Social networks as Big Brother

Have you noticed those "Like" and "Tweet" buttons that are popping up all over? A new study suggests they are being used by Facebook and Twitter to track your browsing, even when you don't click them!. It may be time to consider logging off of Social Networks, as these companies are going overboard in their efforts to know everything about their users.

The widgets, which were created to make it easy to share content with friends and to help websites attract visitors, are a potentially powerful way to track Internet users. They could link users' browsing habits to their social-networking profile, which often contains their name...

For this to work, a person only needs to have logged into Facebook or Twitter once in the past month. The sites will continue to collect browsing data, even if the person closes their browser or turns off their computers, until that person explicitly logs out of their Facebook or Twitter accounts, the study found.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and other widget-makers say they don't use browsing data generated by the widgets to track users; Facebook says it only uses the data for advertising purposes when a user clicks on a widget to share content with friends.

I don't want to be one of those paranoid people who assumes the worst of every company. But these days, the Social Networks are giving us every reason to be suspicious.

Your iPhone/iPad is watching you!

In scary Big Brother style, it turns out your iOS cellular enabled iPhone or iPad is tracking your every movement. The database found keeps data from the moment iOS 4 is installed, and appears to track even times when GPS location is not turned on (likely using cell tower triangulation).

Skeptical? I used this sample app to pull the data from my own iPhone. The image below. Note it's careful documentation of my trips to Bath and Houghton, NY, Lancaster, PA, Cherry Hill and Wildwood, NJ, and Delaware. Of course, my own privacy is not breeched because I had already posted photos from each of those trips here to Mod-Blog or to my twitter feed.

Please note, getting this info requires access to your device OR to any computer (Mac or PC) which your iOS device has synced with.

Surprise! You're on a dating site!

Online dating is more popular than ever before, and is becoming big business, but there are plenty of people happy to keep their social interactions "in real life" only. One website is ready to change all of that and create profiles for everyone scraped from publicly available databases.

Jordan said the site would soon host some 340 million profiles after scraping information from social networking sites, e-mail registries, mailing lists, marketing surveys, government census records, real estate listings and business websites to create new dating profiles.

Gotham Dating Partners hoped to position itself as a dating service as well as a "public information source" for individuals and corporations needing accurate information on US citizens, Jordan said.

The site announced that the changes would "in no way affect our international clients". But Jordan said any online, public information - including information about Australians - would be used.

Jordan did not expect to face any privacy issues by aggregating publicly available information, stating: "If the information is public, there are no privacy issues."

This concept has "bad idea" written all over it. It would instantly make stalking an effortless activity. Can you imagine the terror for victims of rape, when their attackers can find all about them so easily?

Here's hoping the CEO comes to his senses soon. If not, now is the time to go thru ALL of your privacy settings on ALL social networking sites and LOCK THEM DOWN. This is a good place to start.

Beware: Facebook can cost you more than your privacy

Always remember, anything you post online eventually be seen by anyone. And often it will be the person you least want to see it. Be wise, be careful, and pretend every private post will be trumpeted from the rooftops.

In anticipation of being laid off, she updated her status on Facebook and wrote:
''I speak for myself when I say WoOOOOooooOooooHOoooOooOoo' it was pretty damn obvious something like this was coming. I'm neither stupid nor naive ... and quite honestly it is the best news ever as far as I am concerned!''
'It was not unexpected. I've just hung on by my fingertips to stick around long enough for a nice payout when they could've had me out long ago without a penny! More fool them! Haha! Xx.''
A work colleague saw the posts and told the bank.
The bank responded by ordering her to take part in a disciplinary hearing, where her bosses decided "to sack Furlong without a penny of the money she was expecting," as the Parents Lounge, a UK website, puts it.

Facebook app shares ALL your Phone Numbers?

