For a second year, the nation’s surveillance court has pointed with concern to “widespread violations” by the F.B.I. of rules intended to protect Americans’ privacy when analysts search emails gathered without a warrant — but still signed off on another year of the program, a newly declassified ruling shows.

In a 67-page ruling issued in November and made public on Monday, James E. Boasberg, the presiding judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, recounted several episodes uncovered by an F.B.I. audit where the bureau’s analysts improperly searched for Americans’ information in emails that the National Security Agency collected without warrants.

Rather than a new problem, however, those instances appeared largely to be additional examples of an issue that was already brought to light in a December 2019 ruling by Judge Boasberg. The government made it public in September.

The F.B.I. has already sought to address the problem by rolling out new system safeguards and additional training, although the coronavirus pandemic has hindered the bureau’s ability to assess how well they are working. Still, Judge Boasberg said he was willing to issue a legally required certification for the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program to operate for another year.

“While the court is concerned about the apparent widespread violations of the querying standard,” Judge Boasberg wrote, “it lacks sufficient information at this time to assess the adequacy of the F.B.I. system changes and training, post-implementation.”

Because of that, he added, the court concluded that “the F.B.I.’s querying and minimization procedures meet statutory and Fourth Amendment requirements.”

[…]

Source: Court Chides F.B.I., but Re-Approves Warrantless Surveillance Program – The New York Times

WordPress announced today that they are treating Google’s new FLoC tracking technology as a security concern and may block it by default on WordPress sites.

For some time, browsers have begun to increasingly block third-party browser cookies [1, 2, 3] used by advertisers for interest-based advertising.

In response, Google introduced a new ad tracking technology called Federated Learning of Cohorts, or FLoC, that uses a web browser to anonymously place users into interest or behavioral buckets based on how they browse the web.

After Google began testing FLoC this month in Google Chrome, there has been a consensus among privacy advocates that Google’s FLoC implementation just replaces one privacy risk with another one.

[…]

“WordPress powers approximately 41% of the web – and this community can help combat racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination and discrimination against those with mental illness with four lines of code,” says WordPress.

WordPress plans to disable FLoC using the following four lines of code, which will cause the blogging platform to issue a HTTP request header tells the browser that FLoC should be disabled for the site.

function disable_floc($headers) {
    $headers['Permissions-Policy'] = 'interest-cohort=()';
    return $headers;
  }
 
add_filter('wp_headers', 'disable_floc');

WordPress explains that though some admins will likely want to enable this technology, those admins probably have the tech know-how to override the above code. WordPress also indicated that they might add a setting that allows admins to control whether FLoC is permitted.

However, WordPress’s concern is that those unaware of this new tracking technology will automatically opt into it without fully understanding what it entails. Therefore, it is in these users’ best interest for WordPress to automatically disable the technology.

[…]

Source: WordPress may automatically disable Google FLoC on websites

Let’s hope they implement this, but if not, then at least we know how to implement it ourselves.

The law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service has been quietly running a program that tracks and collects Americans’ social media posts, including those about planned protests, according to a document obtained by Yahoo News.

The details of the surveillance effort, known as iCOP, or Internet Covert Operations Program, have not previously been made public. The work involves having analysts trawl through social media sites to look for what the document describes as “inflammatory” postings and then sharing that information across government agencies.

[…]

The government’s monitoring of Americans’ social media is the subject of ongoing debate inside and outside government, particularly in recent months, following a rise in domestic unrest. While posts on platforms such as Facebook and Parler have allowed law enforcement to track down and arrest rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, such data collection has also sparked concerns about the government surveilling peaceful protesters or those engaged in protected First Amendment activities.

[…]

The Postal Service isn’t the only part of government expanding its monitoring of social media. In a background call with reporters last month, DHS officials spoke about that department’s involvement in monitoring social media for domestic terrorism threats. “We know that this threat is fueled mainly by false narratives, conspiracy theories and extremist rhetoric read through social media and other online platforms,” one of the officials said. “And that’s why we’re kicking off engagement directly with social media companies.”

[…]

Source: The Postal Service is running a running a ‘covert operations program’ that monitors Americans’ social media posts

Pew Research Center reports that “91% of adults agree or strongly agree that consumers have lost control of how personal information is collected.”

That incredibly-high statistic must describe victims under authoritarian governments like China, Russia, or North Korea, right?

Wrong.

That study was about US citizens. You know, the land of the free.

91%

That’s the percentage of adults living in the US who agree that consumers have lost control of how personal information is collected and used by companies.

The sad truth is that governments of every shape and size are ramping up mass surveillance with little-to-no objection.

We live on the internet. But does that interconnection work in their favor, providing more opportunities to pierce our online privacy?

The simplest way to settle that score is to compare how the espionage efforts of the United States and their allies compare to other oppressive regimes.

[…]

Source: Internet Privacy in the Age of Surveillance | CyberGhostVPN Privacy Hub – Latest Privacy and Security News

Well, the US and the UK don’t come out favoribly.

