Another day, another tech company being disingenuous about its privacy practices. This time it’s Microsoft, after it was discovered that Windows 10 continues to track users’ activity even after they’ve disabled the activity-tracking option in their Windows 10 settings.
You can try it yourself. Pull up Windows 10’s Settings, go to the Privacy section, and disable everything in your Activity History. Give it a few days. Visit the Windows Privacy Dashboard online, and you’ll find that some applications, media, and even browsing history still shows up.
Application data found on the Windows Privacy Dashboard website
Screenshot: Brendan Hesse
Sure, this data can be manually deleted, but the fact that it’s being tracked at all is not a good look for Microsoft, and plenty of users have expressed their frustration online since the oversight was discovered. Luckily, Reddit user a_potato_is_missing found a workaround that blocks Windows and the Windows Store from tracking your PC activity, which comes from a tutorial originally posted by Tenforums user Shawn Brink.
We gave Brink’s strategy a shot and found it to be an effective workaround worth sharing for those who want to limit Microsoft’s activity-tracking for good. It’s a simple process that only requires you to download and open some files, but we’ll guide you through the steps since there a few caveats you’ll want to know.
How to disable the activity tracker in Windows 10
Brink’s method works by editing values in your Window Registry to block the Activity Tracker (via a .REG file). For transparency, here’s what changes the file makes:
These changes only apply to Activity Tracking and shouldn’t affect your operating system in any other way. Still, if something does go wrong, you can reverse this process, which is explained in step 7. To get started with Brink’s alterations:
Download the “Disable_Activity_history.reg” file from Brink’s tutorial to any folder you want.
Double-click on the .REG file to open it, and then click “Run” to begin applying the changes to your registry.
You will get the usual Window UAC notification to allow the file to make changes to your computer. Click “Yes.”
A warning box will pop up alerting you that making changes to your registry can result in applications and features not working, or cause system errors—all of which is true, but we haven’t run into any issues from applying this fix. If you’re cool with that, click “Yes” to apply the changes. The process should happen immediately, after which you’ll get one final dialogue box informing you of the information added to the registry. Click “OK” to close the file and wrap up the registry change.
After the registry edit is complete, you’ll need to sign out of Windows (press Windows Key+X then Shut down or Sign out>Sign out) then sign back in to apply the registry changes.
When you sign back in, your activity will no longer be tracked by Windows, even the stuff that was slipping through before.
To reverse the registry changes and re-enable the Activity Tracker, download the “Enable_Activity_history.reg” file also found on the Tenforums tutorial, then follow the same steps above.
Update 12/13/2018 at 12:30pm PT: Microsoft has released a statement to Neowin about the aforementioned “Activity History.” Here’s the statement from Windows & devices group privacy officer Marisa Rogers:
“Microsoft is committed to customer privacy, being transparent about the data we collect and use for your benefit, and we give you controls to manage your data. In this case, the same term ‘Activity History’ is used in both Windows 10 and the Microsoft Privacy Dashboard. Windows 10 Activity History data is only a subset of the data displayed in the Microsoft Privacy Dashboard. We are working to address this naming issue in a future update.”
As Neowin notes, Microsoft says there are two settings you should look into if you want to keep your PC from uploading your activity data:
“One is to go to Settings -> Privacy -> Activity history, and make sure that ‘Let Windows sync my activities from this PC to the cloud’ is unchecked. Also, you can go to Settings -> Privacy -> Diagnostics & feedback, and make sure that it’s set to basic.”
At a Taylor Swift concert earlier this year, fans were reportedly treated to something they might not expect: a kiosk displaying clips of the pop star that served as a covert surveillance system. It’s a tale of creeping 21st-century surveillance as unnerving as it is predictable. But the whole ordeal has left us wondering what the hell is going on.
As Rolling Stone first reported, the kiosk was allegedly taking photos of concertgoers and running them through a facial recognition database in an effort to identify any of Swift’s stalkers. But the dragnet effort reportedly involved snapping photos of anyone who stared into the kiosk’s watchful abyss.
“Everybody who went by would stop and stare at it, and the software would start working,” Mike Downing, chief security officer at live entertainment company Oak View Group and its subsidiary Prevent Advisors, told Rolling Stone. Downing was at Swift’s concert, which took place at the Rose Bowl in Los Angeles in May, to check out a demo of the system. According to Downing, the photos taken by the camera inside of the kiosk were sent to a “command post” in Nashville. There, the images were scanned against images of hundreds of Swift’s known stalkers, Rolling Stone reports.
The Rolling Stone report has taken off in the past day, with Quartz, Vanity Fair, the Hill, the Verge, Business Insider, and others picking up the story. But the only real information we have is from Downing. And so far no one has answered some key questions—including the Oak View Group and Prevent Advisors, which have not responded to multiple requests for comment.
For starters, who is running this face recognition system? Was Taylor Swift or her people informed this reported measure would be in place? Were concertgoers informed that their photos were being taken and sent to a facial recognition database in another state? Were the photos stored, and if so, where and for how long? There were reportedly more than 60,000 people at the Rose Bowl concert—how many of those people had their mug snapped by the alleged spybooth? Did the system identify any Swift stalkers—and, if they did, what happened to those people?
It also remains to be seen whether there was any indication on the kiosk that it was snapping fans’ faces. But as Quartz pointed out, “concert venues are typically private locations, meaning even after security checkpoints, its owners can subject concert-goers to any kind of surveillance they want, including facial recognition.”
Guess what? A bunch of apps like knowing where you are, so that their developers can then take that data, package it up for various advertising companies, and make a quick buck off of your precise whereabouts—including where you go and how long you spend there.
The millions of dots on the map trace highways, side streets and bike trails — each one following the path of an anonymous cellphone user.
One path tracks someone from a home outside Newark to a nearby Planned Parenthood, remaining there for more than an hour. Another represents a person who travels with the mayor of New York during the day and returns to Long Island at night.
Yet another leaves a house in upstate New York at 7 a.m. and travels to a middle school 14 miles away, staying until late afternoon each school day. Only one person makes that trip: Lisa Magrin, a 46-year-old math teacher. Her smartphone goes with her.
An app on the device gathered her location information, which was then sold without her knowledge. It recorded her whereabouts as often as every two seconds, according to a database of more than a million phones in the New York area that was reviewed by The New York Times. While Ms. Magrin’s identity was not disclosed in those records, The Times was able to easily connect her to that dot.
The app tracked her as she went to a Weight Watchers meeting and to her dermatologist’s office for a minor procedure. It followed her hiking with her dog and staying at her ex-boyfriend’s home, information she found disturbing.
“It’s the thought of people finding out those intimate details that you don’t want people to know,” said Ms. Magrin, who allowed The Times to review her location data.
Like many consumers, Ms. Magrin knew that apps could track people’s movements. But as smartphones have become ubiquitous and technology more accurate, an industry of snooping on people’s daily habits has spread and grown more intrusive.
Lisa Magrin is the only person who travels regularly from her home to the school where she works. Her location was recorded more than 800 times there, often in her classroom .
A visit to a doctor’s office is also included. The data is so specific that The Times could determine how long she was there.
Ms. Magrin’s location data shows other often-visited locations, including the gym and Weight Watchers.
In about four months’ of data reviewed by The Times, her location was recorded over 8,600 times — on average, once every 21 minutes.
By Michael H. Keller and Richard Harris | Satellite imagery by Mapbox and DigitalGlobe
At least 75 companies receive anonymous, precise location data from apps whose users enable location services to get local news and weather or other information, The Times found. Several of those businesses claim to track up to 200 million mobile devices in the United States — about half those in use last year. The database reviewed by The Times — a sample of information gathered in 2017 and held by one company — reveals people’s travels in startling detail, accurate to within a few yards and in some cases updated more than 14,000 times a day.
