privacy round-up
Sep. 28th, 2014 10:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
twoeleventhe economist has a special section on how advertisers (and their data brokers) spy on people. it has various juicy quotes from advertisers admitting how much they know, but i think the best example of what they want to know about people is from a full-page ad that ran in the middle of the print edition's report.
it's from some databroker called "quαntcast" -- aw, isn't that cute? -- showing an asian woman surrounded by a bunch of random facts about what she's doing on line:
"watched 3 videos on the theory of feng shui yesterday"
"read 12 articles on the health benefits of kale and aoriju in the last 6 days"
"spent 9 hours on websites about portland hot spots over the past three weeks"
their slogan: "we're not really psychic. but we're pretty close." with the caption "quantcast advertising knows your customer's next move, and gets you to them first." how charming. perhaps that doesn't bother you. would the copy:
"read 12 articles on bladder cancer in the last 6 days"
"spent 9 hours on websites about portland hospitals over the past three weeks"
? it's all the same to them.
i'm intrigued by a statement in the last article in the section:
the LA times ran a story on privacy problems with police cameras that discussed the subject rather well. just a few highlights:
1) orwell on wheels
2) pointlessly broad disclosure:
3) retention of excess information:
it's from some databroker called "quαntcast" -- aw, isn't that cute? -- showing an asian woman surrounded by a bunch of random facts about what she's doing on line:
"watched 3 videos on the theory of feng shui yesterday"
"read 12 articles on the health benefits of kale and aoriju in the last 6 days"
"spent 9 hours on websites about portland hot spots over the past three weeks"
their slogan: "we're not really psychic. but we're pretty close." with the caption "quantcast advertising knows your customer's next move, and gets you to them first." how charming. perhaps that doesn't bother you. would the copy:
"read 12 articles on bladder cancer in the last 6 days"
"spent 9 hours on websites about portland hospitals over the past three weeks"
? it's all the same to them.
i'm intrigued by a statement in the last article in the section:
A study by BCG suggests it is a myth that youngsters are more comfortable than older people with sensitive data about them being collected online. The privacy of personal data remains a big concern for around 75% of consumers in most countries. American and European consumers share similar views about online privacy—although their respective regulators do not.i'm rather surprised, since americans appear rather blasé about the various thefts of personal information.
the LA times ran a story on privacy problems with police cameras that discussed the subject rather well. just a few highlights:
1) orwell on wheels
Some observers have raised the possibility that such cameras would not only be used to review officer behavior — to potentially overbearing levels, if used to crack down on minor disciplinary infractions — but someday also may be used with facial-recognition technology the way many departments already use license-plate scanners.
"Are these cameras going to eventually be hooked up to these systems where cops can scan the street and pick out anybody's face or anybody's car to see if they have an outstanding warrant?" asked Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and an analyst of surveillance and transparency issues. "I think a lot of these communities that have problems with police will have problems with that, too."
2) pointlessly broad disclosure:
Such video "sometimes captures people at the worst moments of their lives," American Civil Liberties Union senior policy analyst Jay Stanley said.i've never been really clear on why states seem to think any information they have on private citizens is public. a few states -- delaware among them -- have adopted laws requiring folks wanting information the police have about private citizens, such as recordings of 911 calls -- to demonstrate a newsworthy purpose (or something like that) and explicitly forbids release of information for titillation or entertainment.
"You don't want to see videos of that uploaded to the Internet for titillation and gawking," he said.
Video from dashboard cameras in police cars, a more widely used technology, has long been exploited for entertainment purposes. Internet users have posted dash-cam videos of arrests of naked women to YouTube, and TMZ sometimes obtains police videos of athletes and celebrities during minor or embarrassing traffic stops, turning officers into unwitting paparazzi.
3) retention of excess information:
The newly released federal report also suggests that departments should clearly outline policies for how long they will keep video recordings before deletion; 60- or 90-day holding periods are common, unless the video is used as criminal evidence or has been flagged in a complaint.
OTOH, a little pity for the cops:The extra layer of scrutiny is also a labor concern for some police unions, who are worried that a tool intended for transparency will be diverted for workforce surveillance.poor bastards, being treated like suspects without cause! but hey, if they've got nothing to hide, what's the problem, right?
reuters has a story about what information smartphone manufacturers and software writers are secretly gathering about people. it's a good survey of current problems.