Country / Region	Requests received and processed	URLs requested	URLs accepted	URLs rejected	Percentage of URLs accepted
Austria	45	103	67	36	65%
Belgium	49	421	105	316	25%
Bulgaria	4	10	8	2	80%
Croatia	3	8	4	4	50%
Cyprus	2	2	0	2	0%
Czech Republic	12	20	13	7	65%
Denmark	24	33	19	14	58%
Estonia	8	49	33	16	67%
Finland	32	112	42	70	38%
France	895	2,495	1,065	1,426	43%
Germany	460	1,705	897	807	53%
Greece	5	43	0	43	0%
Hungary	2	3	3	0	100%
Ireland	28	126	85	41	67%
Italy	178	625	417	208	67%
Latvia	13	32	16	16	50%
Lithuania	2	2	1	1	50%
Luxembourg	2	5	1	4	20%
Malta	2	3	1	2	33%
Netherlands	152	854	596	257	70%
Norway	24	50	22	28	44%
Poland	19	172	116	56	67%
Portugal	4	20	10	10	50%
Romania	7	62	28	34	45%
Russia	23	33	17	16	52%
Slovakia	1	2	2	0	100%
Slovenia	8	13	8	5	62%
Spain	143	383	134	242	35%
Sweden	113	315	126	189	40%
Switzerland	68	273	153	120	56%
United Kingdom	539	2,306	1,256	1,026	54%
Total	2,867	10,280	5,245	4,998	51%

Note: This table shows the number of URLs that were accepted and rejected for European and Russian requests received between July 1 and December 31, 2020 that were processed as of February 15, 2021. The number of URLs accepted and rejected may not reflect requests still pending review as of February 15, 2021. For example, processing delays may result if more information is needed to complete the review on a request.

Cumulative “Right to be forgotten” requests, May 2014 – December 2020

 

	Requests received and processed	URLs requested	URLs accepted	URLs rejected	Percentage of URLs accepted
Total	41,613	133,972	62,373	71,562	47%

Note: This table shows the number of URLs that were accepted and rejected for European and Russian requests received between May 2014 and December 31, 2020 that were processed as of February 15, 2021. The number of URLs accepted and rejected may not reflect requests still pending review as of February 15, 2021. For example, processing delays may result if more information is needed to complete the review on a request.

Source: Content Removal Request Report | Microsoft CSR

In some countries apparently it is normal for a single request to make sweeping right to be forgotten deletion requests.

Microsoft has had a busy six months if its latest biannual digital trust report is anything to go by as law enforcement agencies crept closer to making 25,000 legal requests.

Requests for consumer data reached 24,798 during the second half of 2020, up from 24,093 during the previous six-month period, and quite a jump from the 21,781 for the same period in 2019.

“Non-content data” requests, which require a subpoena (or local equivalent), accounted for just over half of disclosures and were slightly down on the same period in 2019. Microsoft rejected 25.81 per cent of requests in the last six months of 2020, up on the 20.14 per cent of the same period in 2019.

As for where those requests came from, Microsoft highlighted a handful of countries including Brazil, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The US was the worst offender (going by quantity of requests) accounting for 5,682 (up from 4,315 for same period in 2019). Germany was not far behind with 4,976 (up from 3,310) while the UK submitted 3,558 requests (a small increase from 3,312 for the same period in 2019).

As well as consumer data, Microsoft received 109 requests from law enforcement agencies for enterprise cloud customer data in the second half of 2020. It was unable to bat back 40, where the company was “compelled” to provide some information. “19 cases,” it said, “required the disclosure of some customer content, and in 21 of the cases we were compelled to disclose non-content information only.”

Still, while that 25,000 figure may seem a little worrying, it is considerably less than the first sets of figures made available by Microsoft. For the latter half of 2013 the total requests were above 35,000.

Away from the criminal side of things, Microsoft also received a comparatively small number of emergency and civil legal requests. Of the latter, it rejected just over 75 per cent in the latter half of 2020.

The report makes for fascinating reading and, while the company is to be applauded for publishing it, the accompanying Privacy Report is an occasionally grim reminder of just how much information Microsoft can slurp from users. Particularly if the customer concerned decides to be helpful and check that Optional diagnostic data box.

[…]

Source: Microsoft received almost 25,000 requests for consumer data from law enforcement over the last six months • The Register

A database containing the phone numbers of more than half a billion Facebook users is being freely traded online, and Facebook is trying to pin the blame on everyone but themselves.

A blog post titled “The Facts on News Reports About Facebook Data,” published Tuesday evening, is designed to silence the growing criticism the company is facing for failing to protect the phone numbers and other personal information of 533 million users after a database containing that information was shared for free in low level hacking forums over the weekend, as first reported by Business Insider.

Facebook initially dismissed the reports as irrelevant, claiming the data was leaked years ago and so the fact it had all been collected into one uber database containing one in every 15 people on the planet—and was now being given away for free—didn’t really matter.

[…]

But, instead of owning up to its latest failure to protect user data, Facebook is pulling from a familiar playbook: just like it did during the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, it’s attempting to reframe the security failure as merely a breach of its terms of service.

So instead of apologizing for failing to keep users’ data secure, Facebook’s product management director Mike Clark began his blog post by making a semantic point about how the data was leaked.

“It is important to understand that malicious actors obtained this data not through hacking our systems but by scraping it from our platform prior to September 2019,” Clark wrote.

This is the identical excuse given in 2018, when it was revealed that Facebook had given Cambridge Analytica the data of 87 million users without their permission, for use in political ads.

