GovGab is an important tool for staying up to date on government legislation and resources. The blog posts vary by many different topics, with some of the newer ones focusing on keeping your food from spoiling during a power outage or discovering disabilityinfo.gov. The blog also breaks down into different categories so you can search for the things you are interested in.
The part of the blog I would like to focus on is one of their more recent posts. It is focused on privacy protection. The most important part of the posts points us to a list of privacy resources aimed at helping us maintain privacy. The resource page is set up with government and non-government sponsored websites that are all focused on helping us keep our privacy.
The resource page has just about any topic you could need to know about. It does have a lot of articles and resources for protecting children online, which is always a major concern. Other areas include financial information, identity theft protection, medical records privacy and Internet privacy. The resources site has a lot to offer and can keep you busy for a long time. Along with privacy resources, the resources site allows you to locate local officials, find information on a business, and get resources for teachers and consumers.
Ultimately the blog is a great source of information from our government. It does a great job of keeping the postings entertaining and not just focused on politics and policies.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Anonymous Surfing is now available for Firefox and Vista using Private Proxy
Tampa, Florida (July 30, 2008) - PrivacyView Software, the developer of award-winning Internet and computer privacy software, announced today that the latest release of its anonymous proxy server, Private Proxy, supports Firefox version 3.0 under both Windows XP and Windows Vista.
This recent update allows Private Proxy users to use Mozilla Firefox version 3.0 under Windows Vista. Private Proxy previously supported Firefox on Windows XP. Now Vista users can surf anonymously with both Firefox and Internet Explorer.
Increasingly, people need safe and secure access to the Internet in order to protect both their privacy and freedom. Private Proxy allows users to choose an anonymous proxy server where their Internet browsing can not be monitored. For example, with the recent Viacom / YouTube lawsuit, any Private Proxy user would have been secure from potential tracking from Viacom. By using Private Proxy, the IP address is changed to an anonymous IP address and hence not associated with a specific user.
Private Proxy also encrypts the Internet communications between Firefox or Internet Explorer and the anonymous proxy enabling users to create a secure tunnel. With a secure tunnel, users are able to access sites that were previously blocked by bypassing filters typically used by restrictive governments and many corporations. Further, the users’ anonymity is protected because the destination websites will not be able to track the users to their company or location based on their IP address.
The software comes with a 7 day free trial allowing users to decide if they want to keep the service without having to spend any money. Along with the 7 day free trial, PrivacyView offers two options for its users: they can subscribe to a monthly service for $9.95 or choose a quarterly option for only $24.95.
About PrivacyView Software:
PrivacyView Software, LLC is a privately held company headquartered in Tampa, Florida. Founded in 2003, the company creates and markets privacy software for consumers. The company and its products have won numerous technology awards. For more information about PrivacyView, and its affiliate program, please visit www.privacyview.com.
This recent update allows Private Proxy users to use Mozilla Firefox version 3.0 under Windows Vista. Private Proxy previously supported Firefox on Windows XP. Now Vista users can surf anonymously with both Firefox and Internet Explorer.
Increasingly, people need safe and secure access to the Internet in order to protect both their privacy and freedom. Private Proxy allows users to choose an anonymous proxy server where their Internet browsing can not be monitored. For example, with the recent Viacom / YouTube lawsuit, any Private Proxy user would have been secure from potential tracking from Viacom. By using Private Proxy, the IP address is changed to an anonymous IP address and hence not associated with a specific user.
Private Proxy also encrypts the Internet communications between Firefox or Internet Explorer and the anonymous proxy enabling users to create a secure tunnel. With a secure tunnel, users are able to access sites that were previously blocked by bypassing filters typically used by restrictive governments and many corporations. Further, the users’ anonymity is protected because the destination websites will not be able to track the users to their company or location based on their IP address.
The software comes with a 7 day free trial allowing users to decide if they want to keep the service without having to spend any money. Along with the 7 day free trial, PrivacyView offers two options for its users: they can subscribe to a monthly service for $9.95 or choose a quarterly option for only $24.95.
About PrivacyView Software:
PrivacyView Software, LLC is a privately held company headquartered in Tampa, Florida. Founded in 2003, the company creates and markets privacy software for consumers. The company and its products have won numerous technology awards. For more information about PrivacyView, and its affiliate program, please visit www.privacyview.com.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Hide My IP?
To ensure your Internet Privacy, there are two things to watch, your IP address and your local Internet traces. In this post, we will focus on hiding your IP address.