It is clear now that the "privacy problems" are not merely bugs, but actually endemic to their corporate culture. A new report shows Facebook's iPhone app can share all of the numbers in your address book in a public space or user consent. To protect yourself, simply (1) never add your phone number to your Facebook profile and (2) don't sync your iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad address book to Facebook.

The Guardian's Charles Arthur reports that Facebook's Contact Sync feature links your friends' Facebook profile pictures to the contact telephone number in your iPhone address book. The app then pushes these private phone numbers onto Facebook's servers, and publishes them to Facebook's Phonebook app. The Facebook app also appears to share numbers for contacts that you don’t have, but your Facebook friends do. If you are logged onto Facebook, you can see your Phonebook here.

MugShots on Facebook?

The rights of the accused are a special thing in American society, one of the few places on Earth where "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is a watchword of the justice systems. We go to extreme lengths to protect those arrested, including the Miranda warning, state-provided legal counsel, and the right to remain silent. We want to ensure both that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are spared.

So what happens when Facebook enters the picture? One New Jersey township is now publishing the mug shots of arrested individuals, and leaving them up even if the accused should be exonerated. This means their arrest is only a Google search away for any future prospective employer. Or a date.

Is the deterrent effect of such a posting worth the potential damage to the innocent? What do Mod-Bloggers think?

Palm Pre Phone Home?

There has been a lot of scrutiny of Apple's iPhone because of its so-called "monopoly status", but it is important to keep your eyes on the smaller guys as well. A hacker, going thru the Palm Pre SDK has determined that the Palm Pre regularly calls home and sends your current location to Palm, Inc. They claim that the privacy policy protects customers, but such a setup could easily allow the company to insert location-targeted ads into their apps to generate extra profit.

An Oddly Compelling Argument

Comcast to watch your living room

Most of the time when I see a post on Slashdot about some privacy issue I chalk it up to paranoia. So, this morning when I was parusing the site and saw a post about how Comcast plans to monitor who's watching TV, I was about to have my same reaction - the über-geeks are flipping out again. But then I read the article in question, and I have to say - I agree with the über-geeks on this one. Basically, Comcast plans on putting cameras in their equipment that they install in your house (DVR, cable box, etc...), so that they can watch who's watching TV and better program towards the watcher. Sounds like a great idea... until you realize that this kind of technology has about 18,000,000 ways of being misused. To quote the Slashdot post:

While this sounds 'handy,' it also sounds a bit like the TV sets in 1984.

Are we ready to end Internet anonymity?

Ever since the "Web" went public and stopped being DARPANET, there has been an ongoing debate over the assumption of anonymity that is implicit in the web. The structure and standards of the web promote anonymity, which as lead to an explosion of creativity, free speech, and free thought on the Net which is nearly unimaginable in the real world. The Web is where you can badmouth your employer without being fired, give an honest critique of a book or movie without fear of being personally attacked by the author, and where you can leak documents critical to public safety without fear of your identity being immediately known.

But the Web has also become a place where sex predators can stalk children without fear of being caught, where a 50-year-old man can pretend to be a teenage boy and ruin the life of a teenage girl, or where anonymous bullies can drive a teenager to suicide.

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch thinks it is time to end internet anonymity in order to bring back responsibility and protect minors. But such an action would also effectively end many of the advantages of the Web as seen in whistleblowers being free to tell us what we need to know. Is Rep. Couch right, or are we throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Honestly, I think this would be a revealing issue to raise in the new debate in the Presidential campaign.

Hillary has already sold her donor lists for cash

There are a LOT of reasons why I have chosen not to give any money to the Hillary Clinton Campaign. (Primary being, I do NOT want her to be president.) But even if I did not have those reasons this story would keep me from giving her any money.

Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.

It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.

"As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over," he said. "This is the mother's milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently."

There are no records that any other presidential candidates rented out mailing lists last year.