Clark goes on to explain that the people who collected this data—sorry, “scraped” this data—did so by using a feature designed to help new users find their friends on the platform.

“This feature was designed to help people easily find their friends to connect with on our services using their contact lists,” Clark explains.

The contact importer feature allowed new users to upload their contact lists and match those numbers against the numbers stored on people’s profiles. But like most of Facebook’s best features, the company left it wide open to abuse by hackers.

“Effectively, the attacker created an address book with every phone number on the planet and then asked Facebook if his ’friends’ are on Facebook,” security expert Mikko Hypponen explained in a tweet.

Clark’s blog post doesn’t say when the “scraping” took place or how many times the vulnerability was exploited, just that Facebook fixed the issue in August 2019. Clark also failed to mention that Facebook was informed of this vulnerability way back in 2017, when Inti De Ceukelaire, an ethical hacker from Belgium, disclosed the problem to the company.

And, the company hasn’t explained why a number of users who have deleted their accounts long before 2018 have seen their phone numbers turn up in this database.

[…]

“While we addressed the issue identified in 2019, it’s always good for everyone to make sure that their settings align with what they want to be sharing publicly,” Clark wrote.

“In this case, updating the ‘How People Find and Contact You’ control could be helpful. We also recommend people do regular privacy checkups to make sure that their settings are in the right place, including who can see certain information on their profile and enabling two-factor authentication.”

It’s an audacious move for a company worth over $300 billion, with $61 billion cash on hand, to ask its users to secure their own information, especially considering how byzantine and complex the company’s settings menus can be.

Thankfully for the half a billion Facebook users who’ve been impacted by the breach, there’s a more practical way to get help. Troy Hunt, a cyber security consultant and founder of Have I Been Pwned has uploaded the entire leaked database to his website that allows anyone to check whether their phone number is listed in the leaked database.

[…]

 

Source: Facebook Says It’s Your Fault That Hackers Got Half a Billion User Phone Numbers

Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems has filed a complaint against Google in France alleging that the US tech giant is illegally tracking users on Android phones without their consent.

Android phones generate unique advertising codes, similar to Apple’s Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA), that allow Google and third parties to track users’ browsing behavior in order to better target them with advertising.

In a complaint filed on Wednesday, Schrems’ campaign group Noyb argued that in creating and storing these codes without first obtaining explicit permission from users, Google was engaging in “illegal operations” that violate EU privacy laws.

Noyb urged France’s data privacy regulator to launch a probe into Google’s tracking practices and to force the company to comply with privacy rules. It argued that fines should be imposed on the tech giant if the watchdog finds evidence of wrongdoing.

“Through these hidden identifiers on your phone, Google and third parties can track users without their consent,” said Stefano Rossetti, privacy lawyer at Noyb. “It is like having powder on your hands and feet, leaving a trace of everything you do on your phone—from whether you swiped right or left to the song you downloaded.”

[…]

Last year, Schrems won a landmark case at Europe’s highest court that ruled a transatlantic agreement on transferring data between the bloc and the US used by thousands of corporations did not protect EU citizens’ privacy.

Source: Google illegally tracking Android users, according to new complaint | Ars Technica

In a recent released research paper, titled “Mobile Handset Privacy: Measuring The Data iOS and Android Send to Apple And Google” [PDF], Douglas Leith, chairman of computer systems in the school of computer science and statistics at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, documents how iPhones and Android devices phone home regardless of the wishes of their owners.

According to Leith, Android and iOS handsets share data about their salient characteristics with their makers every 4.5 minutes on average.

“The phone IMEI, hardware serial number, SIM serial number and IMSI, handset phone number etc are shared with Apple and Google,” the paper says. “Both iOS and Google Android transmit telemetry, despite the user explicitly opting out of this.”

These transmissions occur even when the iOS Analytics & Improvements option is turned off and the Android Usage & Diagnostics option is turned off.

Such data may be considered personal information under privacy rules, depending upon the applicable laws and whether they can be associated with an individual. It can also have legitimate uses.

Of the two mobile operating systems, Android is claimed to be the more chatty: According to Leith, “Google collects a notably larger volume of handset data than Apple.”

Within 10 minutes of starting up, a Google Pixel handset sent about 1MB of data to Google, compared to 42KB of data sent to Apple in a similar startup scenario. And when the handsets sit idle, the Pixel will send about 1MB every 12 hours, about 20x more than the 52KB sent over the same period by an idle iPhone.

[…]

Leith’s tests excluded data related to services selected by device users, like those related to search, cloud storage, maps, and the like. Instead, they focused on the transmission of data shared when there’s no logged in user, including IMEI number, hardware serial number, SIM serial number, phone number, device ids (UDID, Ad ID, RDID, etc), location, telemetry, cookies, local IP address, device Wi-Fi MAC address, and nearby Wi-Fi MAC addresses.

This last category is noteworthy because it has privacy implications for other people on the same network. As the paper explains, iOS shares additional data: the handset Bluetooth UniqueChipID, the Secure Element ID (used for Apple Pay), and the Wi-Fi MAC addresses of nearby devices, specifically other devices using the same network gateway.

“When the handset location setting is enabled, these MAC addresses are also tagged with the GPS location,” the paper says. “Note that it takes only one device to tag the home gateway MAC address with its GPS location and thereafter the location of all other devices reporting that MAC address to Apple is revealed.”