First, why be concerned about hiding your IP address? Why do people search on Hide My IP or Hide My IP Address? It's simple, your IP address is associated with the server you use to connect to the Internet.
For example, I live in Tampa and connect to the Internet with my Road Runner account. When I check my IP address, it shows that I am in Tampa and use Road Runner as my Internet Service Provider (ISP). That in itself is not a problem. However, there are two possible reasons to be concerned. First, some sites block access based on an IP address. You might have been banned from a favorite website, or posted over the daily allowable limit on a given website. The IP address is one of the ways that you can be tracked or blocked. However, as I tell all our customers of our anonymous proxy, Private Proxy, to change IP addresses is often not enough. You also have to make sure you don't have a cookie stored on your PC that also identifies you. Assuming the cookie issue is solved, hide IP software or services can get you past a blocked website.
If you surf from work, you might need a hide IP address service so that you can not be tracked back to your company. When you surf from work, chances are that you are connecting through your company's Internet server. This server's IP address will identify the company. If you are researching a competitor you probably would not want your IP address to show up on the competitor's website log. Worse yet, if you are surfing for personal reasons at work, you really might not want anyone to be able to track back to your employer.
In both instances, whether surfing from home or work, the server you connect through has a log showing your web surfing. With an IP address that points back to the server, you can be tracked back directly to your home or our desk. Here's how: The IP address shows the web server. The web server knows who you are. In the case of an employer, all they have to do is look at the log. In the case of an ISP, all it takes is a subpoena or a helpful ISP employee. In either case, with the right questions, you can be traced.
So why do I hide my IP address? It's mostly principle. When I hide my IP address I know I've made it more difficult for someone to trace me. I find it very disturbing that some web sites and most search engines use IP addresses to build profiles. Why make it easy for them? Hence, I hide my IP.
First, why be concerned about hiding your IP address? Why do people search on Hide My IP or Hide My IP Address? It's simple, your IP address is associated with the server you use to connect to the Internet.
For example, I live in Tampa and connect to the Internet with my Road Runner account. When I check my IP address, it shows that I am in Tampa and use Road Runner as my Internet Service Provider (ISP). That in itself is not a problem. However, there are two possible reasons to be concerned. First, some sites block access based on an IP address. You might have been banned from a favorite website, or posted over the daily allowable limit on a given website. The IP address is one of the ways that you can be tracked or blocked. However, as I tell all our customers of our anonymous proxy, Private Proxy, to change IP addresses is often not enough. You also have to make sure you don't have a cookie stored on your PC that also identifies you. Assuming the cookie issue is solved, hide IP software or services can get you past a blocked website.
If you surf from work, you might need a hide IP address service so that you can not be tracked back to your company. When you surf from work, chances are that you are connecting through your company's Internet server. This server's IP address will identify the company. If you are researching a competitor you probably would not want your IP address to show up on the competitor's website log. Worse yet, if you are surfing for personal reasons at work, you really might not want anyone to be able to track back to your employer.
In both instances, whether surfing from home or work, the server you connect through has a log showing your web surfing. With an IP address that points back to the server, you can be tracked back directly to your home or our desk. Here's how: The IP address shows the web server. The web server knows who you are. In the case of an employer, all they have to do is look at the log. In the case of an ISP, all it takes is a subpoena or a helpful ISP employee. In either case, with the right questions, you can be traced.
So why do I hide my IP address? It's mostly principle. When I hide my IP address I know I've made it more difficult for someone to trace me. I find it very disturbing that some web sites and most search engines use IP addresses to build profiles. Why make it easy for them? Hence, I hide my IP.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Researchers in trouble for snooping...
cnet News is reporting that researchers from the University of Colorado and the University of Washington could face charges for snooping the Tor network. The researchers could face up to five years in prison for breaking the Wiretap Act. Tor (The Onion Router) anonymous proxy network is a free software that allows users to surf the Internet anonymously through a circuit of networked computers that encrypt and transmit the data.
Two graduate students and three professors never had a legal review of the project or had been authorized by the university's Human Subjects Committee. The academic paper was presented at the Privacy Enhancing Technology Forum and intended to shed light on exactly what kind of information was flowing over Tor. The results found "some of Tor's users include pro-democracy dissidents, journalists and bloggers in countries like China, Egypt and Burma who would otherwise face arrest and torture for their work."