These companies sell, use or analyze the data to cater to advertisers, retail outlets and even hedge funds seeking insights into consumer behavior. It’s a hot market, with sales of location-targeted advertising reaching an estimated $21 billion this year. IBM has gotten into the industry, with its purchase of the Weather Channel’s apps. The social network Foursquare remade itself as a location marketing company. Prominent investors in location start-ups include Goldman Sachs and Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder.
Businesses say their interest is in the patterns, not the identities, that the data reveals about consumers. They note that the information apps collect is tied not to someone’s name or phone number but to a unique ID. But those with access to the raw data — including employees or clients — could still identify a person without consent. They could follow someone they knew, by pinpointing a phone that regularly spent time at that person’s home address. Or, working in reverse, they could attach a name to an anonymous dot, by seeing where the device spent nights and using public records to figure out who lived there.
Many location companies say that when phone users enable location services, their data is fair game. But, The Times found, the explanations people see when prompted to give permission are often incomplete or misleading. An app may tell users that granting access to their location will help them get traffic information, but not mention that the data will be shared and sold. That disclosure is often buried in a vague privacy policy.
“Location information can reveal some of the most intimate details of a person’s life — whether you’ve visited a psychiatrist, whether you went to an A.A. meeting, who you might date,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who has proposed bills to limit the collection and sale of such data, which are largely unregulated in the United States.
“It’s not right to have consumers kept in the dark about how their data is sold and shared and then leave them unable to do anything about it,” he added.
Mobile Surveillance Devices
After Elise Lee, a nurse in Manhattan, saw that her device had been tracked to the main operating room at the hospital where she works, she expressed concern about her privacy and that of her patients.
“It’s very scary,” said Ms. Lee, who allowed The Times to examine her location history in the data set it reviewed. “It feels like someone is following me, personally.”
The mobile location industry began as a way to customize apps and target ads for nearby businesses, but it has morphed into a data collection and analysis machine.
Retailers look to tracking companies to tell them about their own customers and their competitors’. For a web seminar last year, Elina Greenstein, an executive at the location company GroundTruth, mapped out the path of a hypothetical consumer from home to work to show potential clients how tracking could reveal a person’s preferences. For example, someone may search online for healthy recipes, but GroundTruth can see that the person often eats at fast-food restaurants.
“We look to understand who a person is, based on where they’ve been and where they’re going, in order to influence what they’re going to do next,” Ms. Greenstein said.
Financial firms can use the information to make investment decisions before a company reports earnings — seeing, for example, if more people are working on a factory floor, or going to a retailer’s stores.
A device arrives at approximately 12:45 p.m., entering the clinic from the western entrance.
It stays for two hours, then returns to a home.
By Michael H. Keller | Imagery by Google Earth
Health care facilities are among the more enticing but troubling areas for tracking, as Ms. Lee’s reaction demonstrated. Tell All Digital, a Long Island advertising firm that is a client of a location company, says it runs ad campaigns for personal injury lawyers targeting people anonymously in emergency rooms.
“The book ‘1984,’ we’re kind of living it in a lot of ways,” said Bill Kakis, a managing partner at Tell All.
Jails, schools, a military base and a nuclear power plant — even crime scenes — appeared in the data set The Times reviewed. One person, perhaps a detective, arrived at the site of a late-night homicide in Manhattan, then spent time at a nearby hospital, returning repeatedly to the local police station.
Two location firms, Fysical and SafeGraph, mapped people attending the 2017 presidential inauguration. On Fysical’s map, a bright red box near the Capitol steps indicated the general location of President Trump and those around him, cellphones pinging away. Fysical’s chief executive said in an email that the data it used was anonymous. SafeGraph did not respond to requests for comment.
Data reviewed by The Times includes dozens of schools. Here a device , most likely a child’s, is tracked from a home to school.
The device spends time at the playground before entering the school just before 8 a.m., where it remains until 3 p.m.
More than 40 other devices appear in the school during the day. Many are traceable to nearby homes.
By Michael H. Keller | Imagery by Google Earth
More than 1,000 popular apps contain location-sharing code from such companies, according to 2018 data from MightySignal, a mobile analysis firm. Google’s Android system was found to have about 1,200 apps with such code, compared with about 200 on Apple’s iOS.
The most prolific company was Reveal Mobile, based in North Carolina, which had location-gathering code in more than 500 apps, including many that provide local news. A Reveal spokesman said that the popularity of its code showed that it helped app developers make ad money and consumers get free services.
To evaluate location-sharing practices, The Times tested 20 apps, most of which had been flagged by researchers and industry insiders as potentially sharing the data. Together, 17 of the apps sent exact latitude and longitude to about 70 businesses. Precise location data from one app, WeatherBug on iOS, was received by 40 companies. When contacted by The Times, some of the companies that received that data described it as “unsolicited” or “inappropriate.”
WeatherBug, owned by GroundTruth, asks users’ permission to collect their location and tells them the information will be used to personalize ads. GroundTruth said that it typically sent the data to ad companies it worked with, but that if they didn’t want the information they could ask to stop receiving it.
Records show a device entering Gracie Mansion, the mayor’s residence, before traveling to a Y.M.C.A. in Brooklyn that the mayor frequents.
It travels to an event on Staten Island that the mayor attended. Later, it returns to a home on Long Island.
Gracie
Mansion
By Michael H. Keller | Satellite imagery by Mapbox and DigitalGlobe
The Times also identified more than 25 other companies that have said in marketing materials or interviews that they sell location data or services, including targeted advertising.
The spread of this information raises questions about how securely it is handled and whether it is vulnerable to hacking, said Serge Egelman, a computer security and privacy researcher affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley.
“There are really no consequences” for companies that don’t protect the data, he said, “other than bad press that gets forgotten about.”
A Question of Awareness
Companies that use location data say that people agree to share their information in exchange for customized services, rewards and discounts. Ms. Magrin, the teacher, noted that she liked that tracking technology let her record her jogging routes.
Brian Wong, chief executive of Kiip, a mobile ad firm that has also sold anonymous data from some of the apps it works with, says users give apps permission to use and share their data. “You are receiving these services for free because advertisers are helping monetize and pay for it,” he said, adding, “You would have to be pretty oblivious if you are not aware that this is going on.”
But Ms. Lee, the nurse, had a different view. “I guess that’s what they have to tell themselves,” she said of the companies. “But come on.”
Ms. Lee had given apps on her iPhone access to her location only for certain purposes — helping her find parking spaces, sending her weather alerts — and only if they did not indicate that the information would be used for anything else, she said. Ms. Magrin had allowed about a dozen apps on her Android phone access to her whereabouts for services like traffic notifications.
An app on Lisa Magrin’s cellphone collected her location information, which was then shared with other companies. The data revealed her daily habits, including hikes with her dog, Lulu.Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
But it is easy to share information without realizing it. Of the 17 apps that The Times saw sending precise location data, just three on iOS and one on Android told users in a prompt during the permission process that the information could be used for advertising. Only one app, GasBuddy, which identifies nearby gas stations, indicated that data could also be shared to “analyze industry trends.”
More typical was theScore, a sports app: When prompting users to grant access to their location, it said the data would help “recommend local teams and players that are relevant to you.” The app passed precise coordinates to 16 advertising and location companies.
A spokesman for theScore said that the language in the prompt was intended only as a “quick introduction to certain key product features” and that the full uses of the data were described in the app’s privacy policy.
The Weather Channel app, owned by an IBM subsidiary, told users that sharing their locations would let them get personalized local weather reports. IBM said the subsidiary, the Weather Company, discussed other uses in its privacy policy and in a separate “privacy settings” section of the app. Information on advertising was included there, but a part of the app called “location settings” made no mention of it.
A notice that Android users saw when theScore, a sports app, asked for access to their location data.
The Weather Channel app showed iPhone users this message when it first asked for their location data.
