You Own The Internet

Would you be happy if Apple and their app developers had your fingerprint on file?

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Grams) — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:14:00 +0000

Lend us your voice this 4th of July. Click HERE

OVERNIGHT TECH: Privacy advocates eye new Apple. By Kate Tummarello Via: thehill.com

THE LEDE: At its annual developers conference on Monday, Apple announced new features and expanded uses of current features that could raise some concerns among privacy advocates and privacy-minded lawmakers.

The company announced that it would be expanding the uses for its Touch ID, the iPhone’s fingerprint verification feature. While that feature can currently be used to unlock a phone, it will soon be available to log in to applications.

“People love using Touch ID, and now, third party apps can take advantage of Touch ID as well,” Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering, said during Monday’s presentation. While less than half of iPhone users had passcodes before the company rolled out Touch ID, 83 percent enabled passcode or fingerprint unlocking once the feature was introduced, he said.

Federighi touted the feature’s privacy and security protections. “It always keeps the fingerprint data itself completely protected inside of the secure enclave in the A7 processor,” he said. “The information is never exposed to third party apps or the rest of the system, for that matter. It’ very secure.”

Despite those assurances, the expanded use of the fingerprint ID feature could raise eyebrows among privacy advocates. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) — who wrote to Apple about the privacy implications of Touch ID when it was announced last year — said he is “looking forward to finding out more about” Apple’s Monday announcement. “Using fingerprints as passwords can be a double-edged sword: it adds convenience, but it often creates potential long-term security concerns,” Franken said in a statement.

Also, a new health, fitness data center: Apple also announced a new feature that would incorporate health data from other applications to create what Federighi called “a composite profile of your activity and health” with built-in privacy protections. “We carefully protect your privacy, so you have total control over which applications have access to which part of your healthcare information,” he said.

Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, warned that Apple should be careful with this “quasi-health data,” which can be used, often without the user’s knowledge, to affect healthcare costs. “The really innocent, simple fitness information is actually really important” in determining healthcare costs, she said.

While Apple isn’t subject to the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act — which governs how traditional healthcare providers use and share data — the company “is going to have to be really careful” to give users “full confidence that the [health and fitness] information isn’t going anywhere,” Dixon continued.

SCOTUS rulings slap top patent court: The Supreme Court on Monday issued two rulings reining in the rights of patent holders that have been established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the country’s top patent court. In a case between tech companies Akamai and Limelight, the court said a company does not infringe on a method patent if it replicates only some of the steps described in the patent. In another case between companies producing heart rate monitors, the Supreme Court raised the specificity standards for infringement claims.

The rulings come after the Senate Judiciary Committee walked away from its attempts to craft a patent litigation reform bill, but patent reform advocates say the Supreme Court’s Monday actions are a step in the right direction to curb abuse of the patent system. The ruling in the Limelight case “shuts down another potential avenue of going after customers, which is a good thing,” Julie Samuels, executive director of tech advocacy group Engine, said. “It also is promising to see the continued pushback on the Federal Circuit, whose broad — and unjustified — reading of the law has led to the troll problem.”

FCC releases spectrum auction rules: The Federal Communications Commission on Monday published a 484-page order outlining its rules for the 2015 spectrum auction, which will involve buying airwaves back from television broadcasters and reselling them to wireless companies looking to boost their cellphone networks. At its monthly meeting in May, the Commission voted 3-2 to approve the agency’s plans for the auction, including limiting some companies — especially industry giants AT&T and Verizon — from participating in parts of the auction.

The National Association of Broadcasters said it is “currently wading through the rather lengthy order.” In a statement, the group’s Executive Vice President of Communications, Dennis Wharton reiterated that its “twin aims are to help ensure the best chance for auction success while holding harmless those local TV stations committed to staying in business who wish to continue serving their tens of millions of viewers."

FCC’s O’Rielly calls for internal tech advances: FCC Republican Commissioner Michael O’Rielly took to the agency’s blog on Monday to criticize the FCC for calling on the private sector to make specifical technical improvements without making the same improvements itself. “The FCC loses credibility when it seeks to impose rules or standards on the private sector but does not adhere to the same or similar commitments in its own operations,” O’Rielly wrote.