To study Tor, the researchers set up an exit node in December 2007 and recorded and stored the first part of each network packet passing through the node. This gave them information as to what kind of information was being passed and what websites people are visiting. They then ran an entry node which gave them the users' IP addresses as they passed through the node, allowing them to see which countries used Tor the most. The two studies recorded and stored different types of information so users could not be cross-referenced.
They found German users were on Tor the most, while 58% of bandwidth used on Tor was from web browsing. A massive 40% of the bandwidth was used by torrent users, even though these users only amounted for 3% of the total.
The researchers spoke with a lawyer and felt that it was unnecessary to get a second opinion or to contact the university's Institutional Review Board, even though Tor's policy is not to attach such recording programs because it could result in criminal and civil charges. The team did not follow proper protocol in any way...could it perhaps be that the university would have a problem with their researchers spying and recording people's information without their consent?
Two graduate students and three professors never had a legal review of the project or had been authorized by the university's Human Subjects Committee. The academic paper was presented at the Privacy Enhancing Technology Forum and intended to shed light on exactly what kind of information was flowing over Tor. The results found "some of Tor's users include pro-democracy dissidents, journalists and bloggers in countries like China, Egypt and Burma who would otherwise face arrest and torture for their work."
To study Tor, the researchers set up an exit node in December 2007 and recorded and stored the first part of each network packet passing through the node. This gave them information as to what kind of information was being passed and what websites people are visiting. They then ran an entry node which gave them the users' IP addresses as they passed through the node, allowing them to see which countries used Tor the most. The two studies recorded and stored different types of information so users could not be cross-referenced.
They found German users were on Tor the most, while 58% of bandwidth used on Tor was from web browsing. A massive 40% of the bandwidth was used by torrent users, even though these users only amounted for 3% of the total.
The researchers spoke with a lawyer and felt that it was unnecessary to get a second opinion or to contact the university's Institutional Review Board, even though Tor's policy is not to attach such recording programs because it could result in criminal and civil charges. The team did not follow proper protocol in any way...could it perhaps be that the university would have a problem with their researchers spying and recording people's information without their consent?
Privacy vs Border Security
Today we reexamine and update a previous blog posting concerned with you privacy while travelling. A recent article presented by istockanalyst.com discusses how laptop searches cross the line between privacy and security.
Jawad Khaki was returning home from a business trip when he was stopped by customs. Khaki, a corporate executive, told customs everything he had done and everywhere he went. He was then asked to turn on his cellphone, which customs took from him and searched. Customs checked his to-do list and his calender.
This is just one story of the line between privacy and security that is being crossed by customs agents. Does the search and seizure of laptops, cellphones, and PDAs cross the line?
The main question being presented, in both this article and my previous blog post, "What if a traveler's laptop includes corporate secrets, a lawyer's confidential documents, a journalist's notes from a protected source, or personal financial and medical information?" Advocacy groups are concerned with the misuse of information and say they have not gotten any clear answers when posing these questions to the Department of Homeland Security. Two groups have actually filed a lawsuit so they can get that information from Homeland Security.
I understand that sometimes it is necessary to conduct these searches to protect our national security...I am not referring to the time where it does compromise national security, but instead the times where a businessman is travelling and is extensively searched above and beyond what is reasonable. Customs and Border Patrol spokeswoman said that, "The department doesn't keep seized electronics unless it suspects wrongdoing, and any U.S. citizen's information that's copied is kept only if it's relevant for criminal or national-security investigations." I do appreciate that, but it needs to be made into official policy.
CBP is using the same reasoning behind checking luggage to check laptops. No reason or probable cause is needed to be searched by customs. There needs to be a distinction between the two. Laptops carry sensitive and personal information, especially if it being used for business travel. The data found on there is an "extension of a person's professional and personal identity." The main difference between the search of luggage and the search of a computer, which is also pointed out in the article, is that the luggage can be returned easily...but do you know what has been downloaded and copied off your laptop?
Tough situation...
Jawad Khaki was returning home from a business trip when he was stopped by customs. Khaki, a corporate executive, told customs everything he had done and everywhere he went. He was then asked to turn on his cellphone, which customs took from him and searched. Customs checked his to-do list and his calender.
This is just one story of the line between privacy and security that is being crossed by customs agents. Does the search and seizure of laptops, cellphones, and PDAs cross the line?
The main question being presented, in both this article and my previous blog post, "What if a traveler's laptop includes corporate secrets, a lawyer's confidential documents, a journalist's notes from a protected source, or personal financial and medical information?" Advocacy groups are concerned with the misuse of information and say they have not gotten any clear answers when posing these questions to the Department of Homeland Security. Two groups have actually filed a lawsuit so they can get that information from Homeland Security.