The app did not explicitly disclose that the company had also analyzed the data for hedge funds — a pilot program that was promoted on the company’s website. An IBM spokesman said the pilot had ended. (IBM updated the app’s privacy policy on Dec. 5, after queries from The Times, to say that it might share aggregated location data for commercial purposes such as analyzing foot traffic.)
Even industry insiders acknowledge that many people either don’t read those policies or may not fully understand their opaque language. Policies for apps that funnel location information to help investment firms, for instance, have said the data is used for market analysis, or simply shared for business purposes.
“Most people don’t know what’s going on,” said Emmett Kilduff, the chief executive of Eagle Alpha, which sells data to financial firms and hedge funds. Mr. Kilduff said responsibility for complying with data-gathering regulations fell to the companies that collected it from people.
Many location companies say they voluntarily take steps to protect users’ privacy, but policies vary widely.
For example, Sense360, which focuses on the restaurant industry, says it scrambles data within a 1,000-foot square around the device’s approximate home location. Another company, Factual, says that it collects data from consumers at home, but that its database doesn’t contain their addresses.
In the data set reviewed by The Times, phone locations are recorded in sensitive areas including the Indian Point nuclear plant near New York City. By Michael H. Keller | Satellite imagery by Mapbox and DigitalGlobe
The information from one Sunday included more than 800 data points from over 60 unique devices inside and around a church in New Jersey. By Michael H. Keller | Satellite imagery by Mapbox and DigitalGlobe
Some companies say they delete the location data after using it to serve ads, some use it for ads and pass it along to data aggregation companies, and others keep the information for years.
Several people in the location business said that it would be relatively simple to figure out individual identities in this kind of data, but that they didn’t do it. Others suggested it would require so much effort that hackers wouldn’t bother.
It “would take an enormous amount of resources,” said Bill Daddi, a spokesman for Cuebiq, which analyzes anonymous location data to help retailers and others, and raised more than $27 million this year from investors including Goldman Sachs and Nasdaq Ventures. Nevertheless, Cuebiq encrypts its information, logs employee queries and sells aggregated analysis, he said.
There is no federal law limiting the collection or use of such data. Still, apps that ask for access to users’ locations, prompting them for permission while leaving out important details about how the data will be used, may run afoul of federal rules on deceptive business practices, said Maneesha Mithal, a privacy official at the Federal Trade Commission.
“You can’t cure a misleading just-in-time disclosure with information in a privacy policy,” Ms. Mithal said.
Following the Money
Apps form the backbone of this new location data economy.
The app developers can make money by directly selling their data, or by sharing it for location-based ads, which command a premium. Location data companies pay half a cent to two cents per user per month, according to offer letters to app makers reviewed by The Times.
Targeted advertising is by far the most common use of the information.
Google and Facebook, which dominate the mobile ad market, also lead in location-based advertising. Both companies collect the data from their own apps. They say they don’t sell it but keep it for themselves to personalize their services, sell targeted ads across the internet and track whether the ads lead to sales at brick-and-mortar stores. Google, which also receives precise location information from apps that use its ad services, said it modified that data to make it less exact.
Smaller companies compete for the rest of the market, including by selling data and analysis to financial institutions. This segment of the industry is small but growing, expected to reach about $250 million a year by 2020, according to the market research firm Opimas.
Apple and Google have a financial interest in keeping developers happy, but both have taken steps to limit location data collection. In the most recent version of Android, apps that are not in use can collect locations “a few times an hour,” instead of continuously.
Apple has been stricter, for example requiring apps to justify collecting location details in pop-up messages. But Apple’s instructions for writing these pop-ups do not mention advertising or data sale, only features like getting “estimated travel times.”
A spokesman said the company mandates that developers use the data only to provide a service directly relevant to the app, or to serve advertising that met Apple’s guidelines.
Apple recently shelved plans that industry insiders say would have significantly curtailed location collection. Last year, the company said an upcoming version of iOS would show a blue bar onscreen whenever an app not in use was gaining access to location data.
The discussion served as a “warning shot” to people in the location industry, David Shim, chief executive of the location company Placed, said at an industry event last year.
After examining maps showing the locations extracted by their apps, Ms. Lee, the nurse, and Ms. Magrin, the teacher, immediately limited what data those apps could get. Ms. Lee said she told the other operating-room nurses to do the same.
“I went through all their phones and just told them: ‘You have to turn this off. You have to delete this,’” Ms. Lee said. “Nobody knew.”
Last year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) searched through the electronic devices of more than 29,000 travelers coming into the country. CBP officers sometimes upload personal data from those devices to Homeland Security servers by first transferring that data onto USB drives—drives that are supposed to be deleted after every use. But a new government report found that the majority of officers fail to delete the personal data.
The Department of Homeland Security’s internal watchdog, known as the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), released a new report yesterday detailing CBP’s many failures at the border. The new report, which is redacted in some places, explains that Customs officials don’t even follow their own extremely liberal rules.
Customs officials can conduct two kinds of electronic device searches at the border for anyone entering the country. The first is called a “basic” or “manual” search and involves the officer visually going through your phone, your computer or your tablet without transferring any data. The second is called an “advanced search” and allows the officer to transfer data from your device to DHS servers for inspection by running that data through its own software. Both searches are legal and don’t require a warrant or even probable cause—at least they don’t according to DHS.
It’s that second kind of search, the “advanced” kind, where CBP has really been messing up and regularly leaving the personal data of travelers on USB drives.
[The Office of the Inspector General] physically inspected thumb drives at five ports of entry. At three of the five ports, we found thumb drives that contained information copied from past advanced searches, meaning the information had not been deleted after the searches were completed. Based on our physical inspection, as well as the lack of a written policy, it appears [Office of Field Operations] has not universally implemented the requirement to delete copied information, increasing the risk of unauthorized disclosure of travelers’ data should thumb drives be lost or stolen.
It’s bad enough that the government is copying your data as you enter the country. But it’s another thing entirely to know that your data could just be floating around on USB drives that, as the Inspector General’s office admits, could be easily lost or stolen.
The new report found plenty of other practices that are concerning. The report notes that Customs officers regularly failed to disconnect devices from the internet, potentially tainting any findings stored locally on the device. The report doesn’t call out the invasion of privacy that comes with officials looking through your internet-connected apps, but that’s a given.
The watchdog also discovered that Customs officials had “inadequate supervision” to make sure that they were following the rules, and noted that these “deficiencies in supervision, guidance, and equipment management” were making everyone less safe.
But one thing that makes it sometimes hard to read the report is the abundance of redactions. As you can see, the little black boxes have redacted everything from what happens during an advanced search after someone crosses the border to the reason officials are allowed to conduct an advanced search at all:
Screenshot: Department of Homeland Security/Office of the Inspector General
The report notes that an April 2015 memo spells out when an advanced search may be conducted. But, again, that’s been redacted in the report.
Screenshot: Department of Homeland Security/Office of the Inspector General
But the Department of Homeland Security’s own incompetence might be our own saving grace for those concerned about digital privacy. The funniest detail in the new report? U.S. Customs and Border Protection forgot to renew its license for whatever top secret software it uses to conduct these advanced searches.
Screenshot: Department of Homeland Security/Office of the Inspector General
Curiously, the report claims that CBP “could not conduct advanced searches of laptop hard drives, USB drives, and multimedia cards at the ports of entry” from February 1, 2017 through September 12, 2017 because it failed to renew the software license. But one wonders if, in fact, the issue wasn’t resolved for almost a year, then what other “advanced search” methods were being used?
Intelligence agencies in the UK are preparing to “significantly increase their use of large-scale data hacking,” the Guardian reported on Saturday, in a move that is already alarming privacy advocates.
According to the Guardian, UK intelligence officials plan to increase their use of the “bulk equipment interference (EI) regime”—the process by which the Government Communications Headquarters, the UK’s top signals intelligence and cybersecurity agency, collects bulk data off foreign communications networks—because they say targeted collection is no longer enough. The paper wrote:
A letter from the security minister, Ben Wallace, to the head of the intelligence and security committee, Dominic Grieve, quietly filed in the House of Commons library last week, states: “Following a review of current operational and technical realities, GCHQ have … determined that it will be necessary to conduct a higher proportion of ongoing overseas focused operational activity using the bulk EI regime than was originally envisaged.”
