November 14, 2012
I don’t know if this write up is accurate. Navigate to “Privacy Issue: Google Docs Seems to Not Delete but Only Hide Documents When the Trash Is Emptied.” The main point of the write up is that content which a user may have wanted to make go away has not gone away. In database deletions, a similar issue exists until the database is spiffed up to make the space hogging deletions go the way of the dodo. Even then, it is possible to roll back a database or just restore it to a previous state. So what’s gone may not be gone.
Here’s a passage I noted:
The good thing is that Google Docs is still in Beta and things can change until it goes into release mode. But chances are higher that something will happen when we bring our privacy concerns to the attention of Google and also to the attention of all others that are offering to us either free or paid services on the Web. It is our responsibility. Let us choose wisely what and what not we are using as the the core of our personal information infrastructure.
I admire optimism. What surprises me is that someone finds this non deletion anything other than standard operating procedure. The original Norton’s Utilities removed those pesky “?”s so that deleted files were suddenly not deleted. Magic.
If I had the energy, I would ask questions about the deployment of link analysis and intercept tools across deleted data. But, I am 68 and it is late in the afternoon. I assume that nothing untoward will be done with deleted user data. The world is just getting better with each passing day. Oh, I have to limp to the TV. More information about the email buzz and consequences concerning a certain former government official, a writer who can do more pushups than I can, and a wild and crazy family in Florida. Now that’s a state I admire with or without email shenanigans.
Stephen E Arnold, November 14, 2012
October 25, 2012
The article asserts that by handing the case to the French data protection commissioner, the EU has signaled that it means business. France’s CNIL is considered more aggressive than its counterparts in other countries, like the UK’s ICO. Writer Charles Arthur consulted privacy expert Chris Watson, who opined:
“By putting the CNIL in charge of this, the EU was going for blood. It was a declaration of intent. . . . The point is that Google is an international company which is leveraging its power in the browser and its other services in a way that affects national businesses all over the EU. There’s great political importance in the data protection commissioners doing something.”
“Google brought together separate ‘silos’ of data collected from services such as its search service, YouTube and Maps into a single datastore so that it could tailor adverts and content more closely. Google said then the new policy would simplify the user experience, and said it was confident it had obeyed ‘all European data protection laws and principles’.”
It is? Many seem to disagree with that assessment. I suppose whether Google has obeyed those laws will be up to the CNIL to decide.
Cynthia Murrell, October 25, 2012
August 30, 2012
A new technology tested in the Poderopedia project completely changes the meaning of “Big Brother is Watching.” The tools are first being run in Chile to promote transparency. Data storage and queries are being used to map out and visualize the different relationships between Chile’s most influential people. The article, The Semantics Behind Poderopedia tells us a little more:
“These technologies allow us to represent a diverse set of relations between entities (people, companies, organizations) in a flexible way. The goal is to identify and express relations of power and influence of people and organizations…we added many new classes and subclasses of connections. This may sound trivial, but it involved a lot of debate and the hard work of our entire team before we could show it to others — with the hope that it could be a small contribution to the open-source community.”
This is a very interesting way to implement the use of these semantic technologies – and if the logistics of Poderopedia are of interest there is a link on the article to more details, which is a recommended quick read. Of course, it is safe to assume that if it works in Chile it’s only a matter of time before it spreads to other countries, including the US. But, here in the states it appears that invasion of privacy could come to the forefront in the execution of this kind of technology.
Edie Marie, August 30, 2012
August 29, 2012
Ex-Facebook employee Katherine Losse has become a rebel, of sorts. The Washington Post declares, “Refugee from Facebook Questions The Social Media Life.” The former Zuckerberg ghostwriter found herself growing uncomfortable with the level of privacy invasion her employer, and other tech companies, were engaged in. So, she cashed in some of her valuable Facebook stock, moved to a tiny Texas town, and wrote a tell-all: “The Boy Kings: A Journey Into the Heart of the Social Network”. Oh, and she took down her own Facebook page. For a little while, at least.
Losse cites an encounter with a colleague, an engineer who was working on video-upload functionality. She tells us he made, and circulated on an internal Facebook page, a video of her napping in a car during a road trip. The article relates:
“‘The day before, I could just be in a car being in a car. Now my being in a car is a performance that is visible to everyone,’ Losse said, exasperation creeping into her voice. ‘It’s almost like there is no middle of nowhere anymore.’