I understand that sometimes it is necessary to conduct these searches to protect our national security...I am not referring to the time where it does compromise national security, but instead the times where a businessman is travelling and is extensively searched above and beyond what is reasonable. Customs and Border Patrol spokeswoman said that, "The department doesn't keep seized electronics unless it suspects wrongdoing, and any U.S. citizen's information that's copied is kept only if it's relevant for criminal or national-security investigations." I do appreciate that, but it needs to be made into official policy.
CBP is using the same reasoning behind checking luggage to check laptops. No reason or probable cause is needed to be searched by customs. There needs to be a distinction between the two. Laptops carry sensitive and personal information, especially if it being used for business travel. The data found on there is an "extension of a person's professional and personal identity." The main difference between the search of luggage and the search of a computer, which is also pointed out in the article, is that the luggage can be returned easily...but do you know what has been downloaded and copied off your laptop?
Tough situation...
Monday, July 21, 2008
Facebook leads to two-year prison sentence...
Blogger News Network is reporting on a 20-year old Rhode Island native who has been sentenced to two years in prison for a drunk driving accident that left another driver seriously injured. Now you are probably asking, "What does this have to do with an Internet privacy blog?" The answer: Two weeks after he was charged, Joshua Lipton attended a Halloween party dressed as a "jail bird." The photos of him partying were posted on Facebook, which ended up being very useful to the prosecution.
The prosecution found these photos and used them as evidence in court. They said Joshua was an "unrepentant partier" who "lived" it up, even though the victim of the crash was in the hospital. The judge agreed and before giving out his sentence deemed Justin to be "depraved."
Prosecutors are not the only ones who are using social networking sites to make important professional decisions. Many employers are looking up their candidates on these sites to see what kind of life they lead and if they would like to employ them, or not.
It is probably a good idea to completely delete your profiles when you are looking for a job...or when you are on trial. Better yet, think twice before you post anything.
The prosecution found these photos and used them as evidence in court. They said Joshua was an "unrepentant partier" who "lived" it up, even though the victim of the crash was in the hospital. The judge agreed and before giving out his sentence deemed Justin to be "depraved."
Prosecutors are not the only ones who are using social networking sites to make important professional decisions. Many employers are looking up their candidates on these sites to see what kind of life they lead and if they would like to employ them, or not.
It is probably a good idea to completely delete your profiles when you are looking for a job...or when you are on trial. Better yet, think twice before you post anything.
Private investigators jobs made easier than ever with the Internet...
Sometimes it seems like writing blog posts and doing research is just about data and these huge companies possibly gaining too much information about you or an ISP tracking you. So I decided to put things into perspective and describe a scenario that doesn't involve two massive companies or some obscure government body.
A recent interview with a private investigator presented by Yahoo! News and cnet News discusses just how easy it is for him to gather information for his clients in this modern era. With the increased use of the Internet, his preferred tool, and social networking sites, Steven Rambam is able to learn everything possible about a person without ever having to meet them.
Privacy decreases with every blog post, every MySpace bulletin, and every photo posted. Mr. Rambam states, "Anything you put on the Internet will be grabbed, indexed, cataloged, and out of your control before you know it...The genie is out of the bottle. Data doesn't stay in one location. It migrates to hundreds of places." This has helped his job, basically by making it easier to find out anything he needs while building a case for a client.
He starts off by using social networking sites to find out what the person looks like. From there he can also gather other information such as: occupation, hometown, age, etc. He evens compiles a list of friends and family to interview. He says that he used to have to pay the police to get a driver's license photo...now all he has to do is find their MySpace page. He also uses job search engines to find resumes with personal information, and even uses the dreaded marketing companies that compile our data on us.
He also discusses the various ways technology has benefited his business, while hurting our privacy. Cell phones, referred to as the 24/7 "snitch," since data can be cross-referenced to see who you talked to and where you were. This along with the increased use of cameras, such as in New York City subways, to monitor and control the population.
Mr. Rambam conducted an experiment...he had someone agree to go into hiding for a year and see how many times he could be found. The answer: 9. Nine times the person who was attempting and trying to hide their identity was found. Through various methods, mostly Internet-based, he was able to track down his target.