The paper noted that during the passage of the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act, which expanded hacking powers available to police and intelligence services including bulk data collection for the latter, independent terrorism legislation reviewer Lord David Anderson asserted that bulk powers are “likely to be only sparingly used.” As the Guardian noted, just two years later, UK intelligence officials are claiming this is no longer the case due to growing use of encryption:
… The intelligence services claim that the widespread use of encryption means that targeted hacking exercises are no longer effective and so more large-scale hacks are becoming necessary. Anderson’s review noted that the top 40 online activities relevant to MI5’s intelligence operations are now encrypted.
“The bulk equipment interference power permits the UK intelligence services to hack at scale by allowing a single warrant to cover entire classes of property, persons or conduct,” Scarlet Kim, a legal officer at UK civil liberties group Liberty International, told the paper. “It also gives nearly unfettered powers to the intelligence services to decide who and when to hack.”
Liberty also took issue with the intelligence agencies’ 180 on how often the bulk powers would be used, as well as with policies that only allow the investigatory powers commissioner to gauge the impact of a warrant after the hacking is over and done with.
“The fact that you have the review only after the privacy has been infringed upon demonstrates how worrying this situation is,”
Labor has backed down completely on its opposition to the Assistance and Access Bill, and in the process has been totally outfoxed by a government that can barely control the floor of Parliament.
After proposing a number of amendments to the Bill, which Labor party members widely called out as inappropriate in the House of Representatives on Thursday morning, the ALP dropped its proposals to allow the Bill to pass through Parliament before the summer break.
“Let’s just make Australians safer over Christmas,” Bill Shorten said on Thursday evening.
“It’s all about putting people first.”
Shorten said Labor is letting the Bill through provided the government agrees to amendments in the new year.
Under the new laws, Australian government agencies would be able to issue three kinds of notices:
Technical Assistance Notices (TAN), which are compulsory notices for a communication provider to use an interception capability they already have;
Technical Capability Notices (TCN), which are compulsory notices for a communication provider to build a new interception capability, so that it can meet subsequent Technical Assistance Notices; and
Technical Assistance Requests (TAR), which have been described by experts as the most dangerous of all.
Back in 2015, Facebook had a pickle of a problem. It was time to update the Android version of the Facebook app, and two different groups within Facebook were at odds over what the data grab should be.
The business team wanted to get Bluetooth permissions so it could push ads to people’s phones when they walked into a store. Meanwhile, the growth team, which is responsible for getting more and more people to join Facebook, wanted to get “Read Call Log Permission” so that Facebook could track everyone whom Android user called or texted with in order to make better friend recommendations to them. (Yes, that’s how Facebook may have historically figured out with whom you went on one bad Tinder date and then plopped them into “People You May Know.”) According to internal emails recently seized by the UK Parliament, Facebook’s business team recognized that what the growth team wanted to do was incredibly creepy and was worried it was going to cause a PR disaster.
In a February 4, 2015, email that encapsulates the issue, Facebook Bluetooth Beacon product manager Mike Lebeau is quoted saying that the request for “read call log” permission was a “pretty high-risk thing to do from a PR perspective but it appears that the growth team will charge ahead and do it.”
LeBeau was worried because a “screenshot of the scary Android permissions screen becomes a meme (as it has in the past), propagates around the web, it gets press attention, and enterprising journalists dig into what exactly the new update is requesting.” He suggested a possible headline for those journalists: “Facebook uses new Android update to pry into your private life in ever more terrifying ways – reading your call logs, tracking you in businesses with beacons, etc.” That’s a great and accurate headline. This guy might have a future as a blogger.
At least he called the journalists “enterprising” instead of “meddling kids.”
Then a man named Yul Kwon came to the rescue saying that the growth team had come up with a solution! Thanks to poor Android permission design at the time, there was a way to update the Facebook app to get “Read Call Log” permission without actually asking for it. “Based on their initial testing, it seems that this would allow us to upgrade users without subjecting them to an Android permissions dialog at all,” Kwon is quoted. “It would still be a breaking change, so users would have to click to upgrade, but no permissions dialog screen. They’re trying to finish testing by tomorrow to see if the behavior holds true across different versions of Android.”
Oh yay! Facebook could suck more data from users without scaring them by telling them it was doing it! This is a little surprising coming from Yul Kwon because he is Facebook’s chief ‘privacy sherpa,’ who is supposed to make sure that new products coming out of Facebook are privacy-compliant. I know because I profiled him, in a piece that happened to come out the same day as this email was sent. A member of his team told me their job was to make sure that the things they’re working on “not show up on the front page of the New York Times” because of a privacy blow-up. And I guess that was technically true, though it would be more reassuring if they tried to make sure Facebook didn’t do the creepy things that led to privacy blow-ups rather than keeping users from knowing about the creepy things.
I reached out to Facebook about the comments attributed to Kwon and will update when I hear back.
Thanks to this evasion of permission requests, Facebook users did not realize for years that the company was collecting information about who they called and texted, which would have helped explain to them why their “People You May Know” recommendations were so eerily accurate. It only came to light earlier this year, three years after it started, when a few Facebook users noticed their call and text history in their Facebook files when they downloaded them.
When that was discovered March 2018, Facebook played it off like it wasn’t a big deal. “We introduced this feature for Android users a couple of years ago,” it wrote in a blog post, describing it as an “opt-in feature for people using Messenger or Facebook Lite on Android.”
Facebook continued: “People have to expressly agree to use this feature. If, at any time, they no longer wish to use this feature they can turn it off in settings, or here for Facebook Lite users, and all previously shared call and text history shared via that app is deleted.”
Facebook included a photo of the opt-in screen in its post. In small grey font, it informed people they would be sharing their call and text history.
This particular email was seized by the UK Parliament from the founder of a start-up called Six4Three. It was one of many internal Facebook documents that Six4Three obtained as part of discovery in a lawsuit it’s pursuing against Facebook for banning its Pikinis app, which allowed Facebook users to collect photos of their friends in bikinis. Yuck.
Facebook has a lengthy response to many of the disclosures in the documents including to the discussion in this particular email:
Call and SMS History on Android
This specific feature allows people to opt in to giving Facebook access to their call and text messaging logs in Facebook Lite and Messenger on Android devices. We use this information to do things like make better suggestions for people to call in Messenger and rank contact lists in Messenger and Facebook Lite. After a thorough review in 2018, it became clear that the information is not as useful after about a year. For example, as we use this information to list contacts that are most useful to you, old call history is less useful. You are unlikely to need to call someone who you last called over a year ago compared to a contact you called just last week.
: No, your phone is not “listening” to you in the strictest sense of the word. But, yes, all your likes, dislikes and preferences are clearly being heard by apps in your phone which you oh-so-easily clicked “agree” to the terms of which while installing.
How so?
If you are in India, the answer to the question will lead you to Zapr, a service backed by heavyweights such as the Rupert Murdoch-led media group Star, Indian e-commerce leader Flipkart, Indian music streaming service Saavn, and mobile phone maker Micromax, among more than a dozen others. The company owning Zapr is named Red Brick Lane Marketing Solutions Pvt Ltd. (Paytm founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma and Sanjay Nath, co-founder and managing partner, Blume Ventures, were early investors in Zapr but are no longer so, according to filings with the ministry of corporate affairs. Sharma and Blume are among the investors in Sourcecode Media Pvt Ltd, which owns FactorDaily.)
Zapr, in fact, is one of the few companies in the world that has developed a solution that uses your mobile device’s microphone to recognise the media content you are watching or listening to in order to help brands and channels understand consumer media consumption. In short, it monitors sounds around you to contextualise you better for advertising and marketing targeting.
