Facebook Scans for Criminals
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
Corporate Secrets, Not So Secret
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
Is the UK Taking Snooping to the Next Level?
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.
Neal writes:
“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
Does Google Need a New Motto? Nah.
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
After Oracle Victory, Google Now Faces More US Government Scrutiny
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.
According to Pallone and Barrow, Google may have “misled” Congress and federal investigators about the Wi-Fi snooping and:
“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
Can One Build an Ethical Medical Data Store?
June 10, 2012
There are many ways to gather data, some more scrupulous then others. Gaining permission to share personal history is the more ethical, but according to the article How to Build a Mountain of Patient Data: Don’t Ask for Permission, there’s a professional health loophole in regards to information sharing.
“One of the reasons Indiana has been successful is we haven’t over-regulated the private sector. It’s allowed the market to blossom. We were able to do a lot of that work when there was less scrutiny.”
Opinion, something about saying ‘private sector’ followed by ‘more work with less scrutiny’ just seems wrong.
According to Molly Butters of Indiana Health Information Exchange:
“The result is many patients may not know they’ve been included. And if they are aware, opting out is hard: Patients must be granted permission by their health care providers to opt out of the exchange. The number of people who opt out is few.”
Indiana has around 6.5 million residents over all. Indiana Health Information Exchange along with their exchanges, have requisitioned the medical information of 4.5 million of those residents.
Building a data store is necessary, but not at the cost of privacy. It seems Indiana has added the clause ‘can be shared throughout health industry’ to the HIPAA Act. How many professional librarians are comfortable with this approach? How many traditional publishers? How many of the Facebook generation? Let’s think about that… None, some or all?
Jennifer Shockley, 10, 2012
Facebook Explains Data Policies
May 22, 2012
Ah, Facebook and its content treasure trove. The New York Times reports, “Facebook Shares More About How It Uses Your Data.” The social behemoth has added new explanations about its content and privacy policies to the site’s Help tab.
Writer Somini Sengupta infers that the new disclosures may be in response to questions from certain European college students and the Irish Data Protection Office (which regulates Facebook’s European data policies.) Perhaps, but it seems to us that the clamor for transparency from Facebook began long ago. More likely, the timing has something to do with Facebook’s comparatively new Director of Privacy, Erin Egan. Ms. Egan was previously a partner and co-chair of the global privacy and data security division at a respected international law firm based in Washington, DC.
The write up informs us:
“The new explanations, available by clicking on the Help tab on the bottom of the Facebook home page, include one on how cookies work on the site and what information application developers receive when you download an app on the Facebook platform. The explanations also inform users about who can see what kinds of posts on their timelines.”
“‘We also provide more information about how we use data to operate Facebook, to advertise, and to promote safety and security for Facebook users,’ Ms. Egan wrote.”
Could the timing of these explanations, and the creation of the Director of Privacy position itself, have anything to do with Facebook going public? The company must now balance the specter of public scrutiny with its obligation to plump up profits for shareholders. Good luck with that.
Cynthia Murrell, May 22, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Was There a Google Identification Hiccup?
April 24, 2012
The Fail Blog is notorious for reporting incidents when humanity hysterically fails. Had they read ZDNet’s, “Larry Page’s Identity Crisis: The Dead Weight of Google+” they would have posted it on their front page with a giant “FAIL” in the corner. Google+ cannot compete with Facebook. No one is signing up for Google’s social networking site, so they are relying on advertising to bring in the people. Google claims 50 million people have signed onto the service, but they are counting anyone who signs up for active Google services. One can conclude the number is much lower.
When Larry Page took over as Google’s CEO last year, he wanted to differentiate himself from his predecessor. Page relied on Google+ to mesh all of its applications into one cohesive whole, but Google fails to understand how a user uses his or her identity. Google users generally have more than one Gmail account. Google does not allow combine to mesh their accounts into one dashboard. The multiple accounts create an identity crisis in Google, because users want to be one person, not multiples.
“The issue of fragmented identity is longstanding and can bear partial responsibility for the fact that people sign up for new third-party services using identity mechanisms from Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, not from Google. People only tend to have one identity for each of those successful social networks.”
It’s easier to keep track of yourself across multiple third party accounts than dozens of Google profiles. Google+ will never be able to compete with Facebook. Maybe Google should concentrate on its strengths and building them up, rather than crossing into someone else’s territory.
Whitney Grace, April 24, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Two Pundits and Their Punditry
March 31, 2012
I find the notion of pundits fascinating. The US in 2012 pivots on a news hook, the Warhol fame thing, and a desire to share viewpoints to Flipbook and Pulse users.
This morning I was listening to the crackle of small arms fire in rural Kentucky. Dawn had not yet extended its crepuscular reach to my hollow but two write ups did. Neither is one of those magnum loads squirrel hunters desire here in the Commonwealth. Nope, these were birdshot, but each write up is interesting nonetheless.
Both indirectly concern search and retrieval. Both found their way into my “gems of the poobahs” folder.
First, I noted the digital Atlantic’s write up “The Advertising Industry’s Definition of ‘Do Not Track’ Doesn’t Make Sense.” What caught my attention was the juxtaposition of the word “advertising” with the phrase “doesn’t make sense.” Advertising making sense? The Atlantic “real” journalist has not watched television with a 67 year old. More than half of the TV commercials which I find embedded in basketball games every four minutes don’t make sense. Advertising is about creating a demand for must-have products. Advertising is part of the popular culture and an engine of growth for companies unable to generate sales without the craft and skill of psychological tactics. Check out an advertisement for Kentucky bourbon. Does this headline make sense?
