Privacy Laws Should Also Be Anti-Crime

Britain’s privacy law provisions were recently criticized by a conservative MP. He alleged these are useless and “just waste of money”. This reaction from MP Heather Wheeler of Derbyshire South resulted from Google’s position over a certain photograph. Google Street View apparently refused to show the photo of a suspect’s vehicle plate number.

Allegedly, the photograph taken by Google Street View showed a robbery suspect and his vehicle. The vehicle’s plate number however, was deliberately blurred. The photo could probably give the lead to the key of the crime. This stand, according to the search giant, is in conformity to existing privacy laws.

Google maintained their stand. They would only show the unblurred photograph if the police could produce a court order to that effect. Wheeler then reiterated that Google should “enter into a protocol with British police forces to receive and acquiesce to police requests”.

Wheeler further insisted that Google should identify crime as a situation that should not need a court order. Google however defended its position by virtue of existing privacy laws. It further added that should the government legitimately allow such procedures as suggested by Wheeler, then they would abide by. However, the present condition regarding privacy laws puts Google tied up to its privacy agreement with its users.

A government representative gave a hint of information related to the case at hand. According to him, the Data Protection Act does not disallow companies to provide information connected to investigation of a crime. What is needed now is official ruling from the right government agency. In its entirety, privacy laws are broad, but there should be definite provisions applicable in special cases.

Advertising Controversy

BT, the U.K.’s largest Internet provider has opted out of using “Phorm”, a large-scale behavioral advertiser. Phorm can gather information about the surfers on a particular ISP and then tailor ads to the persons needs and wants. For example, if a certain user frequents car sites, and automobile tuning sites, then they will likely see ads about motor oil, tires, and the like. Phorm’s philosophy is that, instead of being bombarded with random advertisements that the people probably won’t be interested in, they will create product demographics by performing an involuntary interview with the person, and figure out their likes and interests. BT is still interested in the program, but chose to take the philanthropically route and use their money to bring people the fastest Internet possible, and all of the technological advances that come with it.

Phorm knows it has an intuitive and breakthrough technology, and charges a pretty penny for its services. What ads of old would charge to be posted is nothing compared to the fees Phorm would charge, but for good reason. Think about it, if a guy interested in football and weightlifting gets a pop-up about the latest Cabbage Patch Kid to hit the scene, he will most likely just grunt and dislike dolls even more after he smacked the “x” button. Phorm aims to eliminate these ill-placed ads and replace them with ads that are custom fit to the user’s needs. Based on his habits of browsing NFL’s website, managing his fanatical fantasy football team, and ordering protein shakes, Phorm would conclude ads showing these types of products would be most appealing to him, and more likely to get him to buy than would the new clothing options on the hot new Barbie doll.

As one can imagine though, there are many security and privacy risks with this new technology. Such concerns are inherent with the nature of the product, as it (without permission) inspects your browsing history and other documents you view in order to find out what interests you. Privacy advocate groups believe this is just one step closer to the dystopian world of 1984, and are fighting against it. The program assures the public that no information is personally recognizable and no names are kept while the browsing is in progress, only numbers and incoherent data.

In some areas, the concerns for privacy invasion have been too much for these behavioral advertisers. Nebuad, an advertiser like Phorm, withdrew from the market after a controversy over its blatant privacy invasions put it on the blacklist for many ISPs. Analyzing people’s data is a strong gray area, and these companies must be careful to walk the line carefully, lest they fall over and snoop somewhere they shouldn’t have.

BT found themselves the subject of such criticism after they, unbeknownst to their customers, ran Phorm for around three months. The people caught on, and many resigned from the Internet Service Provider because they felt betrayed and unprotected.

As more and more major ISPs are considering running this software, Phorm could be the status quo of online advertising. While it does seems useful to get advertisements tailored to your interests rather than complete guesswork that is usually completely off, one must ponder the repercussions of allowing such an open window into our Internet habits just so people can solicit products we MIGHT enjoy.

Google Introduces New Protocol for Storing Data

Reuters and Yahoo! News report that Google has agreed to cut the amount of time it stores users' web surfing habits from 18 month to only nine months. This is quite a significant drop, especially when taking into account that in March 2007 Google had no policy and kept the information for an indefinite period of time. Google's new policies, "are part of a broader trend that is increasing across the industry for companies to compete in good privacy practices," according to Google's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer.

