Showing posts with label online privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label online privacy. Show all posts
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Monday, November 4, 2013
Sunday, November 3, 2013
The internet, The Observer parents guide to safety
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/03/internet-children-parents-safety
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Monday, October 14, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
Friday, September 6, 2013
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Facebook users unwittingly revealing intimate secrets, study finds
ersonal information including sexuality and drug use can be correctly inferred from public 'like' updates, according to study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/11/facebook-users-reveal-intimate-secrets
The researchers used computer software to predict personality traits, but said the same information could be collected by anyone with training in data analysis. They were able to draw "surprisingly accurate" findings about people by aggregating swaths of seemingly innocuous "likes", such as TV shows and movies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/11/facebook-users-reveal-intimate-secrets
The researchers used computer software to predict personality traits, but said the same information could be collected by anyone with training in data analysis. They were able to draw "surprisingly accurate" findings about people by aggregating swaths of seemingly innocuous "likes", such as TV shows and movies.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
How Facebook could get you arrested
Smart technology and the sort of big data available to social networking sites are helping police target crime before it happens. But is this ethical?
How Facebook could get you arrested | Technology | The Observer
How Facebook could get you arrested | Technology | The Observer
Monday, April 23, 2012
The future internet, no dogs allowed
Online identity: is authenticity or anonymity more important?
Before Facebook and Google became the megaliths of the web, the most famous online adage was, "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog". It seems the days when people were allowed to be dogs is coming to a close
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/19/online-identity-authenticity-anonymity
The argument (and trend) seems to be that real identities enable more people to trust the web, and thus take part in it :
"Allan believes the benefits of authentic identity outweigh the costs. Facebook and other services with an assurance of security and credibility are more inclusive, and open up the web to new audiences who never would have gone online before, he says. "We're optimists. Facebook enables hundreds of millions of people to express themselves online because they didn't have or know how to use the tools they needed." Facebook, he believes, is a stepping stone to the rest of the web."
My personal position is that while it would be good to have consistent identities online (regular use of same psuedonym, or a limited set of psuedonyms, across platforms) there are many reasons why this should not mean real life identity. The biggest reason is perhaps the dangers people would expose themselves to, from the obvious cases of antagonizing a repressive (or even democratic) systems laws to the more widespread risk of 'peer-to-peer' persecution and mob justice. The internet often brings out the worst in both people and state in how they react to perceived violations of norms and values, and revealing one's true identity would expose one to this. Of course it may be argued that if everyone is identifiable then the risk from trolls etc. is also removed, but while this might temper it, and prevent outright illegal persection, it would not prevent plenty of malign and vindictive behaviour. Furthermore it is a fact that the nastiest people are often the most passionate, and hence most likely to go to the effort to bypass any authentication system (something which will always be possible no matter how well implemented).
Furthermore, on a lower level, but still important, there is the problem of interaction with real world relationships - friends, acquaintances, co-workers employers etc. The sharing and linking of the web means anything one says or does can easily be passed on, taking it out of the intended social circle, and out of context. The result would be that, if real identities were necessitated on services such as blogger, one would have the option of either limiting who can hear to a (hopefully) trustworthy small circle of friends, or resort to comments so bland and innane as to be worthless (and even this might not work, since even a fair and balanced statement might anger a racist or bigotted associate).
It is interesting that such a anonymous-but-traceable approach is supported even in the restrictive regimes of China and South Korea:
"An online identity can be as permanent as an offline one: pseudonymous users often identify themselves in different social networks using the same account name. But because their handles aren't based on real names, they can deliberately delineate their identity accordingly, and reassert anonymity if they wish. Psychologists argue that this is valuable for the development of a sense of who one is, who one can be, and how one fits into different contexts. This kind of activity is allowed even in countries where social network account holders are required to register for a service using a national ID, as in South Korea and China; their online public identities are still fabrications. Even with this explicit link with the state, when users are aware that their activities online are traceable, identity play continues."
This would make it seem that in some ways China is more permissive than Google, since although the state might want to know if you're a dog, it will still let you bark around the virtual park if you want; when it comes to Google+ however, no dogs allowed.
Before Facebook and Google became the megaliths of the web, the most famous online adage was, "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog". It seems the days when people were allowed to be dogs is coming to a close
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/19/online-identity-authenticity-anonymity
The argument (and trend) seems to be that real identities enable more people to trust the web, and thus take part in it :
"Allan believes the benefits of authentic identity outweigh the costs. Facebook and other services with an assurance of security and credibility are more inclusive, and open up the web to new audiences who never would have gone online before, he says. "We're optimists. Facebook enables hundreds of millions of people to express themselves online because they didn't have or know how to use the tools they needed." Facebook, he believes, is a stepping stone to the rest of the web."