[…]

Google also has a plausible fine-print justification: Leith notes that Google’s analytics options menu includes the text, “Turning off this feature doesn’t affect your device’s ability to send the information needed for essential services such as system updates and security.” However, Leith argues that this “essential” data is extensive and beyond reasonable user expectations.

As for Apple, you might think a company that proclaims “What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone” on billboards, and “Your data. Your choice,” on its website would want to explain its permission-defying telemetry. Yet the iPhone maker did not respond to a request for comment.

Source: Android, iOS beam telemetry to Google, Apple even when you tell them not to – study • The Register

For years we’ve talked about how the fact that no one really understands privacy, leads to very bad attempts at regulating privacy in ways that do more harm than good. They often don’t do anything that actually protects privacy — and instead screw up lots of other important things, from competition to free speech. In fact, in some ways, there’s a big conflict between open internet systems and privacy. There are ways to get around that — usually by moving the data from centralized silos out towards the ends of the network — but that’s rarely happening in practice. I mean, going back over thirteen years ago, we were writing about the inherent conflict between Facebook’s (then) open social graph and privacy. Yet, at the time, Facebook was cheered on for opening up its social graph. It was creating a more “open” internet, an internet that others could build upon.

But, of course, over the years things have changed. A lot. In 2018, after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Mark Zuckerberg more or less admitted that the world was telling Facebook to lock everything down again:

I do think early on on the platform we had this very idealistic vision around how data portability would allow all these different new experiences, and I think the feedback that we’ve gotten from our community and from the world is that privacy and having the data locked down is more important to people than maybe making it easier to bring more data and have different kinds of experiences.

As we pointed out in response — this was worrisome thinking, because it would likely take us away from a better world in which the data is more controlled by end users. Instead, so many people have now come to think that “protecting privacy” means making the big internet companies lock down our data rather than the much better approach which would be giving us full control over our own data. Those are two different things, that only sometimes look alike.

I say all of that as preamble in suggesting people read an excellent Protocol article by Issie Lapowsky, which — in a very thoughtful and nuanced way — highlights the unfortunate conflict between academic researchers trying to study the big internet companies and the companies’ insistence that they need to keep data private. We’ve touched on this topic before ourselves, in covering the still ongoing fight between Facebook and NYU regarding NYU’s Ad Observer project.

That project involves getting individuals to install a browser extension that shares data back to NYU about what ads the user sees. Facebook insists that it violates their privacy rules — and points to how much trouble it got in (and the massive fines it paid) over the Cambridge Analytica mess. Though, as we explained then, the scenarios are quite different.

Lapowsky’s article goes further — noting how Facebook told her that the Ad Observer project was collecting data without the user’s permission, which worried the PhD student who was working on the project. It turns out that was false. The project only collects data from the user who installs it and agrees (giving permission) to collect the data in question.

But the story and others in the article highlight an unfortunate situation: the somewhat haphazard demands on the big internet companies to “protect privacy” are now providing convenient excuses to those same companies to shut down academic research on those companies and their practices. In some cases there are legitimate concerns. For example, as the article notes, there were concerns about how much Facebook is willing to share regarding ad targeting. That information could be really important for those studying disinformation or civil rights issues. But… it could also be used in nefarious ways:

Facebook released an API for its political ad archive and invited the NYU team to be early testers. Using the API, Edelson and McCoy began studying the spread of disinformation and misinformation through political ads and quickly realized that the dataset had one glaring gap: It didn’t include any data on who the ads were targeting, something they viewed as key to understanding advertisers’ malintent. For example, last year, the Trump campaign ran an ad envisioning a dystopian post-Biden presidency, where the world is burning and no one answers 911 calls due to “defunding of the police department.” That ad, Edelson found, had been targeted specifically to married women in the suburbs. “I think that’s relevant context to understanding that ad,” Edelson said.

But Facebook was unwilling to share targeting data publicly. According to Satterfield, that could make it too easy to reverse-engineer a person’s interests and other personal information. If, for instance, a person likes or comments on a given ad, it wouldn’t be too hard to check the targeting data on that ad, if it were public, and deduce that that person meets those targeting criteria. “If you combine those two data sets, you could potentially learn things about the people who engaged with the ad,” Satterfield said.

Legitimate concern… but also allows the company to shield data that could be really useful to academics. Of course, it doesn’t help that so many people are so distrustful of these big companies that no matter what they do it will be portrayed — sometimes by the very same people — as evil. It was just a few weeks ago that we saw people screaming both about the big internet companies willing to cave in and pay Rupert Murdoch the Australian link tax… and when they refused to. Both options were painted as evil.

So, sharing data will inevitably be presented by some as violating people’s privacy, while not sharing data will be presented as hiding from researchers and trying to avoid transparency. And there’s probably some truth in every angle to these stories.

Of course, that all leaves out a better approach that these companies could do: give more power to the end users themselves to control their own data. Let the users decide what data is shared and what is not. Let the users decide where and how that data is stored (even if it’s not on the platform itself). But, instead, we just have people yelling about how these companies both have to protect everyone’s privacy and give access to researchers to see what they’re doing with all this data. I don’t think the “middle ground” laid out in the article is all that tenable. Right now it’s just to basically create special exceptions in which academics are “allowed” — under strict conditions — to get access to that data.