[…]
Advertisers globally spend some $650 billion annually and this cohort believes better profiling consumers by analysing their ambient sounds helps target advertising better. This group includes Chinese company ACRCloud, Audible Magic from the US, and the Netherlands’s Betagrid Media — and, Zapr from India.
Cut back to the Zapr headquarters on Old Madras Road in Bengaluru. One of the apps that inspired Zapr’s founding team was the popular music detection and identification app Shazam. But, its three co-founders saw opportunity in going further. “Instead of detecting music, can we detect all kinds of medium? Can we detect television? Can we detect movies in a theatre? Can we detect video on demand? Can we really build a profile for a user about their media consumption habits… and that really became the idea, the vision we wanted to solve for,” Sandipan Mondal, CEO of Zapr Media Labs, said in an interview last week on Thursday.
[…]
But, Zapr’s tech comes with privacy and data concerns – lots of it. The way its tech gets into your phone is dodgy: its code ride on third-party apps ranging from news apps to gaming apps to video streaming apps. You might be downloading Hotstar or a Dainik Jagran app or a Chotta Beem app on your phone little knowing that Zapr’s or an equivalent audio monitoring code sits on those apps to listen to sounds around you in an attempt to see what media content you are consuming.
In most cases reviewed by FactorDaily in a two-week exercise, it was not obvious that the app would monitor audio via the smartphone or mobile device’s microphone for use by another party (Zapr) for ad targeting purposes. Some apps hinted about Zapr’s tech at the bottom of the app description and some in the form of a pop-up – an app from Nazara games, for instance, mentioned that it required mic access to ‘Record Audio for better presentation’. Sometimes, the pop-up app would show up a few days after the download. And, often, the disclosure was buried somewhere in the app’s privacy policy.
None of these apps made it clear explicitly what the audio access via the microphone was for. “The problem with apps which embed this technology is that their presence is not outright disclosed and is difficult to find. Also, there is not an easy way to find out the apps in the PlayStore that have this tech embedded in them,” said Thejesh G N, an info-activist and the founder of DataMeet, a community of data scientists and open data enthusiasts.
Next time you’re chatting with a customer service agent online, be warned that the person on the other side of your conversation might see what you’re typing in real time. A reader sent us the following transcript from a conversation he had with a mattress company after the agent responded to a message he hadn’t sent yet.
Something similar recently happened to HmmDaily’s Tom Scocca. He got a detailed answer from an agent one second after he hit send.
Googling led Scocca to a live chat service that offers a feature it calls “real-time typing view” to allow agents to have their “answers prepared before the customer submits his questions.” Another live chat service, which lists McDonalds, Ikea, and Paypal as its customers, calls the same feature “message sneak peek,” saying it will allow you to “see what the visitor is typing in before they send it over.” Salesforce Live Agent also offers “sneak peak.”
On the upside, you get fast answers. On the downside, your thought process is being unknowingly observed. For the creators, this is technological magic, a deception that will result, they hope, in amazement and satisfaction. But once revealed by an agent who responds too quickly or one who responds before the question is asked, the trick falls apart, and what is left behind feels distinctly creepy, like a rabbit pulled from a hat with a broken neck. “Why give [customers] a fake ‘Send message’ button while secretly transmitting their messages all along?” asks Scocca.
UK authorities should not be granted access to data held by American companies because British laws don’t meet human rights obligations, nine nonprofits have said.
In a letter to the US Department of Justice, organisations including Human Rights Watch and the Electronic Frontier Foundation set out their concerns about the UK’s surveillance and data retention regimes.
They argue that the nation doesn’t adhere to human rights obligations and commitments, and therefore it should not be allowed to request data from US companies under the CLOUD Act, which Congress slipped into the Omnibus Spending Bill earlier this year.
The law allows US government to sign formal, bilateral agreements with other countries setting standards for cross-border investigative requests for digital evidence related to serious crime and terrorism.
It requires that these countries “adhere to applicable international human rights obligations and commitments or demonstrate respect for international universal human rights”. The civil rights groups say the UK fails to make the grade.
As such, it urged the US administration not to sign an executive order allowing the UK to request access to data, communications content and associated metadata, noting that the CLOUD Act “implicitly acknowledges” some of the info gathered might relate to US folk.
Critics are concerned this could then be shared with US law enforcement, thus breaking the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant to be served for the collection of such data.
Setting out the areas in which the UK falls short, the letter pointed to pending laws on counter-terrorism, saying that, as drafted they would “excessively restrict freedom of expression by criminalizing clicking on certain types of online content”.
When Shan Junhua bought his white Tesla Model X, he knew it was a fast, beautiful car. What he didn’t know is that Tesla constantly sends information about the precise location of his car to the Chinese government.
Tesla is not alone. China has called upon all electric vehicle manufacturers in China to make the same kind of reports — potentially adding to the rich kit of surveillance tools available to the Chinese government as President Xi Jinping steps up the use of technology to track Chinese citizens.
“I didn’t know this,” said Shan. “Tesla could have it, but why do they transmit it to the government? Because this is about privacy.”
More than 200 manufacturers, including Tesla, Volkswagen, BMW, Daimler, Ford, General Motors, Nissan, Mitsubishi and U.S.-listed electric vehicle start-up NIO, transmit position information and dozens of other data points to government-backed monitoring centers, The Associated Press has found. Generally, it happens without car owners’ knowledge.
The automakers say they are merely complying with local laws, which apply only to alternative energy vehicles. Chinese officials say the data is used for analytics to improve public safety, facilitate industrial development and infrastructure planning, and to prevent fraud in subsidy programs.
China has ordered electric car makers to share real-time driving data with the government. The country says it’s to ensure safety and improve the infrastructure, but critics worry the tracking can be put to more nefarious uses. (Nov. 29)
But other countries that are major markets for electronic vehicles — the United States, Japan, across Europe — do not collect this kind of real-time data.
And critics say the information collected in China is beyond what is needed to meet the country’s stated goals. It could be used not only to undermine foreign carmakers’ competitive position, but also for surveillance — particularly in China, where there are few protections on personal privacy. Under the leadership of Xi Jinping, China has unleashed a war on dissent, marshalling big data and artificial intelligence to create a more perfect kind of policing, capable of predicting and eliminating perceived threats to the stability of the ruling Communist Party.
There is also concern about the precedent these rules set for sharing data from next-generation connected cars, which may soon transmit even more personal information.
Businesses using fingerprint scanners to monitor their workforce can legally sack employees who refuse to hand over biometric information on privacy grounds, the Fair Work Commission has ruled.
The ruling, which will be appealed, was made in the case of Jeremy Lee, a Queensland sawmill worker who refused to comply with a new fingerprint scanning policy introduced at his work in Imbil, north of the Sunshine Coast, late last year.
Fingerprint scanning was used to monitor the clock-on and clock-off times of about 150 sawmill workers at two sites and was preferred to swipe cards because it prevented workers from fraudulently signing in on behalf of their colleagues to mask absences.
The company, Superior Woods, had no privacy policy covering workers and failed to comply with a requirement to properly notify individuals about how and why their data was being collected and used. The biometric data was stored on servers located off-site, in space leased from a third party.
Lee argued the business had never sought its workers’ consent to use fingerprint scanning, and feared his biometric data would be accessed by unknown groups and individuals.
“I am unwilling to consent to have my fingerprints scanned because I regard my biometric data as personal and private,” Lee wrote to his employer last November.
“Information technology companies gather as much information/data on people as they can.
“Whether they admit to it or not. (See Edward Snowden) Such information is used as currency between corporations.”
Lee was neither antagonistic or belligerent in his refusals, according to evidence before the commission. He simply declined to have his fingerprints scanned and continued using a physical sign-in booklet to record his attendance.
He had not missed a shift in more than three years.
