call. The high strength encryption requires the cracker to obtain the key by sending commands to the phone in the same way a base station would.

The New Scientist‘s web site carries an edited version of the article.