He pointed to the agency’s recent work to improve the 911 system, despite the fact that within the FCC, callers have to dial 9 before dialing outside numbers, including 911. O’Rielly encouraged the agency to go through with the “simple” update to the phone systems to allow direct dialing to 911 and then help other agencies complete a similar update. “This potential life-saving fix is especially important because in addition to hosting employees and visitors, many of our Federal buildings have day care centers with infants and young children on site,” he wrote.

O’Rielly also criticized the agency’s efforts to keep up with the IPV6 transition, which involves updating websites to make them compatible with Internet Protocol addresses assigned under the new, bigger IPV6 address system. Despite the FCC’s calls on the private sector to “quickly move” to the new system, 12 percent of the agency’s subdomains are IPV6 compatible, O’Rielly wrote. “For an agency that just proposed rules and questions that aim to micromanage the way the Internet works, this seems ironic,” he said, referencing FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s controversial attempts to rewrite the agency’s net neutrality rules.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/overnights/207991-overnight-tech-privacy-advocates-eye-new-apple-features#ixzz33iex1ShT

Lend us your voice this 4th of July. Click HERE

"The President" supports our voice...

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Grams) — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:00:00 +0000

Lend us your voice this 4th of July. Click HERE

Obama said on Feb 23rd, 2012 "Consumers can’t wait any longer for clear rules of the road that ensure their personal information is safe online".

The same day The White House released its Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, a proposal to protect online users from being tracked by websites without their knowledge.

President Barack Obama said in a statement. “As the Internet evolves, consumer trust is essential for the continued growth of the digital economy.”

The administration’s plan was to offer a thorough, considered recommendation that “stakeholders”—industry, government and, one hopes, consumer advocacy groups—agree on a set of standards, in line with those in other countries, to be codified by Congress and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission

It was Feb 23rd and President used "trust"... I guess he knew that the issue was huge to bring his attention. We believe the oil of the economy should be "trust".

What happen with the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights? Have you seen real actions focus to recover trust? (you can see at the end of this update a summary of the Bill of Rights. It is interesting that you read it to see what has change to better or to worse???)

Well ... as a consequence of the Obama's call. All the industry got together and they launched and promote "Digital Advertising Alliance's (DAA) Self-Regulatory Program for Online Behavioral Advertising" with the Advertising Option Icon (http://www.youradchoices.com/). Are you familiar with that? Have you seen the icon? Can you recognize it? Does it come immediately to your mind after I mention it?

Two years after President Barack Obama promised to introduce legislation to strengthen privacy protections on the Internet, a coalition of consumer groups and civil rights organizations are urging him to follow through on his promise (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/24/219200/consumer-groups-urge-president.html#storylink=cpy)

We only see the tip of the iceberg, but it is the tip of a very large iceberg.There are too many interests, lobbies under the tip of the iceberg. We see what they want us to see. Imaging under the ice, specially after NSA case. Companies providing access to information to the Government, NSA general counsel Rajesh De said "big tech companies like Yahoo and Google provided ‘full assistance’ in legally mandated collection of data" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de) . How a President can put pressure on the industry to be more transparent on privacy if owes too many favors?

What's worse that our data is being spied by governments or manage, analyzed, and monetized by big players????. Everybody is talking about the NSA and the government. One could argue that the government is doing that for our benefit to have more security in our countries... What about companies??? Are they analyzing, selling our data so that we are live is safer?
Thanks for supporting a new internet where you own and control your data while sealing privacy

---------------- Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights - Summary --------------------

“Every day, millions of Americans shop, sell, bank, learn, talk and work online. At the turn of the century, online retail sales were around $20 billion in the United States, now they’re nearing $200 billion,” said Secretary Bryson. “The Internet has become an engine of innovation, business growth, and job creation, so we need a strong foundation of clear protections for consumers, and a set of basic principles to help businesses guide their privacy and policy decisions. This privacy blueprint will do just that.”

