Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts

April 14, 2015

Zuckerberg should absolutely protect his privacy

Zuckerberg should absolutely protect his privacy




By Gulshan Naz: "Mr. Zuckerberg goes to great lengths to protect the privacy of his personal life."

That quote — from one of Mark Zuckerberg's lawyers — was included in a recent lawsuit covered by the NYT's always excellent Matt Richtel. It turns out that certain wealthy individuals require those who work on their homes (and therefore become aware of certain details of their private lives) to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). For most of us in the Internet business, such NDAs are usually associated with deals, negotiations, or pitches that include the sharing of sensitive technical details.
One rarely associates NDAs with the guy who installs your hardwood floors. And, it should be noted, that there's often very little upside to signing an NDA. As a seed investor in tech deals, I categorically refuse to sign them. I don't share secrets, but I still see little advantage of putting myself at risk of a lawsuit if someone thinks I did. I'm not enough of an expert on the hardwood installation game or the kitchen tile business to assess the risk, but if someone in that industry asked me for feedback, I'd argue against signing the document.

et, it seems such signage is quite common. And the demand for such NDAs often is made by someone — and we're not just talking about famous founders — who works for a tech company. And not just any tech companies, but the very ones that suggest (in public statements and in product design) that the path to our utopian salvation is marked at nearly every turn by the transparency enabled and encouraged by their wares.

So what are we to make of learning that the merchants of transparency are going to extreme lengths to keep us from knowing that it's walnut under their kitchen chairs when they sit down for a family dinner, and oak that lines the floors of their kids' bedrooms, and that sustainable bamboo is the surface material beneath the stand-up desk on which they type out less and less prohibitive iterations of their corporate privacy policies?

They are right to want privacy. They are right to want to keep their personal lives walled off from anyone from nosy neighbors to potential thieves to, well, Matt Richtel. They should lock their doors and lock down their information. They are right not to want you to know where they live, with whom they live, or how much they spend. They're right that it's a bummer that we all know how much our friends, neighbors, and strangers paid for their homes. They're right to want to plug a cork in the social media champagne bottle we've shaken up in our blind celebration of glass houses.

Tint the glass. Pull the curtains. And, if possible, get a promise of secrecy from the people who did the tinting and hung the curtains.

They are right not to want to toss the floor planks that represent their last hint of personal privacy into the social media wood chipper. They are right in their unwillingness to give in to the seeming inevitability of the internet sharing machine. Do you really think it's a coincidence that most of the buttons you press on the web are labeled with the word submit?

The folks who have hit it big in the tech business don't submit because it's crazy to submit. They see through the transparency. No one knows the prizes and pitfalls of this era better than they do. Yes, there is an almost hilarious hypocrisy of seeing marketers of the message that "information wants to be free" as they sit on the porch with a shotgun telling you kids to get off their lawn.

But don't focus on the hypocrisy. Focus on the fact that they're still right. It's their goddamn lawn. Their business is their business. And yours is yours.

So you should follow their lead. Don't do what they say. Do what they do.

Or better yet, do what they NDA.

April 11, 2015

Facebook admits it tracks non-users


Social network claims privacy report commissioned by the Belgian privacy watchdog ‘gets it wrong multiple times’ over what Facebook does with user data

Facebook has admitted that it tracked users who do not have an account with the social network, but says that the tracking only happened because of a bug that is now being fixed.
The social network hit out at the report commissioned by the Belgian data protection authority, which found Facebook in breach of European data privacy laws, saying that the report “gets it wrong multiple times in asserting how Facebook uses information”.
“The researchers did find a bug that may have sent cookies to some people when they weren’t on Facebook. This was not our intention – a fix for this is already under way,” wrote Richard Allan, Facebook’s vice president of policy for Europe in a rebuttal.
Allan listed and responded to eight claims isolated from the report written by researchers at the Centre of Interdisciplinary Law and ICT (ICRI) and the Computer Security and Industrial Cryptography department (Cosic) at the University of Leuven, and the media, information and telecommunication department (Smit) at Vrije Universiteit Brussels.
Some of the claims listed by Facebook are not made in the report, including one that states “there’s no way to opt out of social ads”. The report clearly states that “users can opt-out from appearing in so-called Social Ads”.
“Facebook’s latest press release (entitled “Setting the record straight”) attributes statements to us that we simply did not make,” said authors of the study Brendan Van Alsenoy from the ICRI and Günes Acar from Cosic.

Cookies, tracking and web impressions

Facebook also disputed some of the terms the authors of the report use, such as their definition of “tracking”.
“Facebook does receive standard ‘web impressions’, or website visit information, when people visit sites with our plugins or other integrations. The authors misleadingly call this ‘tracking’,” said Allan. “Unlike many companies, we explain how we will use this information and the controls we honour and offer.”
“Cookies tell us when people are logged into Facebook. That’s why you don’t have to enter your name and password every time you visit, and so we can alert you in case someone else is trying to log in as you from an unknown computer,” said Allan.Allan also wrote that Facebook is transparent about Facebook’s use of cookies for security, personalisation and ads.
But he also reinforced the point that “Facebook is offered free of charge, and we do that by showing ads we think are relevant to people’s interests”, which is also the funding method used to support many other services including those from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and media organisations.
The Belgian Privacy Commission is expected to decide whether to act on the report on 29 April.
Facebook is under increasing pressure outside of Ireland, where the company is headquartered and regulated by the Irish data protection authority. A task force of data regulators from Belgium, France, Spain and Italy has been set up to look at Facebook’s privacy practices, while the Flemish, Dutch and European parliaments have also called for closer looks at the company.
“We deliberately chose to open up our findings to public scrutiny so that anyone can check our sources and methodology. People who are interested can compare the ‘claims’ Facebook attributes to our report with its actual contents. We still remain open to additional comments and suggestions, including from Facebook, in relation to our actual findings,” said the authors of the report.
 Class action privacy lawsuit filed against Facebook in Austria
 Leave Facebook if you don’t want to be spied on, warns EU

April 10, 2015

Austria court brought against Facebook privacy case

Some 25,000 users - led by Austrian law graduate Max Schrems - accuse Facebook of violating European privacy laws in the way it collects and forwards data.
The case has been brought against Facebook's European HQ in Dublin, which handles accounts outside US and Canada.
Facebook's lawyers have argued for the case to be dismissed.
They presented a list of procedural objections at a court hearing in Vienna on Thursday.
Mr Schrems - a campaigner for data protection - said he brought the claim to stop what he calls mass surveillance by the social networking site.
The legal action claims privacy laws are breached in the way Facebook monitors users when they activate the site's "like" buttons.
It also alleges Facebook co-operated with Prism, a surveillance system launched in 2007 by the US National Security Agency.
The case - which involves more than 900 UK-based users of Facebook - includes a compensation claim of about €500 ($539; £362) per person.
The court will issue a written decision in the next few weeks on whether it can handle the case, the BBC's Bethany Bell reports from Vienna.

 

Copyright @ 2022 PakTech Insider.