Losse began comparing Facebook to the iconic 1976 Eagles song ‘Hotel California,’ with its haunting coda, ‘You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.’ She put a copy of the record jacket on prominent display in a house she and several other employees shared not far from the headquarters.”
Ah, the Eagles; it is a classic song. The article spends some time discussing Losse’s book, Facebook in general, and Losse’s new home in Marfa, NC. Not a bad read, even if it does have a bit of a conspiracy-theory feel to it. It wraps up with a description of Losses’ current search for balance in her own life between technology and the real world. Touching.
Cynthia Murrell, August 29, 2012
August 10, 2012
Informatica provides us with some interesting information on perceptions of the personal data issue in “UK Consumers Rank Top Contributors to Personal Data Deluge.” The data integration company commissioned a survey of over 2,000 consumers in the UK in May 2012 in order to discover their attitudes and behaviors when it comes to sharing personal data with businesses. Not surprisingly, young people were found to be the least reluctant to hand over personal information; they are also the group most ready to accept that supplying such data can result in better service.
Some highlights of the report include:
“*Only 35 per cent of UK adults trust businesses to use their personal data as directed by them. . . .
*59 per cent of 18 to 24 year olds and 48 per cent of 25 to 34 year olds agreed that if businesses provided clearer explanations of why they wanted their personal data, and what it will be used for, they would be more inclined to give it to them.
*Further to that, almost one in ten (9%) of the younger generation (those aged 18 to 34) felt that the more personal information they provide a business with, the better the service they receive as a result.”
Another interesting finding: sixty-one percent of respondents chose their family doctor as the least likely to share their information with a third party. Facebook’s score on that question was the lowest, at thirteen percent. That high?
See the press release for more findings from the survey. Informatica’s take-away is that companies must communicate better with users about the ways in which they will use their data. I wonder, though; if the issue is a matter of trust, how much help will clearer language really be?
Informatica boasts that it is the world’s foremost independent provider of data integration software, with nearly 5,000 organizations using their products. Though the company has offices around the world, its headquarters can be found in Redwood City, California.
Cynthia Murrell, August 10, 2012
July 20, 2012
It seems that Facebook is following a path already trodden by some other big outfits. Google is also fighting crime. CNet News declares, “Facebook Scans Chats and Posts for Criminal Activity.” CNet’s Emil Protalinski cites a recent Reuters interview with Facebook’s Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan. The article explains:
“Facebook’s software focuses on conversations between members who have a loose relationship on the social network. . . . The scanning program looks for certain phrases found in previously obtained chat records from criminals, including sexual predators (because of the Reuters story, we know of at least one alleged child predator who is being brought before the courts as a direct result of Facebook’s chat scanning). The relationship analysis and phrase material have to add up before a Facebook employee actually looks at communications and makes the final decision of whether to ping the authorities.”
Sullivan emphasized that the technology’s low rate false-positives is crucial. Facebook wouldn’t want us non-criminals worrying about its employees poring through our communications for no good reason. The company also seems in no hurry to publicize this public service. Protalinski found no mention of the technology at either Facebook’s Law Enforcement and Third-Party Mattersor its Information for Law Enforcement Authorities.
Is Facebook just being modest about its role as a crime-stopper? More likely, they’re concerned users will get up in arms about those pesky “privacy issues.”
Cynthia Murrell, July XX, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
July 3, 2012
Corruption often lurks in the shadows of the corporate world, and even companies that start with the best of intentions often find traitors hidden within their midst. The Star Online recently published the article, ‘Ex-McKinsey CEO’s case highlights swapping of secrets in corporate world’ confirming that even the best kept secrets can be exposed when put in the right light.
What those on the outside seldom see is:
“It is easy for most people to dispense inside tips. After all, such information costs nothing and is a lifestyle where inside tips are the currency of friendships and elite business relationships. It sharply explains why corporate players are often willing to break the law to share confidential information.”
“In the clubby, high-powered corporate world, the ability to offer confidential information is definitely a way to stand out.”
Many companies include a non-disclosure agreement as part of the normal hiring process, but when nameless entities tell their tales in the shadows those legal agreements can become obsolete. It appears that executives are often unaware information has been leaked until it is too late.