I know that it is not unusual for campaigns to give their lists to the national party, and I guess it makes sense for future fundraising. But in general this really seems like a bad idea, and an easy way to make donations dry up quickly. I can't help wondering if these revelations might wind up being the last nail in the coffin for Hillary's presidential hopes.

Fighting Back Against Real ID

On May 11, 2005, the REAL ID Act was passed as part of a military spending bill. On March 2, 2007, enforcement was postponed to December 2009 and then again until 2011. What is the REAL ID Act? The theory is that it will tighten our borders and prevent another 9/11. One of the ways it attempts to do this is establish a national standard for driver's licenses / state identification cards and then establish a linked database. The problems with this act are numerous. First, the federal government is interfering with a state issue. Second, the federal government is not only mandating this, but requiring the states to foot the bill. Third, by linking the state databases together and having a national standard, we are basically at a national ID card - something that has been resisted because it brings to mind the idea of the Soviet Union and needing papers to travel from state to state. Fourth, it is wasteful spending in that most, if not all, of the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID. They would not have been flagged any differently than they were on that day. (Information about the REAL ID Act taken from Wikipedia.)

Unfortunately, my state, California has decided to go right along with the federal government. Montana, however, has led the charge in refusing to go along. Other states are also opposing the legislation. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that those who do not have a valid Real ID license (or other federally recognized ID such as a passport) will not be able to use their license as ID for federal purposes. This includes boarding airplanes without being subjected to increased security checks. The DHS is betting that citizens will complain to and blame their state governments. State governments are betting that citizens will agree with them and place the blame fully on the DHS. Citizens of these states will need to start providing alternative ID or be subjected to further security checks as of May 11, 2008. Not only will air travel be hindered, but you'll need a federal ID to "open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service."

I fear it's too late for California, but those in a state where there has not been major headway made can still contact your state leaders and push back against Real ID.

Update 1: Looks like there is some money available, but it basically amounts to pennies on the dollar.

Verizon wants your call info

When I was a Verizon customer, I was very satisfied. They had GREAT coverage - even in the parts of my home town where no other cell carrier had any signal. I left them over high prices and the lack of a really good SmartPhone for me. In my times since, I have enjoyed various Sidekick's under T-Mobile and now the iPhone under AT&T Wireless, but neither have as good coverage as Verizon. But now, Verizon is quickly destroying any positive sense I have for then with a new policy that would allow them to use your call history for whatever they want.

Verizon Wireless has been contacting its customers via snail mail to inform them of their intent to share CPNI data with its "affiliates, agents and parent companies (including Vodafone) and their subsidiaries." The company says that customers who do not want their CPNI data shared need to call 1-800-333-9956 to "opt-out." Upon dialing the opt-out number, Verizon customers will be prompted for their phone number, billing ZIP code, and last four digits of their Social Security Numbers (in the case of businesses, their Employer ID numbers). Failure to opt-out will be interpreted by Verizon Wireless as "consent" to the company's data-sharing practices.

This data would most likely be used for targetted advertising (call NetFlix customer service and get a text message advertising Blockbuster) but could also be used to advertise themselves to your friends and family who are not yet Verizon Wireless customers. If you are a Verizon customer, please call now. If not, think twice before making the switch.

Online Health Records

Microsoft has announced that they want to host your medical records. So does Google and other companies. Kaiser Permanente has had ads on the radio around here that you can e-mail your doctor and get test results online. My wife and I shop online as well as use online banking, but this worries me. I wasn't worried about the Kaiser Permanente system when I heard about it, but that may have been that it's just for their hospitals, doctors, etc. The thought of having multiple health care professionals putting all of my information into one central database just makes me worried. Perhaps it's because it's Microsoft. Maybe I'm just paranoid. On the other hand, it'd be nice to have up to date records at any time. Would you trust a company to store you medical history?

Warning for Facebook Users

Facebook has changed its policy and will allow non-users to search profiles unless you opt out. The search results will bring up your profile name and picture. Instructions for protecting your privacy can be found at the link above.