The problem with that framing is that the big internet companies still end up in control of the data, rather than the end users. The situation with NYU seems like a perfectly good example. Facebook shouldn’t have to share data from people who don’t consent, but with the Ad Observer, it’s all people who are actually consenting to handing over their own data, and Facebook shouldn’t be in the business of blocking that — even if it’s inevitable that some reporter at some future date will try to spin that into a story claiming that Facebook “violated” privacy because these researchers convinced people to turn over their own info.

Source: Privacy Laws Giving Big Internet Companies A Convenient Excuse To Avoid Academic Scrutiny | Techdirt

The argument Mike makes above is basically a plea for what Sir Tim Berners Lee, inventor of the internet is pleading for and already making in his companies Solid and Inrupt. User data is placed in personal Pods / Silos and the user can determine what data is given to who.

It’s an idealistic scenario that seems to ignore a few things:

• who hosts the pods? the hoster can usually see into things or at any rate gather metadata (which is usually more valuable than the actual data). Who pays for hosting the pods?
• will people understand and be willing to take the time to curate their pod access? people have trouble finding privacy settings on their social networks, this promises to be more complex
• if a site requires access to data in a pod, won’t people blindly click on accept without understanding that they are giving away their data? Or will they be coerced into giving away data they don’t want because there are no alternatives to using the service?

The New York Times has a nice article on what he’s doing: He Created the Web. Now He’s Out to Remake the Digital World.

[…]

utting a couple of middle men between the app data and the purchase of data helps agencies steer clear of Constitutional issues related to the Supreme Court’s Carpenter decision, which introduced a warrant mandate for engaging in proxy tracking of people via cell service providers.

But phones aren’t the only objects that generate a wealth of location data. Cars go almost as many places as phones do, providing data brokers with yet another source of possibly useful location data that government agencies might be interested in obtaining access to. Here’s Joseph Cox of Vice with more details:

A surveillance contractor that has previously sold services to the U.S. military is advertising a product that it says can locate the real-time locations of specific cars in nearly any country on Earth. It says it does this by using data collected and sent by the cars and their components themselves, according to a document obtained by Motherboard.

“Ulysses can provide our clients with the ability to remotely geolocate vehicles in nearly every country except for North Korea and Cuba on a near real time basis,” the document, written by contractor The Ulysses Group, reads. “Currently, we can access over 15 billion vehicle locations around the world every month,” the document adds.

Historical data is cool. But what’s even cooler is real-time tracking of vehicle movements. Of course the DoD would be interested in this. It has a drone strike program that’s thirsty for location data and has relied on even more questionable data in the past to make extrajudicial “death from above” decisions in the past.

Phones are reliable snitches. So are cars — a fact that may come as a surprise to car owners who haven’t been paying attention to tech developments over the past several years. Plenty of data is constantly captured by internal “black boxes,” but tends to only be retained when there’s a collision. But the interconnectedness of cars and people’s phones provides new data-gathering opportunities.

Then there are the car manufacturers themselves, which apparently feel driver data is theirs for the taking and are willing to sell it to third parties who are (also apparently) willing to sell all of this to government agencies.

“Vehicle telematics is data transmitted from the vehicle to the automaker or OEM through embedded communications systems in the car,” the Ulysses document continues. “Among the thousands of other data points, vehicle location data is transmitted on a constant and near real time basis while the vehicle is operating.”

This document wasn’t obtained from FOIA requests. It actually couldn’t be — not if Ulysses isn’t currently selling to government agencies. It was actually obtained by Senator Ron Wyden, who shared it with Vice’s tech-related offshoot, Motherboard. As Wyden noted while handing it over, very little is known about these under-the-radar suppliers of location data and their government customers. This company may have no (acknowledged) government customers at this point, but real-time access to vehicle movement is something plenty of government agencies would be willing to pay for.

[…]

Source: Data Broker Looking To Sell Real-Time Vehicle Location Data To Government Agencies, Including The Military | Techdirt

New rules for social media companies and other hosts of third-party content have just gone into effect in India. The proposed changes to India’s 2018 Intermediary Guidelines are now live, allowing the government to insert itself into content moderation efforts and make demands of tech companies some simply won’t be able to comply with.

Now, under the threat of fines and jail time, platforms like Twitter (itself a recent combatant of the Indian government over its attempts to silence people protesting yet another bad law) can be held directly responsible for any “illegal” content it hosts, even as the government attempts to pay lip service to honoring long-standing intermediary protections that immunized them from the actions of their users.

[…]

turns a whole lot of online discourse into potentially illegal content.

[…]

The new mandates demand platforms operating in India proactively scan all uploaded content to ensure it complies with India’s laws.

The Intermediary shall deploy technology based automated tools or appropriate mechanisms, with appropriate controls, for proactively identifying and removing or disabling public access to unlawful information or content.

This obligation is not only impossible to comply with (and is prohibitively expensive for smaller platforms and sites/online forums that don’t have access to AI tools), it opens up platforms to prosecution simply for being unable to do the impossible. And complying with this directive to implement this demand undercuts the Safe Harbour protections granted to intermediaries by the Indian government.

If you’re moderating all content prior to it going “live,” it’s no longer possible to claim you’re not acting as an editor or curator. The Indian government grants Safe Harbour to “passive” conduits of information. The new law pretty much abolishes those because complying with the law turns intermediaries from “passive” to “active.”