A recent interview with a private investigator presented by Yahoo! News and cnet News discusses just how easy it is for him to gather information for his clients in this modern era. With the increased use of the Internet, his preferred tool, and social networking sites, Steven Rambam is able to learn everything possible about a person without ever having to meet them.
Privacy decreases with every blog post, every MySpace bulletin, and every photo posted. Mr. Rambam states, "Anything you put on the Internet will be grabbed, indexed, cataloged, and out of your control before you know it...The genie is out of the bottle. Data doesn't stay in one location. It migrates to hundreds of places." This has helped his job, basically by making it easier to find out anything he needs while building a case for a client.
He starts off by using social networking sites to find out what the person looks like. From there he can also gather other information such as: occupation, hometown, age, etc. He evens compiles a list of friends and family to interview. He says that he used to have to pay the police to get a driver's license photo...now all he has to do is find their MySpace page. He also uses job search engines to find resumes with personal information, and even uses the dreaded marketing companies that compile our data on us.
He also discusses the various ways technology has benefited his business, while hurting our privacy. Cell phones, referred to as the 24/7 "snitch," since data can be cross-referenced to see who you talked to and where you were. This along with the increased use of cameras, such as in New York City subways, to monitor and control the population.
Mr. Rambam conducted an experiment...he had someone agree to go into hiding for a year and see how many times he could be found. The answer: 9. Nine times the person who was attempting and trying to hide their identity was found. Through various methods, mostly Internet-based, he was able to track down his target.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Privacy International...defending your personal privacy.
Privacy International has been around for almost 20 years and works hard day-in and day-out to protect our personal privacy from corporations and governments. They are the oldest privacy advocacy group and the first of its kind international resource for privacy protection. Headquartered in London, with a U.S. headquarters in Washington D.C., they describe themselves as a chameleon-like group that advocates privacy but can also be a troublemaker. Privacy International's advisory group is not afraid to dive into a controversial campaign in order to protect privacy. Privacy International is a very involved privacy advocate group that uses the power of the pen to conduct studies and write reports that will benefit privacy for all.
Privacy International's website is very easy to use and navigate. It contains a listing of "Top News" articles that they are directly involved in, continues with a Key Resources section, followed by News and Developments and lastly a Reports/Studies/Campaigns section. The website also offers specific subject areas that offer more in depth coverage and information in such areas as: data protection and privacy laws, financial surveillance, and national ID cards. You can also search issues by specific privacy related keywords.
Privacy International's website is very easy to use and navigate. It contains a listing of "Top News" articles that they are directly involved in, continues with a Key Resources section, followed by News and Developments and lastly a Reports/Studies/Campaigns section. The website also offers specific subject areas that offer more in depth coverage and information in such areas as: data protection and privacy laws, financial surveillance, and national ID cards. You can also search issues by specific privacy related keywords.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Footprints in the electronic sand
Unlike the footprints we leave as we walk along the beach, electronic footprints don't wash away so easily. Most human activity leaves an electronic footprint that will last until we have an apocalyptic event. To put this into perspective, unless we are plunged into another dark age by a meteor, traces of our existence will last well beyond our lifetime. This leaves us with two choices, accept the inevitable or pay attention to the traces we leave.
Let's focus on the some of the traces we leave and the choices we have. From driving to surfing the Internet, we leave a huge volume of traces that we usually don't think about. Even if we have nothing to hide, maybe we should still know what traces we leave behind. I've chosen to accept some loss of privacy for the sake of convenience.
My car is equipped with OnStar. This is a great tool in case of an accident. It also helps when I'm lost or want to find the nearest gas station. But what traces does it leave? First off we know there is a GPS system that tracks the cars movement. This is how you get directions and how emergency personnel are notified in case of an accident. Should I worry about this? I don't, but what if I don't want people to know where I've been. Well I suppose I could decide not to take my car.
But wait, if I don't take my car I can still be tracked by my cell phone. It too sends out a signal that let's the phone company know where I am. It needs to send the signal so I can receive calls. I suppose that I could turn off my cell phone so that it's not sending out signals.
But wait, what car am I using? If it's a rental car, I had to pay for it with a credit card and show identification. That almost defeats the whole purpose of not using my car. And what if the rental car company has installed a tracker just in case their car was stolen. Hmmmmm.
Maybe I could borrow a friends car. If the friend picked me up, I could drop my friend off and drive to where ever I was going. Of course if I borrowed a car I'd have to make sure it did not have an electronic toll payment system like SunPass or EasyPass. And I'd probably want to return the car with gas. Hmmmm. I guess I would have to pay cash for the gas if I wanted to make sure I did not leave a trail.