The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights provides a baseline of clear protections for consumers and greater certainty for businesses. The rights are:
Individual Control: Consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data organizations collect from them and how they use it.

Transparency: Consumers have a right to easily understandable information about privacy and security practices.

Respect for Context: Consumers have a right to expect that organizations will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data.

Security: Consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal data.

Access and Accuracy: Consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequences to consumers if the data are inaccurate.

Focused Collection: Consumers have a right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain.

Accountability: Consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

Lend us your voice this 4th of July. Click HERE

You Own The Internet

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Grams) — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:00:00 +0000

In a world where abuse of privacy is becoming an ever-present silent enemy, companies are collecting billions of dollars prying into your personal details, contents, and behaviour.

More than ever, the need exists for a new Internet, owned and controlled by you, THE USER.

More than an evolution, MNPOI represents a true REVOLUTION, into a space where the users are truly the owners.
Each and every one of us has a vital part to play in building this new internet....One that YOU OWN and CONTROL in which companies and technology serve the world's users and not the other way around.

It's time to act. What are you going to do about it?

We need you to be part of it. We can't do it without you:

Lend us your voice this 4th of July. Click HERE

World Economic Forum is "sharing" our vision

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Grams) — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 13:03:00 +0000

Rethinking Personal Data: Trust and Context in User-Centred Data Ecosystems: VIEW PDF

"An asymmetry of power exists today between institutions and individuals – created by an imbalance in the amount of information about individuals held by, or that is accessible to, industry and governments, and the lack of knowledge and ability of the same individuals to control the use of that information. While people are generally willing to share personal information in exchange for valued services, recent surveys indicate growing unease in how personal data are being used. A study by the telecommunications operator Orange showed that 78% of consumers find it hard to trust companies in the way they use such data.1 A crisis of trust is developing, stemming from the use of personal data in ways that are inconsistent with individuals’ preferences or expectations. To thrive, the growing number of economies that depend on the potential of “big data” must earn the trust of individuals, and be centred on empowering those individuals by respecting their needs." Rethinking Personal Data:

Lend us your voice this 4th of July. Click HERE

The journey is long. Why privacy matters?

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Grams) — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:49:00 +0000

https://www.ted.com/talks/alessandro_acquisti_why_privacy_matters
The journey is long and has already started with you. It was more difficult that expected. It's taking longer.
It looks like the literacy around privacy and data is only read by a few. Looks like "privacy" and "personal data" is a geek's concept although it has been in our world since the beginning. Alessandro Acquisti, Award Winning Associate Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University, said "In a few years, organizations will know so much about us, they will be able to infer our desires before we even form them, and perhaps buy products on our behalf before we even know we need them.”
Do not sit idle by!! Act. Thanks for your support.
Lend us your voice this 4th of July. Click HERE

Why Private Browsing Doesn't Exist

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Grams) — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 02:19:00 +0000

Lend us your voice this 4th of July. Click HERE

Exactly How the NSA Violates International Human Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Grams) — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 13:01:00 +0000

David Greene AND Katitza Rodriguez - EFF

This article first appeared on the Electronic Frontier Foundation and is reproduced here under Creative Commons license. Image by Wasfi Akab under Creative Commons license.

Even before Ed Snowden leaked his first document, human rights lawyers and activists were concerned about law enforcement and intelligence agencies spying on the digital world. One of the tools developed to tackle those concerns was the development of the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance (the "Necessary and Proportionate Principles"). This set of principles was intended to guide governments in understanding how new surveillance technologies eat away at fundamental freedoms, and outlined how communications surveillance can be conducted consistent with human rights obligations. Furthermore, the Necessary and Proportionate Principles act as a resource for citizens—used to compare new tools of state surveillance to global expectations of privacy and due process.

We are now able to look at how the NSA's mass surveillance programs, which we have learned about in the past year, fare when compared to the Necessary and Proportionate Principles.

As you might expect, the NSA programs do not fare well. To mark the first anniversary of the Snowden disclosures, we are releasing Unnecessary and Disproportionate, which details how some of the NSA spying operations violate both human rights standards and the Necessary and Proportionate Principles.