Broader and broader it gets, with the Indian government rewriting its “national security only” demands to cover “investigation or detection or prosecution or prevention of offence(s).” In other words, the Indian government can force platforms and services to provide information and assistance within 72 hours of notification to almost any government agency for almost any reason.

This assistance includes “tracing the origin” of illegal content — something that may be impossible to comply with since some platforms don’t collect enough personal information to make identification possible. Any information dug up by intermediaries in support of government action must be retained for 180 days whether or not the government makes use of it.

More burdens: any intermediary with more than 5 million users must establish permanent residence in India and provide on-call service 24/7. Takedown compliance has been accelerated from 36 hours of notification to 24 hours.

Very few companies will be able to comply with most of these directives. No company will be able to comply with them completely. And with the government insisting on adding more “eye of the beholder” content to the illegal list, the law encourages pre-censorship of any questionable content and invites regulators and other government agencies to get into the moderation business.

[…]

Source: India’s New Cyber Law Goes Live: Subtracts Safe Harbor Protections, Adds Compelled Assistance Demands For Intermediaries | Techdirt

A new extension for Google Chrome has made explicit how most popular sites on the internet load resources from one or more of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.

The extension, Big Tech Detective, shows the extent to which websites exchange data with these four companies by reporting on them. It also optionally blocks sites that request such data. Any such request is also effectively a tracker, since the provider sees the IP number and other request data for the user’s web browser.

The extension was built by investigative data reporter Dhruv Mehrotra in association with the Anti-Monopoly Fund at the Economic Security Project, a non-profit research group financed by the US-based Hopewell Fund in Washington DC.

Cara Rose Defabio, editor at the Economic Security Project, said: “Big Tech Detective is a tool that pulls the curtain back on exactly how much control these corporations have over the internet. Our browser extension lets you ‘lock out’ Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft, alerting you when a website you’re using pings any one of these companies… you can’t do much online without your data being routed through one of these giants.”

[…]

That, perhaps, is an exaggeration. Big Tech Detective will spot sites that use Google Analytics to report on web traffic, or host Google ads, or use a service hosted on Amazon Web Services such as Chartbeat analytics – which embeds a script that pings its service every 15 seconds according to this post – but that is not the same as routing your data through the services.

In terms of actual data collection and analysis, we would guess that Google and Facebook are ahead of AWS and Microsoft, and munging together infrastructure services with analytics and tracking is perhaps unhelpful.

Another point to note is that a third-party service hosted on a public cloud server at AWS, Microsoft or Google is distinct from services run directly by those companies. Public cloud is an infrastructure choice and the infrastructure provider does not get that data other than being able to see that there is traffic.

[Note: This is untrue. They also get to see where the traffic is from, where it goes to, how it is routed, how many connections there are, the size of the traffice being sent. This metadata is often more valuable than the actual data being sent]

Dependencies

Defabio made the point, though, that the companies behind public cloud have huge power, referencing Amazon’s decision to “refuse hosting service to the right wing social app Parler, effectively shutting it down.” While there was substantial popular approval of the action, it was Amazon’s decision, rather than one based on law and regulation.

She argued that these giant corporations should be broken up, so that Amazon the retailer is separate from AWS, for example. The release of the new extension is timed to coincide with US government hearings on digital competition, drawing on research from last year.

[…]

Source: Ever felt that a few big tech companies are following you around the internet? That’s because … they are • The Register

In an online world in which countless systems are trying to figure out what exactly you enjoy so they can serve you up advertising about it, it really fucks up their profiling mechanisms when they think you like everything. And to help you out with this approach, I recommend checking out the Chrome/Firefox extension AdNauseum. You won’t find it on the Chrome Web Store, however, as Google frowns at extensions that screw up Google’s efforts to show you advertising for some totally inexplicable reason. You’ll have to install it manually, but it’s worth it.

[…]

AdNauseum works on a different principle. As Lee McGuigan writes over at the MIT Technology Review:

“AdNauseam is like conventional ad-blocking software, but with an extra layer. Instead of just removing ads when the user browses a website, it also automatically clicks on them. By making it appear as if the user is interested in everything, AdNauseam makes it hard for observers to construct a profile of that person. It’s like jamming radar by flooding it with false signals. And it’s adjustable. Users can choose to trust privacy-respecting advertisers while jamming others. They can also choose whether to automatically click on all the ads on a given website or only some percentage of them.”

McGuigan goes on to describe the various experiments he worked on with AdNauseum founder Helen Nissenbaum, allegedly proving that the extension can make it past Google’s various checks for fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate clicks on advertising. Google, as you might expect, denies the experiments actually prove anything, and maintains that a “vast majority” of these kinds of clicks are detected and ignored.

[…]

Once you’ve installed AdNauseum, you’ll be presented with three simple options:

Feel free to enable all three, but heed AdNauseum’s warning: You probably don’t want to use the extension alongside another adblocker, as the two will conflict and you probably won’t see any added benefit.

As with most adblockers, there are plenty of options you can play with if you dig deeper into AdNauseum’s settings.

[…]

note that AdNauseum still (theoretically) generates revenue for the sites tracking you. That in itself might cause you to adopt a nuclear approach vs. an obfuscation-by-noise approach. Your call.