But wait, where did I get the cash? If I went to an ATM then I left a trace at that machine. Worse yet, where did I go? Almost anything we do involves spending money. Having lunch, flying on an airplane, parking at the airport, renting a hotel room, buying clothes and well, just about anything. That's an awful lot of cash.
But maybe I don't go far or maybe I don't spend a lot of money. However, if I used the Internet to research a local park and the park hours, my ISP at home has a log of my activity. My PC also has the history of the browsing and maybe even a cookie.
Maybe this all seems a little over the top. The point is that in the world today we leave an electronic footprint. Someone can create a very detailed picture of our existence using that footprint. Should we worry about it, yes and no. Yes because with evil intent that information can be used against us in ways I don't even want to think about. And no, because there is very little we can do about it.
While I don't worry about it, I do recognize the footprints I leave behind. And when I am concerned about people with evil intentions, I try to minimize that footprint as much as possible.
Let's focus on the some of the traces we leave and the choices we have. From driving to surfing the Internet, we leave a huge volume of traces that we usually don't think about. Even if we have nothing to hide, maybe we should still know what traces we leave behind. I've chosen to accept some loss of privacy for the sake of convenience.
My car is equipped with OnStar. This is a great tool in case of an accident. It also helps when I'm lost or want to find the nearest gas station. But what traces does it leave? First off we know there is a GPS system that tracks the cars movement. This is how you get directions and how emergency personnel are notified in case of an accident. Should I worry about this? I don't, but what if I don't want people to know where I've been. Well I suppose I could decide not to take my car.
But wait, if I don't take my car I can still be tracked by my cell phone. It too sends out a signal that let's the phone company know where I am. It needs to send the signal so I can receive calls. I suppose that I could turn off my cell phone so that it's not sending out signals.
But wait, what car am I using? If it's a rental car, I had to pay for it with a credit card and show identification. That almost defeats the whole purpose of not using my car. And what if the rental car company has installed a tracker just in case their car was stolen. Hmmmmm.
Maybe I could borrow a friends car. If the friend picked me up, I could drop my friend off and drive to where ever I was going. Of course if I borrowed a car I'd have to make sure it did not have an electronic toll payment system like SunPass or EasyPass. And I'd probably want to return the car with gas. Hmmmm. I guess I would have to pay cash for the gas if I wanted to make sure I did not leave a trail.
But wait, where did I get the cash? If I went to an ATM then I left a trace at that machine. Worse yet, where did I go? Almost anything we do involves spending money. Having lunch, flying on an airplane, parking at the airport, renting a hotel room, buying clothes and well, just about anything. That's an awful lot of cash.
But maybe I don't go far or maybe I don't spend a lot of money. However, if I used the Internet to research a local park and the park hours, my ISP at home has a log of my activity. My PC also has the history of the browsing and maybe even a cookie.
Maybe this all seems a little over the top. The point is that in the world today we leave an electronic footprint. Someone can create a very detailed picture of our existence using that footprint. Should we worry about it, yes and no. Yes because with evil intent that information can be used against us in ways I don't even want to think about. And no, because there is very little we can do about it.
While I don't worry about it, I do recognize the footprints I leave behind. And when I am concerned about people with evil intentions, I try to minimize that footprint as much as possible.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
YouTube users get back at Viacom the only way they can...with more videos!
It seems that angry YouTube users are showing their discontent through the use of their freedom of speech...and by making videos aimed at telling Viacom exactly how they feel. A few days ago the Viacom/Google battle was in full swing (read the blog about YouTube user losing their Internet privacy), now Newsfactor is reporting on the backlash against Viacom's legal win over Google, forcing Google to give up all sorts of information about their YouTube users.
The copyright infringement lawsuit (for $1 billion) has angered users since now all of their information is being given up to Viacom so that the company can analyze the way viral videos vs copyrighted videos are viewed. While one good thing is that Viacom was not given YouTube's source code, user information was not safe from Viacom.
Angry users have been making videos urging the boycott of Viacom.
While the gigantic corporation is busy picking on YouTube users, they can't take a moment to comment on the subject. Instead they released a comment on the company's website stating, "A recent discovery order by the federal court hearing the case of Viacom v. YouTube has triggered concern about what information will be disclosed by Google and YouTube and how it will be used. Viacom has not asked for and will not be obtaining any personally identifiable information of any YouTube user." Well, I feel safe now...I am definitely positive that my information is safe and that Viacom will be responsible with it. Besides, if I can't trust a large corporation with very large financial incentives that go against my best interests, who can I trust?