“Honk if you’re proud to be a redneck?
As a resident of Kentucky, I am not sure I know what a redneck is, but I bet those folks in Boston do. But what’s “making sense” part. What advertising does is tickle the brain to make some folks want to drink. And we all know how important it is to imbibe whiskey, engage in “real” journalism, ferry children to soccer practice. Yep, makes “sense” to me.
But here’s the passage which caught my attention:
Stanford’s Aleecia McDonald found that 61 percent of people expect that clicking a Do Not Track button should shut off *all* data collection. Only 7 percent of people expected that websites could collect the same data before and after clicking a ‘Do Not Track’ button. That is to say, 93 percent of people do not understand the industry’s definition of DNT. Which totally makes sense! Who would ever think saying, “Do not track me,” actually means, “It’s fine to collect data on me, but don’t show me any signs that you’re doing so.” Simply because the industry itself has defined ‘Do Not Track’ in an idiosyncratic way doesn’t mean their self-serving decision should be the basis for all policy and practice in this field.
Almost any redneck would understand this passage, the implications of persistent cookies, and the distinction between various types of tracking, including my favorite, iFrames-based method.
Second, I read “Debunking Senator Al Franken On Google, The Internet & Privacy.” This screed is from a “real” journalist and favorite source of juicy quotes on the subject of search and retrieval. The point of the write up is that despite the author’s affection for a US senator as a comedian, the US senator does not know beans about tracking, Google, and, by extension, search and retrieval. Now “search” does not mean find. Search, I believe, means to the “real” journalist using methods to generate traffic to a Web site. I define “search” differently, but the good part in my opinion is this passage:
Ya think? But I mean, Facebook kind of does sell my friends. I can export all of them out to Yahoo and Bing, because Facebook and Yahoo and Bing all have deals. I can’t export them to Google, because, you know, they aren’t friends. Would you call that selling to the highest bidder? When I go over to search on Bing, by default, all my Facebook friends are being used to personalize my search results. Oh, I can opt-out, but you know how hard that is. Since that’s part of a Bing-Facebook deal, is that a line that’s crossed?
Please, read the entire “real” journalistic analysis of a talk by a US senator. I must admit I don’t relate to the questions and analytic points in this paragraph. I recognize the names of the companies mentioned, but “the deal” baffles me.
Why do I care? Three points:
- I sense the emotion in these write ups. Passion is good for advertising and good for capturing attention. However, I am struggling to figure out what the problem is. Advertising seems to be what America is. Untangling the warp and woof of this fabric is difficult for me.
- The ad hominem method and charged language causes me to think that the lingo of advertising has become the common parlance of “real” journalists.
- I struggle to unravel the meaning of certain parts of these two write ups. Am I alone?
Net net: technology and advertising are an interesting compound. Now “real” journalism is quite similar. To quote one “real” journalist, “Ya think?” Well, not much.
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
A Road Map for Censorship
March 31, 2012
David Bamman, Brendan O’Connor, Noah A. Smith present some interesting facts based on a study they wrote about in their article, Censorship and Deletion Practices in Chinese Social Media. Their study touches on a variety of different aspects regarding how China allegedly controls the intake and outflow of information.
The Chinese government methods are far different from the United States’ approach. My understanding of the situation is that China takes censorship to extremes and infringes on the freedom of their citizens using the GFW (Great Firewall of China) , which filters key phrases and words, preventing access to sites like America’s Facebook and Google. However, Sina Weibo is the Chinese equivalent of Facebook where bloggers post and pass information presumably in a way the officials perceive as more suitable for the Middle Kingdom.
Sina Weibo is monitored and as long as members stay within the boundaries or disguise their information, posts go unnoticed. If any of the outlawed phrases are entered, the user’s post is deleted and anyone searching for the information is met with the phrase ‘Target weibo does not exist’. If the user properly masks the phrase or words used, the information will get through, showing that there is the possibility of future change regarding the censorship practices in China.
The GFW will catch obvious outgoing information such as political figures, which was monitored during the study. The article asserted:
In late June/early July 2011, rumors began circulating in the Chinese media that Jiang Zemin, general secretary of the Communist Party of China from 1989 to 2002, had died. These rumors reached their height on 6 July, with reports in the Wall Street Journal, Guardian and other Western media sources that Jiang’s name had been blocked in searches on Sina Weibo (Chin, 2011; Branigan, 2011). If we look at all 532 messages published during this time period that contain the name Jiang Zemin, we note a striking pattern of deletion: on 6 July, the height of the rumor, 64 of the 83 messages containing that name were deleted (77.1 percent); on 7 July, 29 of 31 (93.5 percent) were deleted.
No firewall is perfect, but according to the studies done on searches, blogs and texts containing prohibited information, China has a pretty impressive figure. It may not seem reasonable by American standards, but by filtering anything they deem as politically sensitive, China protects the privacy of their country, preventing global rumors and interference.
On one level, censorship makes sense, in particular regarding the business world. The Chinese government makes its corporations responsible for their employees, meaning if an employee is blogging instead of working and puts in illegal information, the company itself is fined, or worst case scenario, shut down. Thus Chinese factories have a high rate of productivity because their workers are actually doing their job.
How is China’s alleged position relevant to the US? There may be little relevance, but to officials in other countries, the article’s information may be just what one needs to check into a Holiday Inn of censorship.
Jennifer Shockley, March 31, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