Source: Use AdNauseum to Block Ads and Confuse Google’s Advertising

Boffins based in Belgium have found that a DNS-based technique for bypassing defenses against online tracking has become increasingly common and represents a growing threat to both privacy and security.

In a research paper to be presented in July at the 21st Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS 2021), KU Leuven-affiliated researchers Yana Dimova, Gunes Acar, Lukasz Olejnik, Wouter Joosen, and Tom Van Goethem delve into increasing adoption of CNAME-based tracking, which abuse DNS records to erase the distinction between first-party and third-party contexts.

“This tracking scheme takes advantage of a CNAME record on a subdomain such that it is same-site to the including web site,” the paper explains. “As such, defenses that block third-party cookies are rendered ineffective.”

[…]

A technique known as DNS delegation or DNS aliasing has been known since at least 2007 and showed up in privacy-focused research papers in 2010 [PDF] and 2014 [PDF]. Based on the use of CNAME DNS records, the counter anti-tracking mechanism drew attention two years ago when open source developer Raymond Hill implemented a defense in the Firefox version of his uBlock Origin content blocking extension.

CNAME cloaking involves having a web publisher put a subdomain – e.g. trackyou.example.com – under the control of a third-party through the use of a CNAME DNS record. This makes a third-party tracker associated with the subdomain look like it belongs to the first-party domain, example.com.

The boffins from Belgium studied the CNAME-based tracking ecosystem and found 13 different companies using the technique. They claim that the usage of such trackers is growing, up 21 per cent over the past 22 months, and that CNAME trackers can be found on almost 10 per cent of the top 10,000 websites.

What’s more, sites with CNAME trackers have an average of about 28 other tracking scripts. They also leak data due to the way web architecture works. The researchers found cookie data leaks on 7,377 sites (95%) out of the 7,797 sites that used CNAME tracking. Most of these were the result of third-party analytics scripts setting cookies on the first-party domain.

Not all of these leaks exposed sensitive data but some did. Out of 103 websites with login functionality tested, the researchers found 13 that leaked sensitive info, including the user’s full name, location, email address, and authentication cookie.

“This suggests that this scheme is actively dangerous,” wrote Dr Lukasz Olejnik, one of the paper’s co-authors, an independent privacy researcher, and consultant, in a blog post. “It is harmful to web security and privacy.”

[…]

In addition, the researchers report that ad tech biz Criteo switches specifically to CNAME tracking – putting its cookies into a first-party context – when its trackers encountered users of Safari, which has strong third-party cookie defenses.

According to Olejnik, CNAME tracking can defeat most anti-tracking techniques and there are few defenses against it.

Firefox running the add-on uBlock Origin 1.25+ can see through CNAME deception. So too can Brave, which recently had to repair its CNAME defenses due to problems it created with Tor.

Chrome falls short because it does not have a suitable DNS-resolving API for uBlock Origin to hook into. Safari will limit the lifespan of cookies set via CNAME cloaking but doesn’t provide a way to undo the domain disguise to determine whether the subdomain should be blocked outright.

[…]

Source: What’s CNAME of your game? This DNS-based tracking defies your browser privacy defenses • The Register

We all know that our cell phones constantly give our location away to our mobile network operators; that’s how they work. A group of researchers has figured out a way to fix that. “Pretty Good Phone Privacy” (PGPP) protects both user identity and user location using the existing cellular networks. It protects users from fake cell phone towers (IMSI-catchers) and surveillance by cell providers.

It’s a clever system. The players are the user, a traditional mobile network operator (MNO) like AT&T or Verizon, and a new mobile virtual network operator (MVNO). MVNOs aren’t new. They’re intermediaries like Cricket and Boost.

Here’s how it works:

1. One-time setup: The user’s phone gets a new SIM from the MVNO. All MVNO SIMs are identical.
2. Monthly: The user pays their bill to the MVNO (credit card or otherwise) and the phone gets anonymous authentication (using Chaum blind signatures) tokens for each time slice (e.g., hour) in the coming month.
3. Ongoing: When the phone talks to a tower (run by the MNO), it sends a token for the current time slice. This is relayed to a MVNO backend server, which checks the Chaum blind signature of the token. If it’s valid, the MVNO tells the MNO that the user is authenticated, and the user receives a temporary random ID and an IP address. (Again, this is now MVNOs like Boost already work.)
4. On demand: The user uses the phone normally.

The MNO doesn’t have to modify its system in any way. The PGPP MVNO implementation is in software. The user’s traffic is sent to the MVNO gateway and then out onto the Internet, potentially even using a VPN.

All connectivity is data connectivity in cell networks today. The user can choose to be data-only (e.g., use Signal for voice), or use the MVNO or a third party for VoIP service that will look just like normal telephony.

The group prototyped and tested everything with real phones in the lab. Their approach adds essentially zero latency, and doesn’t introduce any new bottlenecks, so it doesn’t have performance/scalability problems like most anonymity networks. The service could handle tens of millions of users on a single server, because it only has to do infrequent authentication, though for resilience you’d probably run more.

The paper is here.