The copyright infringement lawsuit (for $1 billion) has angered users since now all of their information is being given up to Viacom so that the company can analyze the way viral videos vs copyrighted videos are viewed. While one good thing is that Viacom was not given YouTube's source code, user information was not safe from Viacom.
Angry users have been making videos urging the boycott of Viacom.
While the gigantic corporation is busy picking on YouTube users, they can't take a moment to comment on the subject. Instead they released a comment on the company's website stating, "A recent discovery order by the federal court hearing the case of Viacom v. YouTube has triggered concern about what information will be disclosed by Google and YouTube and how it will be used. Viacom has not asked for and will not be obtaining any personally identifiable information of any YouTube user." Well, I feel safe now...I am definitely positive that my information is safe and that Viacom will be responsible with it. Besides, if I can't trust a large corporation with very large financial incentives that go against my best interests, who can I trust?
FTC: protecting America's consumers--most of the time.
A recent article by the McClatchy Washington Bureau reported that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will not intervene in the battle between data-miners and Internet marketers--ultimately allowing them to figure out for themselves how to protect the Internet privacy of its users. So much for the FTC's catchy slogan of "protecting America's consumers."
The FTC's official statement on the subject is, "Self-regulation may be the preferable approach for this dynamic marketplace." With this being the way it is, new legislation won't even be considered until the new President takes charge next January.
This battle has been raging, and now it may be at its all-time worst. With more consumers worrying about their privacy and more companies using behavioral targeting to advertise to potential customers, Internet privacy is a volatile and touchy subject. Without help from the FTC, this problem will not figure itself out. Limits will be tested and boundaries pushed by companies to see how far they can take the tracking and recording of private information without getting in trouble for it.
While self-regulation is a start, governments needs to step in and do something. Self-regulating is not the final solution, especially when the two sides are on completely different ends of the spectrum...it will be difficult to self-regulate when the corporations want more information and the consumers don't want their privacy invaded. FTC regulations would make everything uniform and consistent.
One of the comments to the article stated it in the best words possible when considering using only self-regulation: It's like letting the fox guard then hen house...
The FTC's official statement on the subject is, "Self-regulation may be the preferable approach for this dynamic marketplace." With this being the way it is, new legislation won't even be considered until the new President takes charge next January.
This battle has been raging, and now it may be at its all-time worst. With more consumers worrying about their privacy and more companies using behavioral targeting to advertise to potential customers, Internet privacy is a volatile and touchy subject. Without help from the FTC, this problem will not figure itself out. Limits will be tested and boundaries pushed by companies to see how far they can take the tracking and recording of private information without getting in trouble for it.
While self-regulation is a start, governments needs to step in and do something. Self-regulating is not the final solution, especially when the two sides are on completely different ends of the spectrum...it will be difficult to self-regulate when the corporations want more information and the consumers don't want their privacy invaded. FTC regulations would make everything uniform and consistent.
One of the comments to the article stated it in the best words possible when considering using only self-regulation: It's like letting the fox guard then hen house...
Friday, July 4, 2008
YouTube users...hand over your privacy!
Telegraph UK reported that search-engine giant Google, the proud owners of YouTube, were demanded to give up ALL of their users' information...that is correct. This started mainly because of a suit brought on by media juggernaut Viacom, who accuses Google/YouTube of hosting copyrighted information on the site. Google will have to hand information over to Viacom such your log-in details, viewing history, and the IP address from which you surf. I hope either A.) you didn't view any copyrighted movies or B.) you are using a proxy server to mask your IP and surf anonymously.
The EFF website also has some information on this subject, which it is calling a "setback to privacy rights." Viacom owns MTV and Paramount Pictures (among others) and is demanding this information because copyrighted programs have been appearing on YouTube and has led to an "explosion of copyright infringement." Googling is countering the $1 billion lawsuit by saying it already goes above and beyond any legal expectations to remove copyrighted materials...a strategy which hopefully works out, especially since I don't think I know a single person who doesn't go on YouTube.
Viacom has stated they want the user details so they can statistically compare original videos with copyrighted videos to show "the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing video" (I smell something...it smells a lot like b.s.).