Some of the conclusions are as follows:

The NSA surveillance lacks "legality" in that NSA surveillance laws are largely governed by a body of secret law developed by a secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which selectively publishes its legal interpretations of the law;

The NSA surveillance is neither "necessary," nor "proportionate," in that the various programs in which communications data are obtained in bulk violate the privacy rights of millions of persons who are not suspected of having any connection to international terrorism;

The NSA surveillance programs are not supported by competent judicial authority because the only judicial approval, if any, comes from the FISC, which operates outside of normal adversarial procedures such that the individuals whose data are collected lack access to the court;

The NSA surveillance programs lack due process because the FISC presents no opportunity for a public hearing;

The NSA surveillance programs lack user notification: those whose data is obtained do not know that their communications have been monitored and hence they cannot appeal the decision nor get legal representation to defend themselves;

The NSA surveillance programs lack the required transparency and public oversight, because they operate in secret and rely on gag orders against the entities from whom the data are obtained, along with secret, if any, court proceedings;

The NSA surveillance programs damage the integrity of communication systems by undermining security systems, such as encryption, requiring the insertion of surveillance back doors in communications technologies, including the installation of fiber optic splitters in transmission hubs; and

The US surveillance framework is illegitimate because it applies less favorable standards to non-US persons than its own citizens; this discrimination places it in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

More broadly, the United States justifies the lawfulness of its communications surveillance by reference to distinctions that, considering modern communications technology, are irrelevant to truly protecting privacy in a modern society. The US relies on the outmoded distinction between "content" and "metadata," falsely contending that the latter does not reveal private facts about an individual. The US also contends that the collection of data is not surveillance—it argues, contrary to both international law and the Principles, that an individual's privacy rights are not infringed as long as her communications data are not analyzed by a human being. It's clear that the practice of digital surveillance by the United States has overrun the bounds of human rights standards. What our paper hopes to show is exactly where the country has crossed the line, and how its own politicians and the international community might rein it back.

This is Scary: "Facebook App Knows What You’re Hearing, Watching"

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Grams) — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:46:00 +0000

REED ALBERGOTTI

VIA: wsj.com

Facebook launched a new feature that can automatically recognize music and television shows.

Facebook’s mobile app just grew a keen sense of hearing. Starting Wednesday, the app has the ability to recognize music and television shows playing in the vicinity of users.

The feature is designed to make it easier for users to share. When users begin to write a post, the Facebook app will offer to include information about music or shows playing in the background.

“We want to help people tell better stories,” said Aryeh Selekman, the product manager who led the development of the feature. “I hope there are people who love the feature and post more.”

If Facebook users share more about themselves, that can boost the value of ads targeted at some of its 1.28 billion users.

The audio-recognition feature works similar to the app Shazam, which also can identify music and television programming using the built-in microphones in mobile phones.

The feature took Selekman’s team about a year of engineering and logistics work. In order to recognize live television shows, Facebook inked deals to obtain audio from 160 television stations in the U.S. Using the microphone built into iPhone and Android phones, Facebook says the app can recognize a live show within 15 seconds.

Facebook also said it reached deals with music-streaming sites, including Spotify and Rdio, to enable Facebook users to play previews of songs that others have shared using the audio-recognition feature. The feature is optional and can be switched on and off.

If enough users opt in, the new Feature could give Facebook enough data to start compiling television ratings. Even if users decide not to share what they’re hearing or watching, Facebook will hold onto the data in anonymous form, keeping tabs on how many users watched particular shows.

Users who begin a post after turning on the feature will notice a tiny audio equalizer with undulating blue bars, indicating the app has detected sound and is attempting to match it to a song or television show. Once the app finds a match, users will see the title of the song and a thumbnail, such as an album cover or a photo of a talk-show host. By tapping on the show or song, users can post it to their news feeds and let other users know what Facebook has already figured out – what they’re seeing and hearing.

See full article: Facebook Adds Feature to Identify Music, TV Shows