The employer warned him about his stance repeatedly, and claimed the fingerprint scanner did not actually record a fingerprint, but rather “a set of data measurements which is processed via an algorithm”. The employer told Lee there was no way the data could be “converted or used as a finger print”, and would only be used to link to his payroll number to his clock-on and clock-off time. It said the fingerprint scanners were also needed for workplace safety, to accurately identify which workers were on site in the event of an accident.
Lee was given a final warning in January, and responded that he valued his job a “great deal” and wanted to find an alternative way to record his attendance.
“I would love to continue to work for Superior Wood as it is a good, reliable place to work,” he wrote to his employer. “However, I do not consent to my biometric data being taken. The reason for writing this letter is to impress upon you that I am in earnest and hope there is a way we can negotiate a satisfactory outcome.”
Lee was sacked in February, and lodged an unfair dismissal claim in the Fair Work Commission.
You only have one set of fingerprints – that’s the problem with biometrics: they can’t be changed, so you really really don’t want them stolen from you
Uit het rapport van de Nederlandse overheid blijkt dat de telemetrie-functie van alle Office 365 en Office ProPlus-applicaties onder andere e-mail-onderwerpen en woorden/zinnen die met behulp van de spellingschecker of vertaalfunctie zijn geschreven worden doorgestuurd naar systemen in de Verenigde Staten.
Dit gaat zelfs zo ver dat, als een gebruiker meerdere keren achter elkaar op de backspace-knop drukt, de telemetrie-functie zowel de zin voor de aanpassing al die daarna verzamelt en doorstuurt. Gebruikers worden hiervan niet op de hoogte gebracht en hebben geen mogelijkheid deze dataverzameling te stoppen of de verzamelde data in te zien.
De Rijksoverheid heeft dit onderzoek gedaan in samenwerking met Privacy Company. “Microsoft mag deze tijdelijke, functionele gegevens niet opslaan, tenzij de bewaring strikt noodzakelijk is, bijvoorbeeld voor veiligheidsdoeleinden,” schrijft Sjoera Nas van de Privacy Company in een blogpost.
If it seems as though the app you deleted last week is suddenly popping up everywhere, it may not be mere coincidence. Companies that cater to app makers have found ways to game both iOS and Android, enabling them to figure out which users have uninstalled a given piece of software lately—and making it easy to pelt the departed with ads aimed at winning them back.
Adjust, AppsFlyer, MoEngage, Localytics, and CleverTap are among the companies that offer uninstall trackers, usually as part of a broader set of developer tools. Their customers include T-Mobile US, Spotify Technology, and Yelp. (And Bloomberg Businessweek parent Bloomberg LP, which uses Localytics.) Critics say they’re a fresh reason to reassess online privacy rights and limit what companies can do with user data. “Most tech companies are not giving people nuanced privacy choices, if they give them choices at all,” says Jeremy Gillula, tech policy director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocate.
Some providers say these tracking tools are meant to measure user reaction to app updates and other changes. Jude McColgan, chief executive officer of Boston’s Localytics, says he hasn’t seen clients use the technology to target former users with ads. Ehren Maedge, vice president for marketing and sales at MoEngage Inc. in San Francisco, says it’s up to the app makers not to do so. “The dialogue is between our customers and their end users,” he says. “If they violate users’ trust, it’s not going to go well for them.” Adjust, AppsFlyer, and CleverTap didn’t respond to requests for comment, nor did T-Mobile, Spotify, or Yelp.
Uninstall tracking exploits a core element of Apple Inc.’s and Google’s mobile operating systems: push notifications. Developers have always been able to use so-called silent push notifications to ping installed apps at regular intervals without alerting the user—to refresh an inbox or social media feed while the app is running in the background, for example. But if the app doesn’t ping the developer back, the app is logged as uninstalled, and the uninstall tracking tools add those changes to the file associated with the given mobile device’s unique advertising ID, details that make it easy to identify just who’s holding the phone and advertise the app to them wherever they go.
The tools violate Apple and Google policies against using silent push notifications to build advertising audiences, says Alex Austin, CEO of Branch Metrics Inc., which makes software for developers but chose not to create an uninstall tracker. “It’s just generally sketchy to track people around the internet after they’ve opted out of using your product,” he says, adding that he expects Apple and Google to crack down on the practice soon. Apple and Google didn’t respond to requests for comment.
It’s no secret that mobile apps harvest user data and share it with other companies, but the true extent of this practice may come as a surprise. In a new study carried out by researchers from Oxford University, it’s revealed that almost 90 percent of free apps on the Google Play store share data with Alphabet.
The researchers, who analyzed 959,000 apps from the US and UK Google Play stores, said data harvesting and sharing by mobile apps was now “out of control.”
“We find that most apps contain third party tracking, and the distribution of trackers is long-tailed with several highly dominant trackers accounting for a large portion of the coverage,” reads the report.
It’s revealed that most of the apps, 88.4 percent, could share data with companies owned by Google parent Alphabet. Next came a firm that’s no stranger to data sharing controversies, Facebook (42.5 percent), followed by Twitter (33.8 percent), Verizon (26.27 percent), Microsoft (22.75 percent), and Amazon (17.91 percent).
According to The Financial Times, which first reported the research, information shared by these third-party apps can include age, gender, location, and information about a user’s other installed apps. The data “enables construction of detailed profiles about individuals, which could include inferences about shopping habits, socio-economic class or likely political opinions.”
Big firms then use the data for a variety of purposes, such as credit scoring and for targeting political messages, but its main use is often ad targeting. Not surprising, given that revenue from online advertising is now over $59 billion per year.
According to the research, the average app transfers data to five tracker companies, which pass the data on to larger firms. The biggest culprits are news apps and those aimed at children, both of which tend to have the most third-party trackers associated with them.
It’s increasingly difficult to expect privacy when you’re browsing online, so a non-profit in the UK is working to build the power of Tor’s anonymity network right into the heart of your smartphone.
Brass Horn Communications is experimenting with all sorts of ways to improve Tor’s usability for UK residents. The Tor browser bundle for PCs can help shield your IP address from snoopers and data-collection giants. It’s not perfect and people using it for highly-illegal activity can still get caught, but Tor’s system of sending your data through the various nodes on its network to anonymize user activity works for most people. It can help users surf the full web in countries with restrictive firewalls and simply make the average Joe feel like they have more privacy. But it’s prone to user error, especially on mobile devices. Brass Horn hopes to change that.
Brass Horn’s founder, Gareth Llewelyn, told Motherboard his organization is “about sticking a middle finger up to mobile filtering, mass surveillance.” Llewelyn has been unnerved by the UK’s relentless drive to push through legislation that enables surveillance and undermines encryption. Along with his efforts to build out more Tor nodes in the UK to increase its notoriously slow speeds, Llewelyn is now beta-testing a SIM card that will automatically route your data through Tor and save people the trouble of accidentally browsing unprotected.
Currently, mobile users’ primary option is to use the Tor browser that’s still in alpha-release and couple it with software called Orbot to funnel your app activity through the network. Only apps that have a proxy feature, like Twitter, are compatible. It’s also only available for Android users.
You’ll still need Orbot installed on your phone to use Brass Horn’s SIM card and the whole idea is that you won’t be able to get online without running on the Tor network. There’s some minor setup that the organization walks you through and from that point on, you’ll apparently never accidentally find yourself online without the privacy protections that Tor provides.
In an email to Gizmodo, Llewellyn said that he does not recommend using the card on a device with dual-SIMs. He said the whole point of the project is that a user “cannot accidentally send packets via Clearnet, this is to protect one’s privacy, anonymity and/or protect against NITs etc, if one were to use a dual SIM phone it would negate the failsafe and would not be advisable.” But if a user so desired, they could go with a dual-SIM setup.
You’re also unprotected if you end up on WiFi, but in general, this is a way for journalists, activists, and rightly cautious users to know they’re always protected.