I am just glad that Google does have the firepower to fight back against Viacom and that the EFF has also made their stance clear. I do not need my log-in details and IP address taken hostage so that a "statistical analysis" can be done. How does my personal information help Viacom conduct these studies? IT DOESN'T. Viacom promises not to pursue legal action against people who watch copyrighted content...so I guess we can trust them since they said they wouldn't do it. That has never happened before, why would a huge company like Viacom lie?
While Google has been involved in some privacy rights issues recently I am glad to see they are stepping up and fighting back. They are requesting to encrypt and anonymize the logs before sending them over to Viacom so that individual users are not prosecuted, but so that a statistical analysis can be done anonymously.
The EFF website also has some information on this subject, which it is calling a "setback to privacy rights." Viacom owns MTV and Paramount Pictures (among others) and is demanding this information because copyrighted programs have been appearing on YouTube and has led to an "explosion of copyright infringement." Googling is countering the $1 billion lawsuit by saying it already goes above and beyond any legal expectations to remove copyrighted materials...a strategy which hopefully works out, especially since I don't think I know a single person who doesn't go on YouTube.
Viacom has stated they want the user details so they can statistically compare original videos with copyrighted videos to show "the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing video" (I smell something...it smells a lot like b.s.).
I am just glad that Google does have the firepower to fight back against Viacom and that the EFF has also made their stance clear. I do not need my log-in details and IP address taken hostage so that a "statistical analysis" can be done. How does my personal information help Viacom conduct these studies? IT DOESN'T. Viacom promises not to pursue legal action against people who watch copyrighted content...so I guess we can trust them since they said they wouldn't do it. That has never happened before, why would a huge company like Viacom lie?
While Google has been involved in some privacy rights issues recently I am glad to see they are stepping up and fighting back. They are requesting to encrypt and anonymize the logs before sending them over to Viacom so that individual users are not prosecuted, but so that a statistical analysis can be done anonymously.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
EU and US privacy deal coming soon...
Guardian UK recently published an article updating the information about the E.U./U.S. privacy deal set to make way sometime next year. This deal is intended to help both sides in the war on terrorism. The two agreed in "principle" but still have numerous unresolved issues.
This deal would be a breakthrough, according to the article, for the U.S. since it faces very strict E.U. privacy laws when trying to find information on a suspected terrorist or criminal. Credit card transactions, travel history, and Internet habits are all protected by the E.U. (Look back at this previous post about U.S. and E.U. privacy laws).
While both sides want to get the ball rolling and make this happen, they do recognize that many issues still need to be resolved. Further they are not in a hurry to make something happen at the expense of citizens' privacy rights. This is especially true with the recent criticisms that have come about from other deals made between the two, especially one where the E.U. gave the U.S. access to private data about passengers traveling to the U.S. A key issue is the misuse of information, which, if happens, will allow E.U. citizens to sue the U.S. under the U.S. privacy act.
Some principles have been agreed on, while others are still being figured out. One of the major principles is that, "information revealing a person's racial or ethnic origins, political, religious or philosophical views and health or sexual behavior, may not be processed unless domestic legislation provides appropriate safeguards...people should be told about use of their data, which must be supervised by an independent authority."
Ultimately, I like this idea...assuming the two stay on the right track and continue progress towards ensuring the average Joe is protected. It definitely seems like every intention is being made to protect us...only time will tell how this plays out.
This deal would be a breakthrough, according to the article, for the U.S. since it faces very strict E.U. privacy laws when trying to find information on a suspected terrorist or criminal. Credit card transactions, travel history, and Internet habits are all protected by the E.U. (Look back at this previous post about U.S. and E.U. privacy laws).
While both sides want to get the ball rolling and make this happen, they do recognize that many issues still need to be resolved. Further they are not in a hurry to make something happen at the expense of citizens' privacy rights. This is especially true with the recent criticisms that have come about from other deals made between the two, especially one where the E.U. gave the U.S. access to private data about passengers traveling to the U.S. A key issue is the misuse of information, which, if happens, will allow E.U. citizens to sue the U.S. under the U.S. privacy act.
Some principles have been agreed on, while others are still being figured out. One of the major principles is that, "information revealing a person's racial or ethnic origins, political, religious or philosophical views and health or sexual behavior, may not be processed unless domestic legislation provides appropriate safeguards...people should be told about use of their data, which must be supervised by an independent authority."
Ultimately, I like this idea...assuming the two stay on the right track and continue progress towards ensuring the average Joe is protected. It definitely seems like every intention is being made to protect us...only time will tell how this plays out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)