The article provided a fascinating glimpse of the big time information exchange that takes place in today’s corporate world. The only true way to keep a company’s secrets intact is to keep them within the confines of the board room, and even then there are no guarantees. The old saying ‘loose lips sink ships’ rings true, especially in regards to the business world.
Jennifer Shockley, July 3, 2012
July 1, 2012
The Inquirer’s Dave Neal recently reported on the UK Government’s plans to violate the privacy of its citizens when using the Internet in the article “UK Government Details Its Internet Snooping Plans.”
According to the article, the UK Government is drafting a Communications Data Bill that will give them the authority to snoop on citizens Internet communications. The reasoning behind the sudden need to snoop is due to the fact that so many Internet users are criminals. Therefore, in order to stop the crimes committed by these seedy folks is to store social networking and email records.
Home Secretary Theresa May claims that it checking communications records rather than communications content is what saves lives on a daily basis.
“Communications data covered in the bill includes the time and duration of a communication, the number or email address of the originator and recipient and ‘sometimes’ the location of the device from which the communication was made. The Home Office says that the powers are ‘vital’, adding that they will ‘catch criminals, save lives and protect children’, and says this with a straight face.”
On the other side of things, a recent survey of IT managers and executives found that nearly half of respondents would steal proprietary data if they were fired tomorrow. 71 percent of respondents believe the insider threat is the priority security concern and poses the most significant business risk.
If this is the case, maybe the UK government isn’t completely out of line for wanting to keep a closer watch on its citizens.
Jasmine Ashton, July 1, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
June 25, 2012
Despite the company’s famous motto, Wired insists that “Google Is Evil.” Writer Rory O’Conner contends that Google‘s privacy violations, and attempts to cover them up, make them worthy of the epithet. Specifically, their Street View cars collected private data– from passwords to photos to emails– from anyone whose wireless signal it managed to pick up. When regulators called them on it, the company became defensive, defying and lying, according to FCC findings.
So, how can anyone trust Google? Or, for that matter, other giant data-mongers like Facebook? We can’t, of course, O’Conner insists. He writes:
“Small wonder that Google co-founder Larry Page is feeling ‘paranoid’, as the Associated Press recently reported. Why? As I detail in my new book ‘Friends, Followers and the Future: How Social Media are hanging Politics, Threatening Big Brands and Killing Traditional Media,’ as the new ‘contextual web’ takes the place of the data-driven web of the early 21st century, it will mean further bad news for Google — even though the company still sold $36.5 billion in advertising last year. Couple Google’s paranoia about Facebook and the evident failure of its latest social network, Google Plus, with its problems about privacy, trust and anti-trust, and it’s no surprise that executives are feeling paranoid. After all, they are facing the very real prospect of waging a defensive war on many fronts — social, privacy, and trust — simultaneously. Despite its incredible reach, power and profit, it’s a war that Google — the 21st century equivalent of the still-powerful but increasingly irrelevant Microsoft — may well be destined to lose, along with the trust its users have long extended to one of the world’s most powerful brands.”
Interesting conclusions. Stay tuned to see how this all plays out.
Cynthia Murrell, June 25, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
June 11, 2012
Things may not have went exactly as Oracle planned, but according to Lawmakers call on DOJ to reopen investigation into Google Wi-Fi spying it drew more unwanted glances in Google’s direction. The Silicon Valley titan has been attracting questionable looks in regards to its ‘flexibility’ regarding privacy and copy right policies.
“We are concerned that the facts uncovered by the FCC’s investigation put Google’s initial explanation of these events in question,” they wrote.
“While Google has called the snooping a mistake, the FCC report said Google’s actions resulted from a deliberate software-design decision of a Google employee who examined and evaluated the data that was collected and shared his findings with others at the company.”
“Privacy is a critical issue and neither Google’s influence nor size absolves it from responsibility.”
In April, the engineers of Google’s Street View service decided it should use the Street View cars for scanning Wi-Fi networks and war driving. The information gathered would benefit in the creation of maps of Wi-Fi hotspots. A code was also developed for collecting Wi-Fi payload data, for the future benefit of some Google services. One may question if Oracle achieved true victory. They definitely put Google back in the unhappy face of more government scrutiny.
Jennifer Shockley, June 11, 2012