The SIM acts as a provider and Brass Horn essentially functions as a mobile virtual network operator that piggybacks on other networks. The site for Brass Horn’s Onion3G service claims it’s a safer mobile provider because it only issues “private IP addresses to remote endpoints which if ‘leaked’ won’t identify you or Brass Horn Communications as your ISP.” It costs £2.00 per month and £0.025 per megabyte transferred over the network.
A spokesperson for the Tor Project told Gizmodo that it hasn’t been involved in this project and that protecting mobile data can be difficult. “This looks like an interesting and creative way to approach that, but it still requires that you put a lot of trust into your mobile provider in ensuring that no leaks happen,” they said.
Info on joining the beta is available here and Brass Horn expects to make its SIM card available to the general public in the UK next year. Most people should wait until there’s some independent research done on the service, but it’s all an intriguing idea that could provide a model for other countries.
Facebook and Google are being sued in two proposed class-action lawsuits for allegedly deceptively gathering location data on netizens who thought they had opted out of such cyber-stalking.
The legal challenges stem from revelations earlier this year that even after users actively turn off “location history” on their smartphones, their location is still gathered, stored, and exploited to sling adverts.
Both companies use weasel words in their support pages to continue to gather the valuable data while seemingly giving users the option to opt out – and that “deception” is at the heart of both lawsuits.
In the first, Facebook user Brett Heeger claims the antisocial network is misleading folks by providing the option to stop the gathering and storing of their location data but in reality in continues to grab the information and add it to a “Location History” feature that it then uses for targeted advertising.
“Facebook misleads its users by offering them the option to restrict Facebook from tracking, logging and storing their private location information, but then continuing to track, log, and store that location information regardless of users’ choices,” the lawsuit, filed in California, USA, states. “In fact, Facebook secretly tracks, logs and stories location data for all of its users – including those who have sought to limit the information about their locations.”
This action is “deceptive” and offers users a “false sense of security,” the lawsuit alleges. “Facebook’s false assurance are intended to make users feel comfortable continuing to use Facebook and share their personal information so that Facebook can continue to be profitable, at the expense of user privacy… Advertisers pay Facebook to place advertisements because Facebook is so effective at using location information to target advertisement to consumers.”
And over to you, Google
In the second lawsuit, also filed in Cali, three people – Leslie Lee of Wyoming and Colorado residents Stacy Smedley and Fredrick Davis – make the same claim: that Google is deceiving smartphone users by giving them the option to “pause” the gathering of your location data through a setting called “Location History.”
In reality, however, Google continues to gather locations data through its two most popular apps – Search and Maps – even when you actively choose to turn off location data. Instead, users have to go to a separate setting called “Web and App Activity” to really turn the gathering off. There is no mention of location data within that setting and nowhere does Google refer people to that setting in order to really stop location tracking.
As such, Google is engaged in a “deliberate, deceptive practice to collect personal information from which they can generate millions of dollars in revenue by covertly recording contemporaneous location data about Android and iPhone mobile phone users who are using Google Maps or other Google applications and functionalities, but who have specifically opted out of such tracking,” the lawsuit alleges.
Both legal salvos hope to become class-action lawsuits with jury trials, so potentially millions of other affected users will be able to join the action and so propel the case forward. The lawsuits seek compensation and damages as well as injunctions preventing both companies from gathering such data with gaining the explicit consent of users.
Meanwhile at the other end of the scale, the ability for the companies to constantly gather user location data has led to them being targeted by law enforcement in an effort to solve crimes.
Warrant required
Back in June, the US Supreme Court made a landmark ruling about location data, requiring cops and FBI agents to get a warrant before accessing such records from mobile phone operators.
But it is not clear which hurdles or parameters need to be met before a court should sign off on such a warrant, leading to an increasing number of cases where the Feds have provided times, dates, and rough geographic locations and asked Google, Facebook, Snapchat, and others, to provide the data of everyone who was in the vicinity at the time.
This so-called “reverse location” order has many civil liberties groups concerned because it effectively exposes innocent individuals’ personal data to the authorities simply because they were in the same rough area where a crime was carried out.
[…]
Leaky apps
And if all that wasn’t bad enough, this week a paper [PDF] by eggheads at the University of Oxford in the UK who studied the source code of just under one million apps found that Google and Facebook were top of the list when it came to gathering data on users from third parties.
Google parent company Alphabet receives user data from an incredible 88 per cent of apps on the market. Often this information was accumulated through third parties and included information like age, gender and location. The data “enables construction of detailed profiles about individuals, which could include inferences about shopping habits, socio-economic class or likely political opinions,” the paper revealed.
Facebook received data from 43 per cent of the apps, followed by Twitter with 34 per cent. Mobile operator Verizon – renowned for its “super cookie” tracker gets information from 26 per cent of apps; Microsoft 23 per cent; and Amazon 18 per cent.
Genetic testing has helped plenty of people gain insight into their ancestry, and some services even help users find their long-lost relatives. But a new study published this week in Science suggests that the information uploaded to these services can be used to figure out your identity, regardless of whether you volunteered your DNA in the first place.
The researchers behind the study were inspired by the recent case of the alleged Golden State Killer.
Earlier this year, Sacramento police arrested 72-year-old Joseph James DeAngelo for a wave of rapes and murders allegedly committed by DeAngelo in the 1970s and 1980s. And they claimed to have identified DeAngelo with the help of genealogy databases.
Traditional forensic investigation relies on matching certain snippets of DNA, called short tandem repeats, to a potential suspect. But these snippets only allow police to identify a person or their close relatives in a heavily regulated database. Thanks to new technology, the investigators in the Golden State Killer case isolated the genetic material that’s now collected by consumer genetic testing companies from the suspected killer’s DNA left behind at a crime scene. Then they searched for DNA matches within these public databases.
This information, coupled with other historical records, such as newspaper obituaries, helped investigators create a family tree of the suspect’s ancestors and other relatives. After zeroing on potential suspects, including DeAngelo, the investigators collected a fresh DNA sample from DeAngelo—one that matched the crime scene DNA perfectly.
But while the detective work used to uncover DeAngelo’s alleged crimes was certainly clever, some experts in genetic privacy have been worried about the grander implications of this method. That includes Yaniv Erlich, a computer engineer at Columbia University and chief science officer at MyHeritage, an Israel-based ancestry and consumer genetic testing service.
Erlich and his team wanted to see how easy it would be in general to use the method to find someone’s identity by relying on the DNA of distant and possibly unknown family members. So they looked at more than 1.2 million anonymous people who had gotten testing from MyHeritage, and specifically excluded anyone who had immediate family members also in the database. The idea was to figure out whether a stranger’s DNA could indeed be used to crack your identity.
They found that more than half of these people had distant relatives—meaning third cousins or further—who could be spotted in their searches. For people of European descent, who made up 75 percent of the sample, the hit rate was closer to 60 percent. And for about 15 percent of the total sample, the authors were also able to find a second cousin.
Much like the Golden State investigators, the team found they could trace back someone’s identity in the database with relative ease by using these distant relatives and other demographic but not overly specific information, such as the target’s age or possible state residence.
[…]
According to the researchers, it will take only about 2 percent of an adult population having their DNA profiled in a database before it becomes theoretically possible to trace any person’s distant relatives from a sample of unknown DNA—and therefore, to uncover their identity. And we’re getting ever closer to that tipping point.
“Once we reach 2 percent, nearly everyone will have a third cousin match, and a substantial amount will have a second cousin match,” Erlich explained. “My prediction is that for people of European descent, we’ll reach that threshold within two or three years.”
[…]
What this means for you: If you want to protect your genetic privacy, the best thing you can do is lobby for stronger legal protections and regulations. Because whether or not you’ve ever submitted your DNA for testing, someone, somewhere, is likely to be able to pick up your genetic trail.
