Combing through more than two dozen public and private resources on the Web, this author not only found a vast amount of their private information available (name, address, SS#, identifying photographs, family info) but also a fair amount of inaccuracies and outdated details.
Hugh Pickens writes “Greece’s Data Protection Authority, which has broad powers of enforcement for Greece’s strict privacy laws, has banned Google from gathering detailed, street-level images in Greece for a planned expansion of its Street View mapping service, until the company provides clarification on how it will store and process the original images and safeguard them from privacy abuses. The decision comes despite Google’s assurances that it would blur faces and vehicle license plates when displaying the images online and that it would promptly respond to removal requests. In most cases, particularly in the US, Google has been able to proceed on grounds that the images it takes are no different from what someone walking down a public street can see and snap. And last month, Britain’s privacy watchdog dismissed concerns that Street View was too invasive, saying it was satisfied with such safeguards as obscuring individuals’ faces and car license plates. The World Privacy Forum, a US-based nonprofit research and advisory group, said the Greek decision could raise the standard for other countries and help challenge that argument. ‘It only takes one country to express a dissenting opinion,’ says Pam Dixon, the group’s executive director. ‘If Greece gets better privacy than the rest of the world then we can demand it for ourselves. That’s why it’s very important.'”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
gerddie writes “Cryptohippie has published what may be called a first attempt to describe the ‘electronic police state’ (PDF). Based on information available from different organizations such as Electronic Privacy Information Center, Reporters Without Borders, and Freedom House, countries were rated on 17 criteria with regard to how close they are already to an electronic police state. The rankings are for 2008. Not too surprisingly, one finds China, North Korea, Belarus, and Russia at the top of the list. But the next slots are occupied by the UK (England and Wales), the US, Singapore, Israel, France, and Germany.” This is a good start, but it would be good to see details of their methodology. They do provide the raw data (in XLS format), but no indication of the weightings they apply to the elements of “electronic police state” behavior they are scoring.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Village Idiot sends word of a patent granted to MIT researchers for a cone of silence a la Maxwell Smart. This one doesn’t use plastic, but rather active and networked sensors and speakers embedded in a (probably indoor) space such as an open-plan office. “In “Get Smart” secret agents wanting a private conversation would deploy the ‘cone of silence,’ a clear plastic contraption lowered over the agents’ heads. It never worked — they couldn’t hear each other, while eavesdroppers could pick up every word. Now a modern cone of silence that we are assured will work is being patented by engineers Joe Paradiso and Yasuhiro Ono of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. … Instead of plastic domes, they use a sensor network to work out where potential eavesdroppers are, and speakers to generate a subtle masking sound at just the right level. … The array of speakers… aims a mix of white noise and randomized office hubbub at the eavesdroppers. The subtle, confusing sound makes the conversation unintelligible.” One comment thread on the article wonders about the propriety of tracking people around an office in order to preserve privacy.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
An anonymous reader writes with a report about programs revealed in the Department of Justice’s 2010 budget request, which includes 3.9 million in funding for an “Advanced Electronic Surveillance” project, and .6 million to establish the Biometric Technology Center. The surveillance project is designed to help the FBI “deal with changing technology and ways to intercept phone calls such as those used by VOIP phones or technology such as Skype. The program is also conducting research on ways to conduct automated analysis to look for links between subjects of surveillance and other investigative suspects.” The Center for Democracy and Technology’s Jim Dempsey warns, “It is appropriate for the FBI to develop more and more powerful interception tools, but the privacy laws that are supposed to guide and limit the use of those tools have not kept pace.” The biometrics plan lays groundwork for a “vast database of personal data including fingerprints, iris scans and DNA which the FBI calls the Next Generation Identification,” a system we have discussed in the past.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Library associations are warning that a settlement in a lawsuit brought against Google by authors and publishers could threaten “fundamental library values of access, equity, privacy, and intellectual freedom.” The groups, which represent more than 139,000 U.S. libraries, argue that the agreement could leave Google too powerful in the…
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes “In a Boston RIAA case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Court has issued a detailed protective order establishing strict protocols for the RIAA’s requested inspection of the defendant’s hard drive, in order to protect the defendant’s privacy. The order (PDF) provides that the hard drive will be turned over to a computer forensics expert of the RIAA’s choosing, for mirror imaging, but that only the forensics expert — and not the plaintiffs or their attorneys — will be able to examine the mirror image. The forensics expert will then issue a report which will describe (a) any music files found on the drive, (b) any file-sharing information associated with each file, and any other records of file-sharing activity, and (c) any evidence that the hard-drive has been ‘wiped’ or erased since the initiation of the litigation. The expert will be precluded from examining ‘any non-relevant files or data, including … emails, word-processing documents, PDF documents, spreadsheet documents, image files, video files, or stored web-pages.'”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
An innocent-looking IQ test on Facebook is really a test of your privacy savvy. And ability to read tiny, tiny print.
An anonymous reader writes “A team of researchers at UC Santa Barbara have hijacked the infamous Torpig botnet for 10 days. They have released a report (PDF) that describes how that was done and the data they collected. They observed more than 180K infected machines (this is the number of actual bots, not just IP addresses), collected 70GB of data stolen by the Torpig trojan, extracted almost 10K bank accounts and credit card numbers worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in the underground market, and examined the privacy threats that this trojan poses to its victims. Considering that Torpig has been around at least since 2006, isn’t it time to finally get rid of it?”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Vincent West writes with this excerpt from The Register: “Spy chiefs are already spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a mass internet surveillance system, despite Jacqui Smith’s announcement earlier this week that proposals for a central warehouse of communications data had been dumped on privacy grounds. The system — uncovered today by The Register and The Sunday Times — is being installed under a GCHQ project called Mastering the Internet (MTI). It will include thousands of deep packet inspection probes inside communications providers’ networks, as well as massive computing power at the intelligence agency’s Cheltenham base, ‘the concrete doughnut.'”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