Along with the new nine month data retention policy, Google plans to anonymize the data much more quickly. Could this be in response to the Viacom/YouTube issue? This is is a great precautionary measure to protect our Internet privacy from companies like Viacom that want to sue Google so they can obtain users' records. After nine months the data and the IP address are disassociated and the data can no longer be tracked back to a specific user.

The move to an 18-month data retention policy came about due to the European Union putting pressure on Google to increase their privacy measures. The new nine-month policy was adapted to further refine Google's privacy protection and keep users much safer while surfing the Internet. The new nine month policy makes Google the alpha male, as far as privacy is concerned. Microsoft still keeps data for 18 months and Yahoo! currently retains data for 13 months.

While this is good news for anyone who surfs the Internet, it is important to remember that your data is being tracked and recorded. Data retention policies are extremely helpful, but ultimately privacy must begin with you. Using an anonymous proxy server will help you be invisible and maintain anonymity while surfing and stay one step ahead of even the most favorable data retention policies.

European Privacy? More Like European Invasion of Privacy...

OhMyNews recently reported that the U.K., along with other European powers, are developing a system to spy on cell phone records, including text and calls, as well as Internet searches.

The British government wants to invade privacy by storing records in a database so that hundreds of public organizations can access this information as needed. The cell phone, text message, and Internet records will be used to investigate criminal and terrorist acts. The records will be kept at the data center for at least 12 months. Dates, times, and contacts (from cell phones) will be stored, while searches and instant message conversations will be tracked and recorded as well. The only bright side is that, supposedly, the content will not be stored just the identifying information.

The cost for transferring the massive amount of data--a mere 50 million pounds per year. It must be worth it to the surveillance-obsessed nation that already monitors citizens through CCTV. 1984 anyone? One spy camera for every fourteen people wasn't bad enough, now forget about protecting personal information or any type of Internet privacy.

I can't see any benefit in this. The U.K. is making it seem like every citizen is guilty and will be treated accordingly. What will the exact laws be concerning the use, or better yet misuse, of information? How secure will this database be? We could end up having another situation, much like what happened in Sarasota, but on a much larger scale--imagine millions of people having their information posted on the Internet.

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.

Privacy Lost (pt 3)...U.S. vs E.U. Privacy Laws

With today's continuation of MSNBC's Privacy Lost, the focus is on the vast difference in privacy rights and laws between the United States and the European Union.

A few examples of the difference in European privacy laws vs U.S. privacy laws include:

• Personal information can't be collected without permission, and the person has a chance to review their information to make sure it is accurate and up to date
• Companies that process data must be registered with the government
• Employee e-mails cannot be read by employers
• Personal information cannot be shared across borders or companies without permission
• Salespeople at stores can't ask for a shopper's phone number

Europeans tend to trust their government more, even though many of these limitations do not apply to them. According to the article, the Netherlands is 130 times more likely to use wiretapping than the U.S. The major different is that the E.U. places many privacy restrictions on the "evil" corporations, while the U.S. lacks trust in their government.

The article continues to point out the significance that privacy laws (well actually the lack of privacy laws in this case) played during the Holocaust when church records were used to persecute Jews. Some theories exist that date the privacy issues back even further in history. The article then continues to point out some recent examples of how the differences in privacy laws became major issues. Europeans choose to use the government, which is there to protect them, when wrongdoings occur...Americans, on the other hand, use the private sector to resolve issues.

The article displays a very useful chart to show the differences between the U.S. and E.U. in various issues including: right to privacy, government snooping, and consumer data collection. From what I see, Americans tend to view privacy as a personal matter that they have a right to defend on their own terms. In contrast, Europeans seem to see privacy as a matter of government and will use that avenue as opposed to actively pursuing ways to protect their privacy. Americans make privacy happen, while Europeans expect it to be there.

While I won't say that one trumps the other, both the U.S. and the E.U. make valid points to their cause. My reoccuring thought while reading this article was how do two vastly different systems work so well, respectively? Speaking from a U.S. point of view, while many privacy issues exist, I know I can still be protected. It is a difficult subject to approach. Ultimately, both systems are working in their respective ways.