Source: Cell Phone Location Privacy | OSINT

[…]

Apple only lets you access iPhone apps through its own App Store, which it says keeps everything safe. It appeared to bolster that idea when it announced in 2020 that it would ask app makers to fill out what are essentially privacy nutrition labels. Just like packaged food has to disclose how much sugar it contains, apps would have to disclose in clear terms how they gobble your data. The labels appear in boxes toward the bottom of app listings. (Click here for my guide on how to read privacy nutrition labels.)

But after I studied the labels, the App Store is now a product I trust less to protect us. In some ways, Apple uses a narrow definition of privacy that benefits Apple — which has its own profit motivations — more than it benefits us.

Apple’s big privacy product is built on a shaky foundation: the honor system. In tiny print on the detail page of each app label, Apple says, “This information has not been verified by Apple.”

The first time I read that, I did a double take. Apple, which says caring for our privacy is a “core responsibility,” surely knows devil-may-care data harvesters can’t be counted on to act honorably. Apple, which made an estimated $64 billion off its App Store last year, shares in the responsibility for what it publishes.

It’s true that just by asking apps to highlight data practices, Apple goes beyond Google’s rival Play Store for Android phones. It has also promised to soon make apps seek permission to track us, which Facebook has called an abuse of Apple’s monopoly over the App Store.

In an email, Apple spokeswoman Katie Clark-AlSadder said: “Apple conducts routine and ongoing audits of the information provided and we work with developers to correct any inaccuracies. Apps that fail to disclose privacy information accurately may have future app updates rejected, or in some cases, be removed from the App Store entirely if they don’t come into compliance.”

My spot checks suggest Apple isn’t being very effective.

And even when they are filled out correctly, what are Apple’s privacy labels allowing apps to get away with not telling us?

Trust but verify

A tip from a tech-savvy Washington Post reader helped me realize something smelled fishy. He was using a journaling app that claimed not to collect any data but, using some technical tools, he spotted it talking an awful lot to Google.

[…]

To be clear, I don’t know exactly how widespread the falsehoods are on Apple’s privacy labels. My sample wasn’t necessarily representative: There are about 2 million apps, and some big companies, like Google, have yet to even post labels. (They’re only required to do so with new updates.) About 1 in 3 of the apps I checked that claimed they took no data appeared to be inaccurate. “Apple is the only one in a position to do this on all the apps,” says Jackson.

But if a journalist and a talented geek could find so many problems just by kicking over a few stones, why isn’t Apple?

Even after I sent it a list of dubious apps, Apple wouldn’t answer my specific questions, including: How many bad apps has it caught? If being inaccurate means you get the boot, why are some of the ones I flagged still available?

[…]

We need help to fend off the surveillance economy. Apple’s App Store isn’t doing enough, but we also have no alternative. Apple insists on having a monopoly in running app stores for iPhones and iPads. In testimony to Congress about antitrust concerns last summer, Apple CEO Tim Cook argued that Apple alone can protect our security.

Other industries that make products that could harm consumers don’t necessarily get to write the rules for themselves. The Food and Drug Administration sets the standards for nutrition labels. We can debate whether it’s good at enforcement, but at least when everyone has to work with the same labels, consumers can get smart about reading them — and companies face the penalty of law if they don’t tell the truth.

Apple’s privacy labels are not only an unsatisfying product. They should also send a message to lawmakers weighing whether the tech industry can be trusted to protect our privacy on its own.

Source: I checked Apple’s new privacy ‘nutrition labels.’ Many were false.

Instagram is adding a new “Recently deleted” folder to the app’s menu that temporarily stores posts after you remove them from your profile or archive, giving you the ability to restore deleted posts if you change your mind.

The folder includes sections for photos, IGTV, Reels, and Stories posts. No one else can see your recently deleted posts, but as long as a photo or video is still in the folder, it can be restored. Regular photos, IGTV videos, and Reels remain in the folder for up to 30 days, after which they’re gone forever. Stories stick around for up to 24 hours before they’re permanently removed, but you can still access them in your Stories archive.

[…]

Source: How to Restore Recently Deleted Instagram Posts

It’s nice how they’re framing the fact that they don’t delete your data as a “feature”

Not content to only wield its creepy surveillance infrastructure against warehouse workers and employees considering unionization, Amazon is reportedly gearing up to install perpetually-on cameras inside its fleet of delivery vehicles as well.

A new report from The Information claims that Amazon recently shared the plans in an instructional video sent out to the contractor workers who drive the Amazon-branded delivery vans.

In the video, the company reportedly explains to drivers that the high-tech video cameras will use artificial intelligence to determine when drivers are engaging in risky behavior, and will give out verbal warnings including “Distracted driving,” “No stop detected” and “Please slow down.”

According to a video posted to Vimeo a week ago, the hardware and software for the cameras will be provided through a partnership with California-based company Netradyne, which is also responsible for a platform called Driveri that similarly uses artificial intelligence to analyze a driver’s behavior as they operate a vehicle.

While the camera’s automated feedback will be immediate, other data will also reportedly be stored for later analysis that will help the company to evaluate its fleet of drivers.

Although it’s not clear when Amazon plans to install the cameras or how many of the vehicles in the company’s massive fleet will be outfitted with them, the company told The Information in a statement that the software will be implemented in the spirit of increasing safety precautions and not, you know, bolstering an insidious and growing surveillance apparatus.

Source: Amazon Plans to Install Always-On Surveillance Cameras in Delivery Vans