Instagram is currently testing a feature that would allow it to share your location data with Facebook, even when you’re not using the app, reports app researcher Jane Manchun Wong (via TechCrunch). The option, which Wong notes is being tested as a setting you have to opt-in to, allows Facebook products to “build and use a history of precise locations” which the company says “helps you explore what’s around you, get more relevant ads and helps improve Facebook.” When activated, the service will report your location “even if you leave the app.”
The discovery of the feature comes just weeks after Instagram’s co-founders resigned from the company, reportedly as a result of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s meddling in the service. Examples of this meddling include removing Instagram’s attribution from posts re-shared to Facebook, and badged notifications inside Instagram that encouraged people to open the Facebook app. With the two men who were deeply involved in the day-to-day running of Instagram now gone, such intrusions are expected to increase.
Lawyers representing Vizio TV owners have asked a federal judge in Orange County, California to sign off on a proposed class-action settlement with the company for $17 million, for an affected class of 16 million people, who must opt-in to get any money. Vizio also agrees to delete all data that it collected.
Notice of the lawsuit will be shown directly on the Vizio Smart TVs, three separate times, as well as through paper mailings.
When it’s all said and done, new court filings submitted on Thursday say each of those 16 million people will get a payout of somewhere between $13 and $31. By contrast, their lawyers will collectively earn a maximum payout of $5.6 million in fees.
Customs laws in New Zealand now allow border agents to demand travellers unlock their phones or face an NZ$5,000 (around US$3,300) fine.
The law was passed during 2017 with its provisions coming into effect on October 1. The security conscious of you will also be pleased to know Kiwi officials still need a “reasonable” suspicion that there’s something to find.
As the country’s minister of Justice Andrew Little explained to a parliamentary committee earlier this year:
“The bill provides for that power of search and examination, but in order to exercise that power, a customs officer, first of all, has to be satisfied, or at least to have a reasonable suspicion, that a person in possession of such a device—it would be a cellphone or a laptop or anything else that might be described as an ‘e-device’—has been involved in criminal offending.
That’s somewhat tighter than the rules that apply in America. Border Patrol agents can take a look at phones without giving any reason, but in January this year, a new directive stipulated that a “reasonable suspicion” test applies if the agent wants to copy anything from a phone.
Like the American regulation, New Zealand’s searchers are limited to files held on the phone. A Customs spokesperson told Radio New Zealand “We’re not going into ‘the cloud’. We’ll examine your phone while it’s on flight mode”.
According to Radio NZ, the Council of Civil Liberties criticised the “reasonable cause” protection as inadequate, because someone asked to unlock a device isn’t told what that cause might be, and therefore has no way to challenge the request.
Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the World Wide Web, thinks it’s broken and he has a plan to fix it. The British computer scientist has announced a new project that he hopes will radically change his creation by giving people full control over their data. Tim Berners-Lee: This is why I have, over recent years, been working with a few people at MIT and elsewhere to develop Solid, an open-source project to restore the power and agency of individuals on the web. Solid changes the current model where users have to hand over personal data to digital giants in exchange for perceived value. As we’ve all discovered, this hasn’t been in our best interests. Solid is how we evolve the web in order to restore balance — by giving every one of us complete control over data, personal or not, in a revolutionary way. Solid is a platform, built using the existing web. It gives every user a choice about where data is stored, which specific people and groups can access select elements, and which apps you use. It allows you, your family and colleagues, to link and share data with anyone. It allows people to look at the same data with different apps at the same time. Solid unleashes incredible opportunities for creativity, problem-solving and commerce. It will empower individuals, developers and businesses with entirely new ways to conceive, build and find innovative, trusted and beneficial applications and services. I see multiple market possibilities, including Solid apps and Solid data storage.
Solid is guided by the principle of “personal empowerment through data” which we believe is fundamental to the success of the next era of the web. We believe data should empower each of us. Imagine if all your current apps talked to each other, collaborating and conceiving ways to enrich and streamline your personal life and business objectives? That’s the kind of innovation, intelligence and creativity Solid apps will generate. With Solid, you will have far more personal agency over data — you decide which apps can access it. In an interview with Fast Company, he shared more on Solid and its creation: “I have been imagining this for a very long time,” says Berners-Lee. He opens up his laptop and starts tapping at his keyboard. Watching the inventor of the web work at his computer feels like what it might have been like to watch Beethoven compose a symphony: It’s riveting but hard to fully grasp. “We are in the Solid world now,” he says, his eyes lit up with excitement. He pushes the laptop toward me so I too can see. On his screen, there is a simple-looking web page with tabs across the top: Tim’s to-do list, his calendar, chats, address book. He built this app — one of the first on Solid — for his personal use. It is simple, spare. In fact, it’s so plain that, at first glance, it’s hard to see its significance. But to Berners-Lee, this is where the revolution begins. The app, using Solid’s decentralized technology, allows Berners-Lee to access all of his data seamlessly — his calendar, his music library, videos, chat, research. It’s like a mashup of Google Drive, Microsoft Outlook, Slack, Spotify, and WhatsApp. The difference here is that, on Solid, all the information is under his control. Every bit of data he creates or adds on Solid exists within a Solid pod — which is an acronym for personal online data store. These pods are what give Solid users control over their applications and information on the web. Anyone using the platform will get a Solid identity and Solid pod. This is how people, Berners-Lee says, will take back the power of the web from corporations.
Starting this week, developers around the world will be able to start building their own decentralized apps with tools through the Inrupt site. Berners-Lee will spend this fall crisscrossing the globe, giving tutorials and presentations to developers about Solid and Inrupt. “What’s great about having a startup versus a research group is things get done,” he says. These days, instead of heading into his lab at MIT, Berners-Lee comes to the Inrupt offices, which are currently based out of Janeiro Digital, a company he has contracted to help work on Inrupt. For now, the company consists of Berners-Lee; his partner John Bruce, who built Resilient, a security platform bought by IBM; a handful of on-staff developers contracted to work on the project; and a community of volunteer coders. Later this fall, Berners-Lee plans to start looking for more venture funding and grow his team. The aim, for now, is not to make billions of dollars. The man who gave the web away for free has never been motivated by money. Still, his plans could impact billion-dollar business models that profit off of control over data. It’s not likely that the big powers of the web will give up control without a fight.
Once again, Google has rankled privacy-focused people with a product change that appears to limit users’ options. It’s easy to miss the fact that you’re automatically being logged-in to Chrome if you’re not paying attention.
Chrome 69 released to users on September 5, and you likely noticed that it has a different look. But if you’re the type of person who doesn’t like to log in to the browser with your Google account, you may have missed the fact that it happens automatically when you sign-in to a Google service like Gmail. Previously, users were allowed to keep those logins separate. Members of the message board Hacker News noticed the change relatively quickly and over the weekend, severaldevelopers called attention to it.
[…]
If you want to disable the forced login, a user on Hacker News points out a workaround that could change at any time. Copy and paste this text into your browser’s address bar: chrome://flags/#account-consistency. Then disable the option labeled, “Identity consistency between browser and cookie jar,” and restart your browser. Go to this link to ensure that your Sync settings are configured the way you like them. For now, you have a choice, but it shouldn’t be so difficult or obscure.
/e/, a Google-free fork of Android, reached a milestone this month with its initial ROM release. It’s available for download, so you can kick the tires, with nightly builds delivered via OTA (over the air) updates.
El Reginterviewed the project’s leader, Gael Duval, in the summer. Duval launched and led the Linux Mandrake project. Back then it was called “eelo”, but has morphed into just /e/ – which autocorrect features won’t try to turn into “eels”.
The project is significant in that the European Commission recently noted how few people switch platforms. If you’re on Apple or Android today, the chances are you will be on the same platform, plugged into the same “ecosystem” of peripherals and services, in 10 years. So it wants more variety and competitionwithin the Android world.
/e/ derives from LineageOS, itself a fork of CynaogenMod, so it can run on around 30 phone models including the Samsung Galaxy S7, and several recent-ish OnePlus devices.