My personal position is that while it would be good to have consistent identities online (regular use of same psuedonym, or a limited set of psuedonyms, across platforms) there are many reasons why this should not mean real life identity. The biggest reason is perhaps the dangers people would expose themselves to, from the obvious cases of antagonizing a repressive (or even democratic) systems laws to the more widespread risk of 'peer-to-peer' persecution and mob justice. The internet often brings out the worst in both people and state in how they react to perceived violations of norms and values, and revealing one's true identity would expose one to this. Of course it may be argued that if everyone is identifiable then the risk from trolls etc. is also removed, but while this might temper it, and prevent outright illegal persection, it would not prevent plenty of malign and vindictive behaviour. Furthermore it is a fact that the nastiest people are often the most passionate, and hence most likely to go to the effort to bypass any authentication system (something which will always be possible no matter how well implemented).
Furthermore, on a lower level, but still important, there is the problem of interaction with real world relationships - friends, acquaintances, co-workers employers etc. The sharing and linking of the web means anything one says or does can easily be passed on, taking it out of the intended social circle, and out of context. The result would be that, if real identities were necessitated on services such as blogger, one would have the option of either limiting who can hear to a (hopefully) trustworthy small circle of friends, or resort to comments so bland and innane as to be worthless (and even this might not work, since even a fair and balanced statement might anger a racist or bigotted associate).
It is interesting that such a anonymous-but-traceable approach is supported even in the restrictive regimes of China and South Korea:
"An online identity can be as permanent as an offline one: pseudonymous users often identify themselves in different social networks using the same account name. But because their handles aren't based on real names, they can deliberately delineate their identity accordingly, and reassert anonymity if they wish. Psychologists argue that this is valuable for the development of a sense of who one is, who one can be, and how one fits into different contexts. This kind of activity is allowed even in countries where social network account holders are required to register for a service using a national ID, as in South Korea and China; their online public identities are still fabrications. Even with this explicit link with the state, when users are aware that their activities online are traceable, identity play continues."
This would make it seem that in some ways China is more permissive than Google, since although the state might want to know if you're a dog, it will still let you bark around the virtual park if you want; when it comes to Google+ however, no dogs allowed.
The online product, you.
Exploiting Big Data's opportunities will need a delicate balance between the right to knowledge and the right of the individual
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/22/big-data-privacy-information-currency
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/22/big-data-privacy-information-currency
- This month, the US chain Walmart bought the startup Social Calendar, one of the most popular calendar apps on Facebook..when a Social Calendar user listed a friend's birthday or details of a holiday to Malaga, she or he probably had no idea the information would end up in the hands of a US supermarket. But now it will be cross-referenced with Walmart's own data, plus any other databases that are available, to generate a compelling profile of individual Social Calendar users and their non-Social Calendar-using friends
- In one recent high-profile example, a Minneapolis man discovered his teenage daughter was pregnant because coupons for baby food and clothing were arriving at his address from the US superstore Target. The girl, who had not registered her pregnancy with the chain, had been identified by a system that looked for pregnancy patterns in her purchase behaviour.
- last month, police in New York used a photo from Facebook in combination with their own photo files and facial recognition software to arrest a man for attempted murde
- Sceptics like Adler argue that the right to be forgotten is flawed because it ignores how social boundaries are currently being negotiated in the Big Data world. "The ability to delete personal information means that you lose the potential for lessons learned," he said. "If you can step away and erase something someone says that is stupid or hurtful, you lose an element of accountability."
- The weakest link is the technology itself. The Target pregnancy case demonstrates that machines can pick up patterns in ways that may have unexpected consequences for individuals.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Walled gardens look rosy for Facebook, Apple – and would-be censors
Part 3 of the Guardian's 'battle for the internet' series looks at how the rise of app stores and social networks is making the way we use the net cleaner, easier and far more controllable
Walled gardens look rosy for Facebook, Apple – and would-be censors | Technology | guardian.co.uk
Walled gardens look rosy for Facebook, Apple – and would-be censors | Technology | guardian.co.uk
Monday, April 16, 2012
Guardian Battle for the Internet series
Day 1 of the Guardian series
Sergey Brin on the threat to the Open Internet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/15/web-freedom-threat-google-brin
"He said five years ago he did not believe China or any country could effectively restrict the internet for long, but now says he has been proven wrong. "I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle," he said."
In the first part of a series on the struggle to control the internet, Oliver Burkeman finds out why the US is spending millions to help activists communicate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/15/commotion-wireless-new-america-foundation
Sergey Brin on the threat to the Open Internet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/15/web-freedom-threat-google-brin
"He said five years ago he did not believe China or any country could effectively restrict the internet for long, but now says he has been proven wrong. "I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle," he said."
In the first part of a series on the struggle to control the internet, Oliver Burkeman finds out why the US is spending millions to help activists communicate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/15/commotion-wireless-new-america-foundation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)